|
Post by Young Ireland on Sept 7, 2018 16:27:54 GMT
By all means, continue to reply to me. I'm enjoying this now. At one time, I was willing to put this all down to a misunderstanding of where we might be coming from, and perhaps a bit of bias stubbornness on both our parts. Now I see that you are a little slicker than that. Or perhaps I'm sick and tired to trying to convince you again that race is utterly irrelevant even after you acknowledged this the last time we had this discussion. I enjoy how you try to brush off my remarks on pro-immigrationists, despite my mentioning - past and present - examples of how they have directly helped cover up migrant criminals, therefore allowing them to offend again, as well as emboldening them and other migrants; all the while cursing out their fellow citizens as racists, Islamophobes, and bigots for merely having concerns. Why would I be held responsible for what happens in Germany? Am I telling rape victims to refrain from being "spiteful" and keep quiet so some poor rapist doesn't get sent back to where they came from? Or telling German folk to stop being racist and shut up or else I'll arrest them for hate crimes?
I "brushed it off" because that accusation has nothing to do with me. If anyone helped cover up a crime, then of course they should be brought to justice (in a court of law, not by vigilantes), but I have never advocated the cover-up of criminal actions, quite the opposite. If anyone rapes someone of course they ought to be prosecuted to the most rigorous extent possible, regardless of nationality. The problem with these "concerns" is that more often than not, they end up lumping in perfectly law-abiding people with the likes of ISIS and the perpetrators of Cologne. The Margaret Sanger comparison is nonsensical. Was Sanger doing it because she was Irish? I'd love to see the connection between her being Irish and wanting to bring in abortion, among many other unnatural atrocities. That's the whole point: it IS nonsensical. Just as nonsensical as the unspoken assertion by many of your allies that all Muslims, simply for being Muslim, are complicit in Islamic terrorism. Also bear in mind that Islamophobia now is actually very similar to Hibernophobia a century ago. The Irish were drunkards, they beat their wives, they were terrorists, they wanted to conquer America for the Pope, claimed the Know-Nothings. And what happened? They integrated after a few generations. Of course, there are problems with Islam, any Christian will tell you that. But indiscriminate persecution of the Muslim community will only flood the ranks of jihadists and cause more problems than it will solve. Would I care if it was a horde of white German men who raped women on the night of Cologne? Or it was British gangs abducting young girls to prostitute and rape in the UK? Uh, yeah, because unlike the sycophants desperate to defend even the most vile criminal migrant, I take a merciless attitude towards anyone who would rape. Same if it were whites carrying out terrorist attacks or assaulting people in the streets. Furthermore, if there was some pattern connecting these white criminals, I would look for it and act on it. I imagine it would be very useful. You're one to talk about having an agenda, Young Ireland.
So you wouldn't have a problem if during the Troubles, Thatcher began interning or deporting all Irish men of military age in reprisal for an IRA attack? Because that's the attitude towards Muslims that exists amongst your allies. Also, I have not said race causes people to be more prone to crime; but people who are committing these atrocities happen to be from a culture with a particular majority race. We've had this conversation before. You must be clutching at straws to be bringing this one up again.
Which implies that their culture can be changed. But you believe that Ireland should be majority "racially" Irish so even if their culture was changed, would you be accept them then? O, you're so clever Young Ireland. Taking something I said, and telling everyone I said something else. Keep it up and you'll be advancing from playground to primary school insults soon. I have not slandered anyone who has done no wrong; only pointed out those who have done wrong. You have made no logical points. All you've done is shake your first and decry how outrageous I am. Yes, I know about this whataboutism. I often find it's a convenient word used by those who don't like being held to the same standard as everyone else. Your attempts to cry racism are falling short.
Did you not say that wanting Ireland to be racially Irish was perceived as racist? Admittedly I was being sarcastic. I said that I agreed with that sentiment. Nothing more. As regards the playground comment, this is a bit rich coming from someone who frequently resolves to namecalling towards people who disagree with them. Ironically, you only started ranting about migrants when I backed you into a corner by bringing up your own statements. If what I did was not making a logical point, then what does that make your own statements? Has something happened to me personally? No. But I have eyes to see, and what I see is a mass selling out of the people of Europe to a hateful and violent theo-political ideology that has led to countless atrocities and cover-ups, with damn all reasonable excuses for why. People like you have created a self-fulfilling prophecy in which you complain about the rise of the Far-Right, all the while fueling said rise with your apathy towards the atrocities carried out against Europeans, while simultaneously attempting to mark dissidents as racists. Do you really think ordinary people are that stupid that they can't see the connection between all of this? Or have you truly convinced yourself that whatever state Europe finds itself in, no matter how many rapes and murders and ghettos, that it's still, somehow, a preferable alternative to people being "racist" or "Islamophobic"?
No doubt with certain voices on YouTube "opening" your eyes and helping you join the dots. I ask because I know from my own experience that a bad experience with a foreigner can very easily lead to resentment towards all people with that nationality. Once again, I see you can't but help jump up on your pedestal, acting like you run the place. If Hibernicus wants to ban me, he will. I won't begrudge him. But why bother leaving instead when the outcome is the same? I guess me leaving would be more convenient for you, as you could pretend you drove me off, whereas my simply being banned would quite be so exciting.
Hibernicus can make his own mind up, but that does not mean that one cannot object to racism being normalised before their very eyes. With regards to my comments about leaving, it had nothing to do with disagreeing with Maolsheachlann (if it had I would have left ages ago), but because the form was being so taken up on a particular topic that it was impossible to talk about anything else and because the base number of posters was so small, that the forum was in terminal decline as a result. By the way, I did admit partial responsibility for the state of the forum. Actually, I've tried to stay out of conversations like this for a while, not wanting to go down the same road the forum went last time. But I have seen you continue on your own way, Young Ireland, and it got a bit dull watching you from the sidelines, so I figured I might as well pipe up. I make no apology for saying that collaborating with the alt-right is completely immoral and extremely foolish. Finally, I don't understand your comments about leaving the boards, but I can't help but feel this is a way for you to garner sympathy. You did the same thing in the conservative forum, making a thread telling everyone about how the atmosphere was too much for you to bear. Earlier in the year, you said something to Maolsheachlann about not being sure you can be friends with someone for holding X beliefs (whatever the conversation was about now.) It seems slightly manipulative to me, as if you're trying to shame people into agreeing with you. Otherwise why make a spectacle about it? See my second-last response. Despite all that, I don't even see the point. There have been a few controversial topics on this board throughout the year, but not to the extent - I don't think - that you could have been given any reason to leave.
Look on the bright side, if Hibernicus ever makes you a co-admin due to his busy schedule, you can always do what you will then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2018 15:43:17 GMT
Or perhaps I'm sick and tired to trying to convince you again that race is utterly irrelevant even after you acknowledged this the last time we had this discussion.
Race, for the most part, shouldn't be an issue. But when you have the situation that we have, we're not talking about small, personal issues. We're talking about something large scale. Also, when it's the so called Anti-Racists/Anti-Fascists who are stirring racial tensions with their words and actions, don't be surprised when people who otherwise couldn't care less start to take interest.
I "brushed it off" because that accusation has nothing to do with me. If anyone helped cover up a crime, then of course they should be brought to justice (in a court of law, not by vigilantes), but I have never advocated the cover-up of criminal actions, quite the opposite. If anyone rapes someone of course they ought to be prosecuted to the most rigorous extent possible, regardless of nationality. The problem with these "concerns" is that more often than not, they end up lumping in perfectly law-abiding people with the likes of ISIS and the perpetrators of Cologne.You're ignoring my point. You tried to play down what I was saying, I backed it up with examples of people who have disdain for people here in Europe while throwing their arms open for foreigners, you continued to play it down. The fact that you even put people's concerns in quotation marks says a lot about your attitude to this issue. I know you have never advocated for such things, but you keep talking about how these people should be punished, which is an inane point considering, as already stated, the people with the power to punish them are the same people who are complicit. What do people do when the government, media, and legal system won't protect them? Why would you then be surprised there are vigilante groups? No, these "concerns", as you like to refer to them, are not lumping innocent people in with criminals and terrorists; the very people who are protecting the latter are.
That's the whole point: it IS nonsensical. Just as nonsensical as the unspoken assertion by many of your allies that all Muslims, simply for being Muslim, are complicit in Islamic terrorism. Also bear in mind that Islamophobia now is actually very similar to Hibernophobia a century ago. The Irish were drunkards, they beat their wives, they were terrorists, they wanted to conquer America for the Pope, claimed the Know-Nothings. And what happened? They integrated after a few generations. Of course, there are problems with Islam, any Christian will tell you that. But indiscriminate persecution of the Muslim community will only flood the ranks of jihadists and cause more problems than it will solve.No. Your comparison was nonsensical because there is no connection between Sanger's being Irish and her advocating for abortion; on the other hand, Islam itself is used to justify terror, violence, and the rape of "unclean" women. Also, funnily enough, I don't have any allies that claim being Muslim is enough to make one complicit in terrorism. The comparison of Hibernophobia and Islamophobia is also ridiculous. The Irish didn't go over to the US and start murdering and raping in the name of some jihad or greater good. Comparing the situation with Islam today and the Irish from all those years ago is dishonest. The Irish were victims of baseless propaganda, where as Islam has helped create its own propaganda with its actions. You also didn't have the protection and double-standards for the Irish community that we can see today for Islam. If you don't want the Islamic community to be indiscriminately persecuted, then the people who are currently covering up and holding people to a double-standard need to start doing their jobs properly. Saying that otherwise things will get worse is useless to a group of people who already see their countries getting worse. Worse than that, they see it as an attempt to black mail them into silence. If your country's going to Hell, you might as well not stand idly by. Absolutely no one is doing anything about it; and the thought that there are people who can intimidate and threaten their way about the place, while at the same time having others protect them as victims, who will somehow cool down over the years and eventually decide to live by the same standards as everyone else instead of the life of privilege they have now, is maddening.
So you wouldn't have a problem if during the Troubles, Thatcher began interning or deporting all Irish men of military age in reprisal for an IRA attack? Because that's the attitude towards Muslims that exists amongst your allies.I wouldn't blame Thatcher for deporting Irish men from her country if they were carrying out atrocities there. I would expect a leader to put the well-being of their people before the feelings of others.
Which implies that their culture can be changed. But you believe that Ireland should be majority "racially" Irish so even if their culture was changed, would you be accept them then?Hypothetically it suggest their culture could be changed. Hypothetically. But why would they? When you can do what you want and someone will cover for you, what incentive is there? Yes, I will accept people who are not racially Irish. I've stated it before, and I'll do so again: If racially Irish people become a minority due to not having children and personal choices, that's one thing. That comes down to the decisions of individuals. However, when it's a case of the government allowing the mass importing of people, and managing to be generous to those people, while at the same time apparently struggling to look after those who are already here, then it becomes something else altogether. That is hypocrisy and virtue signaling.
Did you not say that wanting Ireland to be racially Irish was perceived as racist? Admittedly I was being sarcastic. I said that I agreed with that sentiment. Nothing more. As regards the playground comment, this is a bit rich coming from someone who frequently resolves to namecalling towards people who disagree with them. Ironically, you only started ranting about migrants when I backed you into a corner by bringing up your own statements. If what I did was not making a logical point, then what does that make your own statements?Yes, I said they are perceived as racist. You said they actually are racist. and then tried to argue, somehow, that I also said they were. Great, you were being sarcastic, so what was the point of going on with this any further? Who have I name-called? I've made this point already, but I have only ever called out people who have done something wrong. Who have I slandered? Backed me into a corner? I'm genuinely confused as to how you came to that conclusion, Young Ireland. If I didn't know better, I would think you are just starting to make things up as you go along now. I only started talking about migrants because you decided to focus on them at one point. I have not backed away from anything I said. I know I haven't, because if an argument ever gets to that stage then I either apologise for the error I have made, or it means I'm running out of steam with the current topic and try to slow things down to a halt to bring the argument to a somewhat peaceful end.
No doubt with certain voices on YouTube "opening" your eyes and helping you join the dots. I ask because I know from my own experience that a bad experience with a foreigner can very easily lead to resentment towards all people with that nationality.Such as? You think that being aware of the atrocities is somehow a bad thing? That I should keep my eyes "closed"? Yes, bad experiences with different groups can lead to bad views of said group, but it can be countered with the good from same group. The problem is that if, after several encounters with people from a particular group, a pattern of negative behaviour starts to form, people will naturally be under the impression that this particular group - maybe not all, but a significant number - has a tendency towards said behaviour, and that's where the problems come in. If influential and powerful figures and leaders actually dealt with this problem from the get go, instead of covering it up because the Right-Wing bogeyman - which, considering how much Europe has endured already, didn't prove to be much of a valid excuse (at the time at least) - this would never have been an issue to the extent it is. Look at the Church as an example. People were disgusted about the pedophilia carried out by priests on young children. But what really sickened people was the cover ups, the moving around of pedophile priests, etc.
I make no apology for saying that collaborating with the alt-right is completely immoral and extremely foolish.I don't expect you to. I could care less about the Alt-Right. Mind you, I would say the same thing about your attitude towards people's concerns and simply putting it down to racism. This whole situation, the major difference between you and I, can be summed up as such: You have more concern for the minorities/Muslims/migrants, whereas I have more concern for Europeans. That's the simplest way to look at it, and it probably isn't something we can reconcile. I appreciate your concern for those you might see at the underdogs or the shunned, but I don't think we will ever fully agree.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Sept 9, 2018 16:44:22 GMT
Race, for the most part, shouldn't be an issue. But when you have the situation that we have, we're not talking about small, personal issues. We're talking about something large scale. Also, when it's the so called Anti-Racists/Anti-Fascists who are stirring racial tensions with their words and actions, don't be surprised when people who otherwise couldn't care less start to take interest.If race is irrelevant, then why bring it up in the first place? If you think that anti-racists are stirring up tension, then you are sorely mistaken. The far-right have been doing that long before this became an issue. The fact that a minority of the Muslim community have gone off the deep end is very fortunate for them. You're ignoring my point. You tried to play down what I was saying, I backed it up with examples of people who have disdain for people here in Europe while throwing their arms open for foreigners, you continued to play it down. The fact that you even put people's concerns in quotation marks says a lot about your attitude to this issue. Because your arguments are very similar to those white supremacists made about blacks, or those made by the Nazis about Jews. That's why I'm sceptical. Are there Muslims who treat women like objects? Of course there are. That fact that you emphasise the racial aspect makes me sceptical though: I'd be surprised if their attitude towards Muslim women was different. I know you have never advocated for such things, but you keep talking about how these people should be punished, which is an inane point considering, as already stated, the people with the power to punish them are the same people who are complicit. What do people do when the government, media, and legal system won't protect them? Why would you then be surprised there are vigilante groups? No, these "concerns", as you like to refer to them, are not lumping innocent people in with criminals and terrorists; the very people who are protecting the latter are. But I doubt that most people you describe are consciously seeking to protect criminals, but rather are concerned that any criminal proceedings are not prejudiced that blanket assumptions of guilt. Are Muslims not entitled to the same amount of due process and the presumption of innocence as anyone else, no? No. Your comparison was nonsensical because there is no connection between Sanger's being Irish and her advocating for abortion; on the other hand, Islam itself is used to justify terror, violence, and the rape of "unclean" women. Jihadism is no more linked to Islam any more than anti-Semitism is linked to Christianity. Also, funnily enough, I don't have any allies that claim being Muslim is enough to make one complicit in terrorism. The comparison of Hibernophobia and Islamophobia is also ridiculous. The Irish didn't go over to the US and start murdering and raping in the name of some jihad or greater good. Comparing the situation with Islam today and the Irish from all those years ago is dishonest. The Irish were victims of baseless propaganda, where as Islam has helped create its own propaganda with its actions. You also didn't have the protection and double-standards for the Irish community that we can see today for Islam.You may not think so, but I was referring to people who held similar views to yourself. As for your assertion that such propaganda was baseless, that isn't true: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_draft_riotsen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenian_raidsen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lombard_Street_rioten.wikipedia.org/wiki/NORAIDIf you don't want the Islamic community to be indiscriminately persecuted, then the people who are currently covering up and holding people to a double-standard need to start doing their jobs properly. Saying that otherwise things will get worse is useless to a group of people who already see their countries getting worse. Worse than that, they see it as an attempt to black mail them into silence. If your country's going to Hell, you might as well not stand idly by. Absolutely no one is doing anything about it; and the thought that there are people who can intimidate and threaten their way about the place, while at the same time having others protect them as victims, who will somehow cool down over the years and eventually decide to live by the same standards as everyone else instead of the life of privilege they have now, is maddening. So in other words, we ought to sit by and allow anti-Muslim pogroms to run their course. Your argument was used by the Serbs to excuse the ethnic cleansing of Bosnian Muslims, up to and including the genocide of Srebenica. I wouldn't blame Thatcher for deporting Irish men from her country if they were carrying out atrocities there. I would expect a leader to put the well-being of their people before the feelings of others. In that case, do you believe that it was right that the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four should have spent 15 years in jail for crimes they didn't commit?
Hypothetically it suggest their culture could be changed. Hypothetically. But why would they? When you can do what you want and someone will cover for you, what incentive is there? Yes, I will accept people who are not racially Irish. I've stated it before, and I'll do so again: If racially Irish people become a minority due to not having children and personal choices, that's one thing. That comes down to the decisions of individuals. However, when it's a case of the government allowing the mass importing of people, and managing to be generous to those people, while at the same time apparently struggling to look after those who are already here, then it becomes something else altogether. That is hypocrisy and virtue signaling.
So in theory they can but in practice they won't? Yes, I said they are perceived as racist. You said they actually are racist. and then tried to argue, somehow, that I also said they were. Great, you were being sarcastic, so what was the point of going on with this any further? Who have I name-called? I've made this point already, but I have only ever called out people who have done something wrong. Who have I slandered? Backed me into a corner? I'm genuinely confused as to how you came to that conclusion, Young Ireland. If I didn't know better, I would think you are just starting to make things up as you go along now. I only started talking about migrants because you decided to focus on them at one point. I have not backed away from anything I said. I know I haven't, because if an argument ever gets to that stage then I either apologise for the error I have made, or it means I'm running out of steam with the current topic and try to slow things down to a halt to bring the argument to a somewhat peaceful end. I should have made myself clearer. You said that your views were perceived as racist and I agreed that they were in fact racist. As for name-calling: Another site full of filthy dissenting heretics. Not to be ageist, but I do notice that the people behind the site - the "core" members - aren't exactly young, which suggests that they don't have a lot of fresh support, though I am aware that doesn't mean there are no younger Catholics of a similar mind. They also claim to have 250 people as part of their mailing list - though that doesn't take into account how many are active in their support, or how many might be from the same person - so that isn't really a huge amount of support. I think the time is coming where it's either going to be proper Catholicism or none at all. Your suggestion that the authorities are ACTIVELY involved in covering the tracks of the jihadists is slanderous (or at the very least rash judgement), as it could be plausibly argued that they want to make sure that any criminal proceedings are fair and unbiased. As for back-tracking, that was the last time we had this discussion around the time Trump won the election. At the time, you said this: While I still disagree with him on a few things, after having thought about it, from before my last post until now, I'm starting to lean more towards Young Ireland's and Maolsheachlann's line of thinking, which is that race shouldn't really be a part of the discussion. In regards to racial preservation (not racial purity), I'm now of the mind that it is solely on people of a particular race to take responsibility for that by having children, and not through some sort of immigration laws. I would also like to thank Young Ireland for his patience, as I am well aware that I can be impatient and hot-headed. Also, I would like to apologise to other people of the forum – whether you be active, semi-active, or just guests who view but don't participate – as I'm sure my posts have caused quite a bit of awkwardness, and may have put some people off from getting involved in the forum or even joining. The fact that this is a Catholic forum made the discussion all the more uncomfortable, I think. If anyone falls into that group, I hope you feel able to join in now. From our current debate, I presume your position has reverted to the status quo before that? Such as? You think that being aware of the atrocities is somehow a bad thing? That I should keep my eyes "closed"? Yes, bad experiences with different groups can lead to bad views of said group, but it can be countered with the good from same group. The problem is that if, after several encounters with people from a particular group, a pattern of negative behaviour starts to form, people will naturally be under the impression that this particular group - maybe not all, but a significant number - has a tendency towards said behaviour, and that's where the problems come in. If influential and powerful figures and leaders actually dealt with this problem from the get go, instead of covering it up because the Right-Wing bogeyman - which, considering how much Europe has endured already, didn't prove to be much of a valid excuse (at the time at least) - this would never have been an issue to the extent it is. Look at the Church as an example. People were disgusted about the pedophilia carried out by priests on young children. But what really sickened people was the cover ups, the moving around of pedophile priests, etc. Sargon of Akkad? Dave Cullen? Milo? Tommy Robinson? Geert Wilders? I'm only suggesting alt-lite figures here. I'm not saying that you should keep your eyes closed, I'm saying that these people are for whatever reason are hostile towards foreigners and they exaggerate these incidents apparently out of self-interest rather than altruism. I don't expect you to. I could care less about the Alt-Right. Mind you, I would say the same thing about your attitude towards people's concerns and simply putting it down to racism.
This whole situation, the major difference between you and I, can be summed up as such: You have more concern for the minorities/Muslims/migrants, whereas I have more concern for Europeans. That's the simplest way to look at it, and it probably isn't something we can reconcile. I appreciate your concern for those you might see at the underdogs or the shunned, but I don't think we will ever fully agree.Why are you using identarian talking points then? As for your summary of our differences, that is a fair one, I'll accept that.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Sept 9, 2018 17:13:28 GMT
Young Ireland, your tendency to use people's moments of graciousness against them is quite unseemly. You don't seem to have any sense of chivalry. Like linking to my blog when I think I am writing introspectively to a friendly audience. Or pouncing aggressively on jokes. Be a gentleman for God's sake.
I've often wondered if you would go in for doxing commentators you consider "outside the pale". Or at least, approve of it.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Sept 9, 2018 17:36:15 GMT
Young Ireland, your tendency to use people's moments of graciousness against them is quite unseemly. You don't seem to have any sense of chivalry. Like linking to my blog when I think I am writing introspectively to a friendly audience. Or pouncing aggressively on jokes. Be a gentleman for God's sake. I've often wondered if you would go in for doxing commentators you consider "outside the pale". Or at least, approve of it. I don't remember doing so, but I might have. Any particular thing you had in mind? As for "using people's moments of graciousness against them", that is not what I am doing, but rather highlighting the inconsistencies in his statements. I had thought that he genuinely meant what he had said at that time (which WAS the chivalrous thing, I would have thought), though according to your post maybe I should just have assumed he was not being sincere but only saying it to be agreeable. I will admit that I have been tempted to dox them, but have stopped myself from doing so by considering the implications for those being doxxed.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Sept 9, 2018 17:40:40 GMT
Young Ireland, your tendency to use people's moments of graciousness against them is quite unseemly. You don't seem to have any sense of chivalry. Like linking to my blog when I think I am thinking out loud to a friendly audience. Or pouncing aggressively on jokes. It's like globalism must be defended with every possible weapon, no holds barred. Be a gentleman for God's sake. I don't remember doing so, but I might have. Any particular thing you had in mind? As for "using people's moments of graciousness against them", that is not what I am doing, but rather highlighting the inconsistencies in his statements. I had thought that he genuinely meant what he had said at that time (which WAS the chivalrous thing, I would have thought), though according to your post maybe I should just have assumed he was not being sincere but only saying it to be agreeable. Yes, I do. I had a blog post where I worried I was getting too obsessed with political correctness to the detriment of spiritual things, which you linked to on the Irish Conservatives Forum. This vexed me and when I was asked one of my blog readers would it vex him he said, yes, it would have. It certainly wasn't any concession to you or anyone else, it was entirely spontaneous. Quoting a post from 2015 is low.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Sept 9, 2018 17:49:24 GMT
Ah, OK, I see what you are talking about: Here is my post from then: irishconservative.freeforums.net/post/3512/threadI'm a bit puzzled why you would take offence to that, since I actually agreed with the sentiments therein, and since I saw it as a sign that things might be returning to normal. In fact you yourself liked that post, so I'm surprised why you are bringing it up now.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Sept 9, 2018 18:00:06 GMT
Ah, OK, I see what you are talking about: Here is my post from then: irishconservative.freeforums.net/post/3512/threadI'm a bit puzzled why you would take offence to that, since I actually agreed with the sentiments therein, and since I saw it as a sign that things might be returning to normal. In fact you yourself liked that post, so I'm surprised why you are bringing it up now. I "liked" it because I was being gracious. I did my utmost to be respectful to you on the forum, knowing you were outnumbered. For you to link to it suggested I had somehow climbed down or retracted something, which I certainly hadn't. In my view, doxing is always wrong, because it is dishonourable.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Sept 9, 2018 18:09:10 GMT
Ah, OK, I see what you are talking about: Here is my post from then: irishconservative.freeforums.net/post/3512/threadI'm a bit puzzled why you would take offence to that, since I actually agreed with the sentiments therein, and since I saw it as a sign that things might be returning to normal. In fact you yourself liked that post, so I'm surprised why you are bringing it up now. I "liked" it because I was being gracious. I did my utmost to be respectful to you on the forum, knowing you were outnumbered. For you to link to it suggested I had somehow climbed down or retracted something, which I certainly hadn't. In my view, doxing is always wrong, because it is dishonourable. I have responded by PM. I agree that doxing is wrong in general, though the police have the right to find out the identities of those who incite lethal violence regardless of ideology.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Sept 9, 2018 18:32:39 GMT
I don't remember doing so, but I might have. Any particular thing you had in mind? As for "using people's moments of graciousness against them", that is not what I am doing, but rather highlighting the inconsistencies in his statements. I had thought that he genuinely meant what he had said at that time (which WAS the chivalrous thing, I would have thought), though according to your post maybe I should just have assumed he was not being sincere but only saying it to be agreeable. Yes, I do. I had a blog post where I worried I was getting too obsessed with political correctness to the detriment of spiritual things, which you linked to on the Irish Conservatives Forum. This vexed me and when I was asked one of my blog readers would it vex him he said, yes, it would have. It certainly wasn't any concession to you or anyone else, it was entirely spontaneous. Quoting a post from 2015 is low. In that case, the same can be said of your dragging up my comparison of Patrick Pearse to Timothy McVeigh (which also dates to 2015 and is even earlier than Antaine's post which I stand over BTW).
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Sept 9, 2018 18:39:30 GMT
Yes, I do. I had a blog post where I worried I was getting too obsessed with political correctness to the detriment of spiritual things, which you linked to on the Irish Conservatives Forum. This vexed me and when I was asked one of my blog readers would it vex him he said, yes, it would have. It certainly wasn't any concession to you or anyone else, it was entirely spontaneous. Quoting a post from 2015 is low. In that case, the same can be said of your dragging up my comparison of Patrick Pearse to Timothy McVeigh (which also dates to 2015 and is even earlier than Antaine's post which I stand over BTW). Fair point. I didn't realize it was so long ago.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2018 20:18:25 GMT
If race is irrelevant, then why bring it up in the first place? If you think that anti-racists are stirring up tension, then you are sorely mistaken. The far-right have been doing that long before this became an issue. The fact that a minority of the Muslim community have gone off the deep end is very fortunate for them.
I have already explained why. There is a difference between a steady flow, and a mass importing. No, I am not, because the supposed anti-racists I am talking about are hypocrites who treat everything like a one way street, with different standards for whites and non-whites; which I talked about in my previous post. Of course the Far Right have been talking about race for a ling time. That's not being contested. A minority? A pretty significantly sized minority. Very interesting that you can only see this as what is convenient or inconvenient to the Far Right.
Because your arguments are very similar to those white supremacists made about blacks, or those made by the Nazis about Jews. That's why I'm sceptical. Are there Muslims who treat women like objects? Of course there are. That fact that you emphasise the racial aspect makes me sceptical though: I'd be surprised if their attitude towards Muslim women was different.
So pointing out the blatant issues that the Western world has with Muslims and migrants is on the level, as well as the concerns people have with them is on the level of white supremacy and Nazism now? Interesting. Who knew Nazis and white supremacists were so considerate. Are there Muslims who treat women like objects? Well, considering it's a massive part of many Islamic countries, what a strange point to even bring up.
I have blatantly mentioned examples of this; such as how the Pakistani rape gangs chose their victims, with one reason being the girls were white, on top of being non-Muslim. They had non-white victims too in the form of Sikh girls, but apparently non-Muslim girls also being white made them especially fair game. Yes, for a lot of these people, white women are considered whores by their very skin colour.
But I doubt that most people you describe are consciously seeking to protect criminals, but rather are concerned that any criminal proceedings are not prejudiced that blanket assumptions of guilt. Are Muslims not entitled to the same amount of due process and the presumption of innocence as anyone else, no?
Apparently Muslims are due more than fair process, given how in countries like the UK "hate crimes" (saying things about Muslims that aren't very nice) are a criminal offence, yet many of the things they have done have been covered up or played down.
Which brings me to your point about not conciously protecting criminals. The Cologne Mass rapes and the police/media/government cover-up which we've only talked about God knows how many times? The Pakistani rape gangs that have been going for at least 10 years, because police were afraid of being called racist? Aid workers - people who dedicate their lives to helping others - being gang raped, and then told by their colleagues not to tell anyone in case the rapists get deported? The disabled Swedish woman who was abducted and gang-raped by migrants, a story in which the judge decided the criminals couldn't be held responsible as they didn't speak Swedish and may not have understood that she was saying no?
Jihadism is no more linked to Islam any more than anti-Semitism is linked to Christianity.
My God, you had best be joking. So a concept that comes directly from Islam is no more linked to Islam, than a concept opposing Jews is connected to a religion whose first adherents were Jews. Ok.
You may not think so, but I was referring to people who held similar views to yourself. As for your assertion that such propaganda was baseless, that isn't true:
Ok, those are some pretty terrible incidents, and I wouldn't blame people for being suspicious of the Irish under those circumstances. Are any of those incidents comparable to the global jihad being inflicted on the world at the moment? That's something you seem to overlook; that it's not just the Western world having issues with Islam.
So in other words, we ought to sit by and allow anti-Muslim pogroms to run their course. Your argument was used by the Serbs to excuse the ethnic cleansing of Bosnian Muslims, up to and including the genocide of Srebenica.
Ah, why not go the whole hog and compare me to a Nazi. O, yeah, you already did that above. No, I think we should deal with the problem people that we have in our countries, at which point they won't have a case to make.
In that case, do you believe that it was right that the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four should have spent 15 years in jail for crimes they didn't commit?
I can't say I know enough about those situations. Had they been wrongfully imprisoned because of mistaken identity, that is something that happens to anyone. It's not as if arresting the wrong people helps those trying to seek justice. If they were simply thrown in jail for the Hell of it, then no. But I'm not asking to have random people thrown in jail. I'm asking for people who have committed crimes to be thrown in jail, or out of the country if they do not originate here.
So in theory they can but in practice they won't?
Considering they have made a joyful hobby out of the atrocities they commit, and see the West has a hole of infidels, I'm not feeling too optimistic.
I should have made myself clearer. You said that your views were perceived as racist and I agreed that they were in fact racist. As for name-calling:
I know what you said. You said you agreed with me as if I were a self-confessed racist. No need to leave that part out, Young Ireland.
Antaine Avatar Sep 10, 2015 at 2:25pm Antaine said: Another site full of filthy dissenting heretics. Not to be ageist, but I do notice that the people behind the site - the "core" members - aren't exactly young, which suggests that they don't have a lot of fresh support, though I am aware that doesn't mean there are no younger Catholics of a similar mind. They also claim to have 250 people as part of their mailing list - though that doesn't take into account how many are active in their support, or how many might be from the same person - so that isn't really a huge amount of support. I think the time is coming where it's either going to be proper Catholicism or none at all.
I must concur with Maolsheachlann in how desperate this is. Not only are you one day shy of scraping up a 3 year old post in order to prove my "name-calling", but you do it from an unrelated topic altogether. Did you mind me calling people heretics before? What word should I use to describe people claiming to be Catholic who are, in fact, traitors?
Your suggestion that the authorities are ACTIVELY involved in covering the tracks of the jihadists is slanderous (or at the very least rash judgement), as it could be plausibly argued that they want to make sure that any criminal proceedings are fair and unbiased. As for back-tracking, that was the last time we had this discussion around the time Trump won the election. At the time, you said this:
See my above post of how authorities are blatantly and actively working to cover-up and play down these atrocities, while simultaneously arresting people for "hate crimes" on Facebook and Twitter.
Antaine Avatar Nov 30, 2016 at 9:05pm Antaine said: While I still disagree with him on a few things, after having thought about it, from before my last post until now, I'm starting to lean more towards Young Ireland's and Maolsheachlann's line of thinking, which is that race shouldn't really be a part of the discussion. In regards to racial preservation (not racial purity), I'm now of the mind that it is solely on people of a particular race to take responsibility for that by having children, and not through some sort of immigration laws. I would also like to thank Young Ireland for his patience, as I am well aware that I can be impatient and hot-headed.
Also, I would like to apologise to other people of the forum – whether you be active, semi-active, or just guests who view but don't participate – as I'm sure my posts have caused quite a bit of awkwardness, and may have put some people off from getting involved in the forum or even joining. The fact that this is a Catholic forum made the discussion all the more uncomfortable, I think. If anyone falls into that group, I hope you feel able to join in now.From our current debate, I presume your position has reverted to the status quo before that?
- As mentioned in previous posts and this one, there is a difference between people not having children of their own choice, and being smothered by large numbers of migrants which the government happily supports, while people already here struggle.
- As mentioned in my previous post, when I make comments like that I am usually running out of steam with the current topic, and by that point the thread had become a stamina contest to see who could keep talking the most. It was pointless. Furthermore, as you can see in the final paragraph, I felt like the forum itself was dying in activity, possibly due to people being too uncomfortable to participate while such an argument was taking place.
Sargon of Akkad? Dave Cullen? Milo? Tommy Robinson? Geert Wilders? I'm only suggesting alt-lite figures here. I'm not saying that you should keep your eyes closed, I'm saying that these people are for whatever reason are hostile towards foreigners and they exaggerate these incidents apparently out of self-interest rather than altruism.
I don't follow Geert Wilders, and only know the bare basics about the man. You could make a case for Milo, but the other 3? Please give me examples of what they have done wrong? I'm guessing you don't really know that much about any of them, especially Tommy who has to be one of the most unjustly vilified human beings I have ever seen. He's a man who has been witnessing the criminal behaviour within the Muslim community since he was just a boy, long before there was any 9/11 or such. I don't expect you to agree with him, but maybe before jumping to the lazy conclusion that so many would want you to believe, you should search for videos of Tommy talking about his youth.
Also, what brings you to the conclusion that they are acting out of self-interest over anything else? There are a plethora of Youtubers, and in the case of these 3, especially Sargon and Dave Cullen, you have made a pretty poor choice. Dave Cullen is by far one of the more calm Youtubers, and Sargon is easily one of the most fair.
Why are you using identarian talking points then? As for your summary of our differences, that is a fair one, I'll accept that.
Whatever points I make are my own. If the Alt-Right say something that is similar to what I say, it is what it is; it can't be helped. I suppose you could say, it's very fortunate for you.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Sept 9, 2018 21:24:43 GMT
I have already explained why. There is a difference between a steady flow, and a mass importing. No, I am not, because the supposed anti-racists I am talking about are hypocrites who treat everything like a one way street, with different standards for whites and non-whites; which I talked about in my previous post. Of course the Far Right have been talking about race for a ling time. That's not being contested. A minority? A pretty significantly sized minority. Very interesting that you can only see this as what is convenient or inconvenient to the Far Right.
So you think that anyone who objects to your views is just a virtue-signalling do-gooder then? So pointing out the blatant issues that the Western world has with Muslims and migrants is on the level, as well as the concerns people have with them is on the level of white supremacy and Nazism now? Interesting. Who knew Nazis and white supremacists were so considerate. Are there Muslims who treat women like objects? Well, considering it's a massive part of many Islamic countries, what a strange point to even bring up.
That's the whole point of the comparison. The Nazis and the white supremacists feigned concern for their women when in reality they were looking for an excuse to attack, but not before leading people into believing they were being altruistic. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rassenschandeen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_StatesFortunately, we have not got to that level yet, though there is a not insignificant danger of going down this road if the brakes are not stopped. I have blatantly mentioned examples of this; such as how the Pakistani rape gangs chose their victims, with one reason being the girls were white, on top of being non-Muslim. They had non-white victims too in the form of Sikh girls, but apparently non-Muslim girls also being white made them especially fair game. Yes, for a lot of these people, white women are considered whores by their very skin colour.
Apparently Muslims are due more than fair process, given how in countries like the UK "hate crimes" (saying things about Muslims that aren't very nice) are a criminal offence, yet many of the things they have done have been covered up or played down.
Which brings me to your point about not conciously protecting criminals. The Cologne Mass rapes and the police/media/government cover-up which we've only talked about God knows how many times? The Pakistani rape gangs that have been going for at least 10 years, because police were afraid of being called racist? Aid workers - people who dedicate their lives to helping others - being gang raped, and then told by their colleagues not to tell anyone in case the rapists get deported? The disabled Swedish woman who was abducted and gang-raped by migrants, a story in which the judge decided the criminals couldn't be held responsible as they didn't speak Swedish and may not have understood that she was saying no?
So whites are perfectly justified in being racist back? So much for the Golden Rule. My God, you had best be joking. So a concept that comes directly from Islam is no more linked to Islam, than a concept opposing Jews is connected to a religion whose first adherents were Jews. Ok.
No, I am not. There is sadly a long history of Christian anti-Semitism: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_antisemitismOk, those are some pretty terrible incidents, and I wouldn't blame people for being suspicious of the Irish under those circumstances. Are any of those incidents comparable to the global jihad being inflicted on the world at the moment? That's something you seem to overlook; that it's not just the Western world having issues with Islam.
Given that there are far more Muslims than Irish people, they don't need to be comparable. All we need to know is that bigotry comes in many different forms, and that those who indulge in it conveniently forget the bigotry meted out to their ancestors. No, I think we should deal with the problem people that we have in our countries, at which point they won't have a case to make.
I don't quite understand what you are referring to. I can't say I know enough about those situations. Had they been wrongfully imprisoned because of mistaken identity, that is something that happens to anyone. It's not as if arresting the wrong people helps those trying to seek justice. If they were simply thrown in jail for the Hell of it, then no. But I'm not asking to have random people thrown in jail. I'm asking for people who have committed crimes to be thrown in jail, or out of the country if they do not originate here.
The police were desperate to find a suspect to frame and beat confessions out of them. I have to say that the attitude of many counterjihadists is reminiscent of those who thought that all Irishmen were terrorists simply for being Irish in the 1970s. Considering they have made a joyful hobby out of the atrocities they commit, and see the West has a hole of infidels, I'm not feeling too optimistic.
At least you're honest here, I'll give you that much. I know what you said. You said you agreed with me as if I were a self-confessed racist. No need to leave that part out, Young Ireland.
OK, I accept that you did not say that, and I regret taking your words out of context. I must concur with Maolsheachlann in how desperate this is. Not only are you one day shy of scraping up a 3 year old post in order to prove my "name-calling", but you do it from an unrelated topic altogether. Did you mind me calling people heretics before? What word should I use to describe people claiming to be Catholic who are, in fact, traitors?
I did, and I mentioned it to you at the time that your comments were unhelpful. You didn't just call them heretics (which is legitimate), you called them filthy, which is more questionable. From our current debate, I presume your position has reverted to the status quo before that?
- As mentioned in previous posts and this one, there is a difference between people not having children of their own choice, and being smothered by large numbers of migrants which the government happily supports, while people already here struggle.
- As mentioned in my previous post, when I make comments like that I am usually running out of steam with the current topic, and by that point the thread had become a stamina contest to see who could keep talking the most. It was pointless. Furthermore, as you can see in the final paragraph, I felt like the forum itself was dying in activity, possibly due to people being too uncomfortable to participate while such an argument was taking place.
So you admit that you misled this forum when you said that immigration laws were not acceptable for the purposes of what you call "racial preservation"? I don't follow Geert Wilders, and only know the bare basics about the man. You could make a case for Milo, but the other 3? Please give me examples of what they have done wrong? I'm guessing you don't really know that much about any of them, especially Tommy who has to be one of the most unjustly vilified human beings I have ever seen. He's a man who has been witnessing the criminal behaviour within the Muslim community since he was just a boy, long before there was any 9/11 or such. I don't expect you to agree with him, but maybe before jumping to the lazy conclusion that so many would want you to believe, you should search for videos of Tommy talking about his youth.
Also, what brings you to the conclusion that they are acting out of self-interest over anything else? There are a plethora of Youtubers, and in the case of these 3, especially Sargon and Dave Cullen, you have made a pretty poor choice. Dave Cullen is by far one of the more calm Youtubers, and Sargon is easily one of the most fair.
I find it difficult to believe that Tommy Robinson is being unjustly vilified when he has a conviction for assaulting a policeman, uses the name of a notorious hooligan as a stage name and has tried to enter the US with a false passport (so free movement for me, but not for thee then). Lutz Bachmann of Pegida has a similarly chequered history.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2018 13:13:00 GMT
So you think that anyone who objects to your views is just a virtue-signalling do-gooder then?
How much more blatantly clear could I possibly make this? The people I am referring to are those who feign concern for others, when in fact they only have concern for people outside their country, and none for those within; to the point they are willing to put the well-being of those within at risk. It seems to be a paradoxical attempt to make one feel good by helping others, at the expense of others. I made this perfectly clear in the point you responded to. How can you pretend to be confused by this?
That's the whole point of the comparison. The Nazis and the white supremacists feigned concern for their women when in reality they were looking for an excuse to attack, but not before leading people into believing they were being altruistic.
So the idea, if I understand correctly, is that anyone showing concern for the well-being of women, is secretly only doing so for nefarious means. Young Ireland, even for the most Far Right human being on the planet who is looking to racially cleanse their country, to suggest that such a person doesn't have any genuine concern for the women of their country is ridiculous. On the contrary, if one is a racial supremacist, it makes all the more sense that they would be concerned about the women of their race. All that aside, considering the atrocities we have seen carried out against women in recent years, this argument about feigning concern for women is a unfounded. It's because of events like Cologne that the Right has seen a surge in numbers and power in recent years.
So whites are perfectly justified in being racist back? So much for the Golden Rule.
If the Golden Rule suggest to treat others as you yourself would be treated, then wouldn't it make sense that racist attacks by Muslim migrants would result in retaliation attacks against them? No, it's not an ideal situation at all, but it's been going on for years, nothing has been done about it, and people are sick and tired of it. They're tired of the crimes, the lack of effort by the legal system, and the cries of Islamophobia when they do talk about it. Something like that will naturally lead to violence. I'm not condoning violence against innocent Muslims, though I have no consideration for the ones who are blatantly making threats against the West; but my point is that I don't understand how you could be surprised that any of this is happening.
If there was a family down the road from your family, who constantly made threats and trouble for your family, and the only response from the police was to tell you to ignore it because it might lead to more trouble if you say or do anything, and the other family seeing this become increasingly emboldened; at what stage are you willing to step in and take action into your own hands? Or do you try to convince your family to soldier on against the ever growing burden of the other family?
No, I am not. There is sadly a long history of Christian anti-Semitism:There is a history of Anti-Semitism in Christianity. But it is not part of our faith, where as Jihad is preached in Islam. Muhammad himself was a warlord, and I believe one who betrayed the very people who gave him sanctuary. Given that there are far more Muslims than Irish people, they don't need to be comparable. All we need to know is that bigotry comes in many different forms, and that those who indulge in it conveniently forget the bigotry meted out to their ancestors.
You have to look at proportion though. I don't defend my ancestors for any atrocities they have committed. With that said, I don't believe they have made enemies of the world as many adherents to Islam have. You have given examples of terrible things the Irish have done, but it simply doesn't compare with what is done in the name of Islam today.
I don't quite understand what you are referring to.
Why not? It was written rightthere. You asked if I thought it was ok for anti-Muslim sentiment to exist in the West, to which I replied: No, and to deal with it they have to actually punish the criminal Muslims and would be terrorists (who are often monitored and sometimes have a criminal history), as opposed to telling everyone else to be quiet.
The police were desperate to find a suspect to frame and beat confessions out of them. I have to say that the attitude of many counterjihadists is reminiscent of those who thought that all Irishmen were terrorists simply for being Irish in the 1970s.
In that case, that is both wrong and foolish, as it doesn't solve their problem at all. I imagine the attitudes would be the same. But blaming the British for having anti-Irish attitudes after a string of atrocities carried out by Irish terrorists is wrong. The British, of course, terrorised our own country for hundreds of years; but to get to the core point, you cannot blame someone for resenting a group of people they associate with certain atrocities. That would be a genuine case of a term that feminists casually throw around - victim blaming.
At least you're honest here, I'll give you that much.
What need would I have to lie? I've been pretty consistent in my stance on this any time this has been brought up.
I did, and I mentioned it to you at the time that your comments were unhelpful. You didn't just call them heretics (which is legitimate), you called them filthy, which is more questionable.
Ok, I don't remember you calling me out for it, but fair enough. Yes, I was rude, but at the very least I explained why I called them that.
So you admit that you misled this forum when you said that immigration laws were not acceptable for the purposes of what you call "racial preservation"?
Truth be told, I was just too tired of the argument, and given how controversial it was I attempted to roll things back for the sake of peace. I felt that maybe I had come across as too much, and simply tried to revert things to avoid bad blood in future. So, while I regretted that my words may have been isolating to any non-racially Irish people, yes, as you can see, I still oppose any form of uncontrolled immigration that results in the smothering of populations.
But before you ask, How can we believe anything you say then?, I respond: If I am arguing something over a period of X days, with X amount of massive long-winded posts, it's probably safe to say that it's something I stand by and am not just saying it for the sake of saying it. Especially if the stance I am taking is a controversial one. But surely you should be happy, Young Ireland. That's what you want, isn't it? A world where people pretend their problems don't exist, for fear of being slandered and labeled or being dragged into a controversy with irreversible consequences, and therefore keep silent or simply say they have been changed. Isn't that the anti-racist utopia you dream of, where dissenters dare not speak?
I find it difficult to believe that Tommy Robinson is being unjustly vilified when he has a conviction for assaulting a policeman, uses the name of a notorious hooligan as a stage name and has tried to enter the US with a false passport (so free movement for me, but not for thee then). Lutz Bachmann of Pegida has a similarly chequered history.I have heard Tommy has had legal trouble in the past, yes. I don't know the details of the assault on the policeman, other than it was an undercover police officer. If I remember correctly, the fake passport was due to him being barred from entering the US. I don't know his business being there, or why he was barred though.
With all that said, why not look up the many videos of Tommy being harassed by police officers while with his children for no reason. Or the many times Tommy has been arrested for nothing other than walking down a street because it might provoke the Muslim community to anger. You talk of Tommy being racist, yet he constantly gives people the opportunity to explain why he's racist, and none of them ever take it.
At this point, I am done with this conversation. We've already gotten to the stage of talking in circles. You may take that as cowardice on my part, and a victory for you, Young Ireland. There's nothing to be gained from going any further. You and I tend to get into very loaded arguments with walls of text, so it is understandable that sometimes there may be confusion. With that said, however our biases may make us feel towards each other, I do at least try to see and understand things from your perspective, whereas you seem to be arguing from bad faith. It's one thing being confused due to the amount we both write, but there are times where it seems clear you are blatantly ignore things I have stated. It renders the discussion even more useless than it already is.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 13, 2018 19:27:15 GMT
I was away from base when this row broke out, or I would have reacted earlier. Let me just say that I will be VERY sensitive to anything that seems to me like racism, or like blaming all migrants for the crimes of some. Young Ireland is right to point out that a lot of what is said about Muslims is like what was said about C19 Catholics in the English-speaking world. As it happens, I do believe the media plays down the ethnicity of some criminals, but I don't believe this reflects a centralised conspiracy - just a belief that the plebes are too stupid to be told the truth without becoming nazis. This of course plays straight into the hands of the real nazis, who can say they are the only ones telling the truth about these disgusting crimes, so they must be right about everything else (cf how Nick Griffin of the BNP publicised the existence of grooming/rape gangs.)
|
|