Irish American group to lobby for illegal aliens

Posted by Phil on December 15, 2005, 02:38 PM | #

The Know Nothings were right! (just kidding)

Posted by Matra on December 15, 2005, 02:45 PM | #

Some bad news regarding the Sensenbrenner/King bill.

Public and GOP Outcry as Sensenbrenner inserts Guest Worker amesty into bill!

Link

Posted by Phil on December 15, 2005, 02:52 PM | #

I get the feeling that American politicians won’t learn their lesson until there is some horrible atrocity by Islamic nutters that doesn’t ever bear thinking about.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on December 15, 2005, 03:55 PM | #

In my experience, Irish-American politicians are basically pro-terrorist.  They are fed an appalling load of rubbish by the mainstream media and the school systems about the miseries of Ireland (such as the NY school system’s claim that the 1846 potato famine was genocide—presumably the Duke of Wellington had a secret genetic engineering lab cooking up potato blights.)  As a result, not only do they fund and arm the IRA, but they are utterly unreliable about any threat to the security and prosperity of the US mainstream, being “Conservative” only when some new scientific advance conficts with the astrophysics or biochemistry of Thomas Aquinas. They are completely at home with “big government” since its corruption and lack of heavy lifting suit their idea of the good life.

Rather than whinge incessantly about the Jewish threat to Western civilisation, it would be much more productive to examine the threat to it posed by the Irish diaspora.

Posted by Matra on December 15, 2005, 04:03 PM | #

Martin Hutchinson:

Rather than whinge incessantly about the Jewish threat to Western civilisation, it would be much more productive to examine the threat to it posed by the Irish diaspora.

Irish America influence isn’t as great as that of Jews. The latter have much more clout in academia and the media.

Posted by Phil on December 15, 2005, 04:12 PM | #

The latter have much more clout in academia and the media.

That’s putting it (very very) mildly…...............

However, what Martin says about the Irish American funding of the IRA is true. Having said that, Britain’s record in Ireland doesn’t exactly fill me with nationalistic pride either.

Posted by Svigor on December 15, 2005, 04:44 PM | #

Rather than whinge incessantly about the Jewish threat to Western civilisation, it would be much more productive to [stick one’s head in the sand about the jewish problem and] examine the threat to it posed by the Irish diaspora.

I edited honesty into your comments, I hope you’ll forgive me.

The third alternative is to do what I do, whine about both in something vaguely approaching proportionality.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on December 15, 2005, 05:22 PM | #

Svigor, I don’t stick my neck in the sand, I don’t accept that there’s much of a problem. There certainly are ethnic groups whose influence is thoroughly destructive but the Jews by and large aren’t among them.

Posted by Phil on December 15, 2005, 05:32 PM | #

Martin,

As I had said before (and it wasn’t a joke), it would be unusual for you to begin accepting radically new ideas at your age.

Posted by Phil on December 15, 2005, 05:36 PM | #

Martin,

I had once written that you should read MacDonald and your response as to scoff at him because he is at Long Beach (which you understand as a hallmark of intellectual ineptitude).

In the meantime, the geniuses at Harvard are coming up with some ideas that may interest you more. The guy is obviously bright (he’s at Harvard after all! and he’s JEWISH! Can’t go wrong with that now can we?).

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on December 15, 2005, 05:39 PM | #

Phil, any more snotty coments about my age and I’ll send my grandson round to smash your kneecaps. Anti-Semitism is not a new idea, it was the principal component in the mayoral election campaign of the evil Socialist Viennese Karl Lueger in 1897, when I was quite young! There are SEVERAL ethnic groups whose current and past influence on world affairs is more malign than the Jews.

Posted by Matra on December 15, 2005, 05:42 PM | #

The Irish do have considerable influence in some circles.

Posted by Svigor on December 15, 2005, 05:44 PM | #

I get the feeling that American politicians won’t learn their lesson until there is some horrible atrocity by Islamic nutters that doesn’t ever bear thinking about.

My advice on that is to live in flyover country; avoid NYC and L.A. and you’ll only have to deal with fallout.

Posted by Svigor on December 15, 2005, 05:46 PM | #

Matra, I’m sure I don’t need to inform you that the Church doesn’t need anyone influencing it towards supporting mass immigration and race-replacement.  Both are growth industries for the Church.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on December 15, 2005, 05:52 PM | #

Ignatiev may or may not be Jewish, but he’s a Professor at the Masschusetts College of Art—Harvard fired him.  Doesn’t rate intellectually, alas—certainly not when he’s blithering about history, not art.  Also, if he’s Jewish, he’s the first I’ve come across to be called Noel.  More likely E. European lapsed Catholic; probably an ethnically Ukranian former KGB agent.

Posted by Phil on December 15, 2005, 05:52 PM | #

Anti-Semitism is not a new idea

Neither is Philo-Semitism. That says nothing about the soundness of either. And Communism is younger than both. That says nothing about the soundness of any of the three.

In any event, I am only interested in facts and don’t look at Labels. There is a profound difference between The Protocols, which are obviously the product of evil minds (and obviously false and I never took them or similar stuff seriously - and there is no dearth of such appalling rubbish on the internet) and MacDonald who painstakingly chronicles Jewish intellectual movements in the 20th century.

Anyway, I get the feeling that whenever we touch this subject, it hits a raw nerve with you and you become very emotional in discussing it. I don’t say that it is wrong. All of us have strong biases and prejudices (blind reflexive anti-Semitism is also a prejudice). However, when discussing it we often get the feeling that you delve into anecdotal evidence far more than empirical evidence (or in this case none at all).

I know how much you despise Communism. Did you know that the original Bolsheviks were overwhelmingly Jewish? This isn’t a mad claim by some supposedly “Jew hating” professor at Long Beach. It is the conclusion reached by a Jewish writer by the name of Yuri Slezkine. Slezkine even says that in the early years Jews were the most enthusiastic supporters of the Bolshevik movement (and subsequently state)and manned some of the most important control posts in the Soviet state (until Stalin purged them many many years later).

Posted by Phil on December 15, 2005, 05:57 PM | #

Martin,

You are being evasive as usual. Igantiev is as Jewish as Marx.

Names can be misleading. As a guy once said, “half the Smiths in New York are Jews”. Names are mostly irrelevant when dealing with a very Cosmopolitan and International ethnic group that is a minority in almost every country on earth where it resides (except Israel).

Posted by Matra on December 15, 2005, 05:57 PM | #

Ignatiev is Jewish

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/harvard_genocide.htm

Posted by Phil on December 15, 2005, 05:59 PM | #

Ignatiev is a Russian Jew. See here.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on December 15, 2005, 06:10 PM | #

Since Ignatiev doesn’t believe race exists, I don’t see how he could know he’s of Russian Jewish descent; the term surely has no meaning to him. If the Ukranian separatists in his local Chutrch bullied him, and the KGB and Harvard’s Jewish community were nice to him, that would make him Russian Jewish, no? Noel is by definition NOT a Jewish name; at least his mother must have been Catholic, in which case he is technically not Jewish.

I know perfectly well that many of the early Bolsheviks were Jewish; are you claiming that Mao and the Long Marchers were as well?  Jews were persecuted by the late Czarist regime, the last pogrom coming in 1907.  It’s not surpising therefore that they were active in a movement that wanted to overthrow it. Conversely, there were very few Jewish Nazis; the two ideologies have much in common otherwise.

Posted by Svigor on December 15, 2005, 06:15 PM | #

Ignatiev is Jewish

It seems Mr. Hutchinson simply reflexively dismisses most (all?) criticism of jews as a group.  Otherwise, how could he both pour scorn on it and be ignorant of it simultaneously?

It doesn’t take an expert to know that the lion’s share of the really psychotic white-hating “whites” are actually jews, Ignatiev right there in the thick of them.

My educated guess is that Mr. Hutchinson doesn’t even examine most of what he dismisses as “anti-Semitism.”*

*After controlling for wacko material, which no one here forwards anyways.

Posted by Svigor on December 15, 2005, 06:18 PM | #

I’ve read of jews (presumably only in the ethnic sense) named “Christopher” for God’s sake.

Posted by Svigor on December 15, 2005, 06:19 PM | #

How about Sumner Redstone, is it impossible for him to be a jew too?

Posted by Phil on December 15, 2005, 06:20 PM | #

Since Ignatiev doesn’t believe race exists, I don’t see how he could know he’s of Russian Jewish descent; the term surely has no meaning to him.

You know now that you are talking like a liberal now. Do you honestly believe something so obviously absurd?

The whole point about some Jewish intellectual movements was that they were designed to weaken the cohesiveness of the majority in the country its writers lived in. This is perhaps not applicable in equal measure to every country to the same degree (Britain probably less so than America).

However, there is no dearth of evidence that the staunchest Bolsheviks identified as Jews in their private lives (and even worshipped in the way that religious Jews did) and maintained all the loyalties that being of an ethnic group entails. Similarly, Boas strongly identified as a Jew privately while writing that white gentile society in America was psychologically “sick” and “fascistic”.

I am sorry Martin. But there is no point in us arguing about this because you will keep running and running and never face up to the facts. So like Gentlemen, let us agree to disagree on this.

As I said, you will not accept radically new ideas now. Your philo-semitism is a defining characteristic if your personality. Personally, I don’t care but it means that you will simply never ever listen the arguments that guys like us have to make.

Anyway, so there we are. Let us not argue any more about this now because it is pointless.

Posted by ben tillman on December 15, 2005, 06:24 PM | #

Also, if he’s Jewish, he’s the first I’ve come across to be called Noel. 

I have known two Noels—both Jewish.  So what’s the anecdotal tally now?

Posted by Phil on December 15, 2005, 06:27 PM | #

Ben,

Feel free to dissect with empirical evidence now. Although I suspect Martin will simply switch off the PC and go for a walk if you did that.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on December 15, 2005, 06:30 PM | #

Phil, you’re quite right that philo-Semitism, or at least benevolent neutrality, is part of my makeup (too many Jewish friends and a Jewish first wife, for one thing.) I only object to the smear that it demonstrates my hostility to new ideas; anti-Semitism is neither a new idea nor new to me personally.

However you too have to admit that Jewish involvement, well justified in that case, in one out of the three mass murdering movements of the 20th century is not adequate evidence of their malignity (even there, neither Lenin nor Stalin were Jewish.)

Christopher is a Greek name, and Sumner is surely after the abolitionist Senator. Noel, on the other hand, since it means Christmas is more aggressively non-Jewish than either. Anyway Ignatiev, whether or not Jewish, is an obnoxious leftist fruitcake; not only do I admit there are Jewish obnoxious leftist fruitcakes, but I even admit to there having been some British middle class ones (the Foot dynasty, anyone?)

Posted by ben tillman on December 15, 2005, 06:42 PM | #

I’ve read of jews (presumably only in the ethnic sense) named “Christopher” for God’s sake.

Ever watched ESPN?  Chris ... Berman!

Posted by Matra on December 15, 2005, 06:44 PM | #

Noel Ignatiev wrote a book called How the Irish Became White.  He claims they became white by adopting what he deems to be Anglo-Saxon racist values towards blacks. The book seems to blame the Irish for much of the plight of the black man.

Posted by Phil on December 15, 2005, 06:45 PM | #

It is possible that you were exposed to “anti-Semitism” (I should say “criticism of Jews” or perhaps both) of the prejudiced and irrational kind (never supported with cogent arguments) and you concluded that anyone who ever criticises Jews must be a Nazi and may want to bring back the Third Reich.

I was like that too. But I have read far too much on this subject now to take a reflexively Philo-Semitic view of things as you obviously do.

It is amazing that for someone who regards “Leftism” with such disdain it is so difficult for you to cope with the fact that most Leftism (by which I dont just mean Labour Unions and Taxes and all that race-blind economic stuff but stuff that is much more destructive in the long run - Cultural Marxism) in the 20th century had a very powerful source: Jewish intellectuals (and not in post Tsarist Russia alone but Germany, France and many parts of Europe - ever heard of the Frankfurt School?).

Anyway, like I said before, it is pointless because you will simply refuse to listen. But you do now concede somewhat offhandedly that it is an emotional problem for you in dealing with criticisms of Jews? We will take that as a yes unless you vehemently scream in disagreement (in which case it becomes a resounding Yes! ).

Posted by Phil on December 15, 2005, 06:53 PM | #

Names: Is Susan Sonntag a Jewish name?

Sontag was born Susan Rosenblatt in New York City, the daughter of Jewish-American parents Jack Rosenblatt and his wife, the former Mildred Jacobsen. After Jack, a fur trader, died in China of tuberculosis when she was five years old, Susan’s mother married Nathan Sontag, and Susan and her sister Judith took their stepfather’s surname.

She is famous for a certain comment made in the 1960s:

The White Race is the cancer of history.

Ironically, she died of Cancer. Poetic justice!

In her rage and gloom and growing despair, she concluded that “the truth is
that Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary
government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant,
Marx, Balanchine ballets, et al., don’t redeem what this particular
civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of
human history;

Source.

Good riddance I say. She died too late.

Posted by Phil on December 15, 2005, 06:55 PM | #

I also have a question for Martin:

Suppose a Gentile said, “The Jews are the cancer of human history”.

I can imagine Martin sending in the military to execute such a man on the spot.

On the other hand, an influential Jewess (at a prestigious Ivy League school) produces such bile and is met with silence. Why?

Posted by ben tillman on December 15, 2005, 06:55 PM | #

However you too have to admit that Jewish involvement, well justified in that case, in one out of the three mass murdering movements of the 20th century is not adequate evidence of their malignity (even there, neither Lenin nor Stalin were Jewish.)

It is not that they are malign; it is that they are OTHER, and as such they have interests that conflict with ours.  This conflict of interest appears to be irreconcilable.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on December 15, 2005, 06:57 PM | #

Yes, I accept I emotionally dislike anti-Semitism as well as intellectually despising it. Happy now?

I am Economic Man; it’s what I understand. Culture is a matter of good opera, nice pictures and thoughtful books, all of which I appreciate but am bored by theorizing thereon. To me Marxism is Marxism, it is a matter of Commies owning assets and messing up everybody’s lives. Marx was Jewish, but so was the ambivalent Rothschild and the wholly benign Samson Gideon.  To me, it’s a peripheral issue.

Similarly, mass immigration is bad for 2 reasons (i) it produces an unpleasant increase in the population and (ii) it immiserates the domestic working classes. I don’t want to be replaced by people of another race, but I don’t want to be replaced by Cockney Britney Spears fans either; I am equally an Endangered Species in either case.

Posted by Phil on December 15, 2005, 07:00 PM | #

He claims they became white by adopting what he deems to be Anglo-Saxon racist values towards blacks. The book seems to blame the Irish for much of the plight of the black man.

Igantiev is an archetypal Jewish ethnocentrist intellectual and white-hating Bigot) with a clear agenda. There is quite a pedigree that he can live up to in his ethnic group.

Now suppose we write a tome on how the Palestinians have suffered under Jewish occupation? Now that is a subject worth broaching is it not?

Martin will of course say that the Palestinians are worse than scum and therefore have no right to anything. WHY? Tears for blacks and every racial minority in the United States, jack-boots for the Pals.

Strange where reflexive philo-semitism leads.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on December 15, 2005, 07:04 PM | #

Phil, on your Sontag quote, Hitler did say essentially that in Mein Kampf.  I would not have executed Hitler for writing Mein Kampf; only for murdering non-political opponents (i.e. Night of the Long Knives was not a capital offense) and invading the second half of Czechoslovakia—essentially the position taken by the noble Neville Chamberlain.  Hitler had EXCELLENT taste in music and architecture, after all, unlike Britney Spears fans.

Posted by Phil on December 15, 2005, 07:09 PM | #

Similarly, mass immigration is bad for 2 reasons (i) it produces an unpleasant increase in the population and (ii) it immiserates the domestic working classes.

Mass immigration is the result of a break-down in white ethnocentrism (a new phenomenon that was almost non-existent until the 1950s - on a mass scale anyway). I don’t say that Jews are solely responsible for it but Jewish intellectuals have provided a massive body of work to achieve this end (and by the way, academia in the top American schools is about 35 percent Jewish - I can provide corroboration if you wish). 

Economism has an obvious handicap. It cannot ever understand society. To understand society and why things have changed in society you need to look elsewhere. If you find that boring, that’s fine. But then you admit that there is an obviously huge body of work that you know nothing about and which if you condemn, you do so reflexively without examining the ideas.

Ive said before that ive never considered myself an anti-Semite. But the question doesn’t trouble me any more because I value the truth more. And I think I can ingest the truth and digest it when it is presented to me (and reject irrational nonsense when I see that too).

Posted by Phil on December 15, 2005, 07:21 PM | #

Hitler had EXCELLENT taste in music and architecture, after all, unlike Britney Spears fans.

While that is totally irrelevant to the discussion, you do admit that Britney Spears, Rap Music and all “popular music” (the most appalling rubbish ever produced in the name of “Music”) is a product of Free Market capitalism? You cannot possibly put the blame for that on the Government no matter which way you cut it!

Therefore do you admit that Free Market capitalism is essentially what feeds the worst, the lowest common denominator tastes of the market?

Posted by ben tillman on December 15, 2005, 07:34 PM | #

Therefore do you admit that Free Market capitalism is essentially what feeds the worst, the lowest common denominator tastes of the market?

I’m not sure I can agree here.  Is the market free, or are there significant barriers to entry?  I would say the latter.

Do the media cater to tastes, or do they shape tastes as well?  It would seem they shape taste by artificially limiting choice.

Posted by Phil on December 15, 2005, 07:48 PM | #

Ben,

Don’t mean to sound condescending but has America (or Britain) for that matter produced a single composer of the calibre of a Mozart, a Beethoven, a Wagner or a Schubert (to name a miniscule number out of the dozens the Germans produced)?

Funnily enough, while Martin worships Free Markets*, its an amazing contradiction that the finest Music (which he has an appreciation for) was produced in Germany/Austria when it was by Martin’s definition “socialist” (at the very least compared to fairly laissez faire Britain and America in the 19th century and even more so in the 18th).

Martin even says Hitler had better taste in Music and Architecture than Britney Spears fans (which is not really a matter of doubt). But Hitler didn’t grow up in a free market economy!

*I do not mean to just rip into everything Martin has ever said and I apologise if i am giving that impression. But to me this example indicates another fallacy of “economism”.

Posted by Svigor on December 15, 2005, 08:35 PM | #

I only object to the smear that it demonstrates my hostility to new ideas; anti-Semitism is neither a new idea nor new to me personally.

Christopher is a Greek name, and Sumner is surely after the abolitionist Senator. Noel, on the other hand, since it means Christmas is more aggressively non-Jewish than either.

You’ve got to be taking the piss.  Christopher is a Greek name meaning “bearing-Christ.”  Noel, on the other hand, is a French word for the celebration of Christ’s birth (which is obviously watered down with its pagan associations). 

Seeing how we’re talking in an Anglophone context here, Christopher is OBVIOUSLY more offensive to Christophobes than Noel.

Anyway Ignatiev, whether or not Jewish, is an obnoxious leftist fruitcake; not only do I admit there are Jewish obnoxious leftist fruitcakes, but I even admit to there having been some British middle class ones (the Foot dynasty, anyone?)

I’m not stating that there are jewish obnoxious leftist fruitcakes. Follow the bouncing ball: I’m stating that the lion’s share of anti-white “whites” of the worst kind (i.e., the type who explicitly state a desire to abolish the white race, abolish whiteness,  establish a uniquely paramount status for whites in the pantheon of evil, etc.,) are jews.

Ever watched ESPN?  Chris ... Berman!

It’s been a looooooooooong time since I paid to have anti-white sewage pumped into my home, but I do remember Berman from my cable days.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on December 15, 2005, 09:33 PM | #

The Austria-Hungary in which Hitler grew up was a perfectly good free market economy; less so than 19th century Britain, but less protectionist than 19th Century US, for example. Also quite small government so on balance, freer than anything we have today because government is now so big.  Why do you think the principal Conservative economic school is the Austrian school? (And I don’t think Bohm-Bawerk, von Mises or von Hayek were Jewish.)

Mozart and Beethoven’s Vienna was also strongly free market oriented; under the reforming Joseph II it had approximately the economics of Charles II’s England, which had already abandoned most of the mediaeval fallacies.

Posted by ben tillman on December 15, 2005, 10:09 PM | #

And I don’t think Bohm-Bawerk, von Mises or von Hayek were Jewish.

Mises was, or at least he was of Jewish descent.  Hayek was a gentile.  If you look it up, you may find yourself right back here at Majorityrights.  James Bowery recently covered the topic.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on December 15, 2005, 10:39 PM | #

You’re quite right Ben, so he was, though he was a Catholic in religion. Makes up for Marx, in that case.

Posted by Phil on December 16, 2005, 06:02 AM | #

Martin,

But if Britain was a freer economy, going by your logic it should have produced more composers of calibre than Germany-Austria.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on December 16, 2005, 09:45 AM | #

Not unless there was a gigantic market for them.  British kids don’t do their piano practice, German kids do, being better disciplined.  Anyway, Purcell, Arne and Sullivan are all up there with at least the second tier, in my view. Britain got better writers.

Posted by Amalek on December 16, 2005, 12:10 PM | #

Why shouldn’t Jews want to abolish the white race? Jews aren’t whites, though their pretence of being more white than their fellow-semites or Turks is one of the Big Lies they’ve foisted on us.

When you see a gathering of ‘British’ Jews (not Hassidics, the assimilated sort) talking among themselves without realising there’s a goy among them taking notes, you realise *instantly* that they are not white, not European, not Caucasoid—just a simulacrum, a foreign body in the bloodstream which is always liable to provoke inflammation and discomfort.

Their patriotism is conditional on our shabbos-goyness as America’s little ZOG helpmate. If Israel were drawn against England in the World Cup, I doubt that one ‘British’ Jew in 20 would be cheering for the Three Lions. On the record, they would say ‘Isn’t it great, we can’t lose!’ But quietly they would be rooting for the Kleptocrats’ Bolthole.
 
Mr Martin Hutchinson says “here are SEVERAL ethnic groups whose current and past influence on world affairs is more malign than the Jews.” Which, I wonder?

As to the argument that we are more corrupted by ‘pop culture’ of the negroid/white trash sort—members of which ‘ethnic group’ do we so often find dredging up this muck: producing the films, issuing the records, pumping out the TV and publicising these demoralising wares in print? That’s right… the Icelandics.

Mr ‘Economic Man’ Hutchinson should doff his blinkers and begin taking a more rounded view of what is discomfiting our civilisation and why, as Prof. MacDonald has done.

Posted by Desmond Jones on December 16, 2005, 02:19 PM | #

Many Ottoman Jews were also involved quite closely with the Young Turk movement for whom Armenian Christians hold responsible for Armenian Genocide. Avigdor Levy, in The Sephardim in the Ottoman Empire, writes that, 

Within the major Jewish communities of the Ottoman Empire, the graduates of the Alliance schools (established by Rothschilds and French Jewry) and all those who subscribed to the Alliance’s vision of “regeneration” were known as Alliancists. By the late nineteenth century, they had emerged as a major opinion group, challenging rabbinical authorities and their conservative supporters who controlled the community’s institutions.  In several important areas, the Alliance’s ideology coincided with that of the Young Turks, and many of the Alliancists became active in the ranks of the Young Turks, or were close to them. Following the Young Turk Revolution, three of the four Jews serving in the new Ottoman Chamber of Deputies, Carasso, Farraggi and Masliah, were both Alliance graduates and members of the Committee of Union and Progress.

Levy also links the Young Turks nationalism with rising Zionism amongst Ottoman Jews.

Another outcome of modernization was the increased familiarity of growing numbers of Ottoman Jews with the ideas of political Zionism. Zionism appeared to offer a range of ideals and solutions similar to those espoused by important segments of the political elites of most of the empire’s ethnic groups. Additionally, Zionism had the advantage that it appealed to a sentiment deeply rooted within the Jewish psyche, and many—traditionalists, as well as modernists—embraced it.  412   In fact, Zionism was the only mass movement that could bridge the chasm between tradition and modernity. Since there were currents within Zionism that stressed a cultural revival, rather than a political one, and since the establishment of a Jewish state was not an imminent possibility, to many Ottoman Jews, as well as to some Young Turk spokesmen, the contradictions between Zionism and Ottomanism did not appear unbridgeable ( ?lber Oratyli).

Arguably Jews were involved in all three European genocides. One as victim and two as Mercureans to the native Apollonians as Slezkine would say.

Posted by Ahrimahn on December 16, 2005, 02:39 PM | #

Rather than whinge incessantly about the Jewish threat to Western civilisation, it would be much more productive to examine the threat to it posed by the Irish diaspora.

Yeah, right! Everyone knows that the Irish run the ACLU, the Anti-Defamation League and the New York Times while Jews are staunch social conservatives who oppose all liberal lunacy.

Posted by Ahrimahn on December 16, 2005, 02:45 PM | #

what Martin says about the Irish American funding of the IRA is true

The British used violence to gain control in Ireland so why shouldn’t the Irish use violence to get it back?

Posted by Guessedworker on December 16, 2005, 02:51 PM | #

Ahrimahn,

Which Irish?  Do you mean the shit-hearts who slaughtered Scots-Irish and English men, women and children in the latter decades of the 20th century?  I trust not.

Posted by ben tillman on December 16, 2005, 03:35 PM | #

Arguably Jews were involved in all three European genocides. One as victim and two as Mercureans to the native Apollonians as Slezkine would say.

Exactly.  Thanks for making that point, Desmond.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on December 16, 2005, 04:04 PM | #

This thread was supposed to be about the Irish American support for things we don’t like; instead it has turned into yet another series of anti-Semitic rants.  This achieves precisely zippo, and is both counterproductive and BORING!

Posted by Guessedworker on December 16, 2005, 07:29 PM | #

Martin’s point is hard to dispute.  The JQ intervenes with tiresome regularity where such intervention was hardly intended or required at the outset.  It is like some univited guest that turns up every weekend and won’t go to bed until the small hours.  Personally, I think we have played the host quite enough, generally with some style, I admit - and that ameliorates the situation to a degree.  But vulgarity also accompanies the presence of the JQ on our threads, and that I find wholly distasteful and without merit.

The vulgar, in my opinion, are chiefly intent on attracting attention to themselves, or trying to provoke the rest of us into displays of like vulgarity.  It is a completely vain exercise, but these trolls, who thankfully are very few in number, still try.

If we absolutely must debate the JQ from time to time can we all strive to maintain our integrity as a means of excluding the trolls.  Their games have run their course.

Posted by Tournament of Champions on December 17, 2005, 02:39 AM | #

It appears from casual accounts of HR. 4437’s passage that KMac messsage re: immigration has reached a critical mass of congressmen, and these individuals are now as hell-bent as the diametrically opposed race-replacers. (The WN message must have tempered the resistance; otherwise it’s certain the congressmen would’ve caved as they’ve always done.) The battle has been joined.

Posted by ben tillman on December 17, 2005, 04:13 AM | #

The JQ intervenes with tiresome regularity where such intervention was hardly intended or required at the outset.

Please note that, in this instance, the topic was broached not by a “troll” but by Martin.

Posted by Guessedworker on December 17, 2005, 04:38 AM | #

ben,

Yes, there are two issues here.  One - the way the JQ tends to dominate other subjects.  Two - the people who are attracted by this and who use our threads either for some sick personal game or in the manner of professional agents provacateur.  Currently we have Amalek.  Whether you think he is sick or an agent provacateur is your call.  But do you remember this:-

Very good white boys, I am an Asian! Glad to see you cretins finally figured that one out, too bad this can’t be said for any of the other comments I made. It’s quite amusing to come back here and see you chimps having your panties bunched over some comments I made—what’s the matter white boys? Can’t face facts? (It doesn’t surprise me that you idiots were unable to refute any of them.) Any white boy who frequents this forum is himself an argument for genocide. White genocide, that is.

That was Asian Boy.  Name familiar to you?

We were tipped off a while ago that Amalek is an old foe from past threads.  Well, the tip turned out to be good.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 17, 2005, 08:52 AM | #

GW, not to drag this out more than you may have wanted to, but a couple of questions (just ignore them if they’re for any reason awkward at this point): 

1) so, Amalek is Asian Boy?  (And if he is, he’d be what—Turkish?  or maybe we’d figured that out already, I don’t remember; I do remember of course he was rabidly anti-Euro, genocidally so);

2) I remember someone, I forget who exactly, telling you Amalek was a former commenter returning under a different name—but how in the world did that person know?  I ask because if he knew, maybe he’s “fishy” in some way as well?  (Again, if it’s best to just drop the subject at this point, please ignore this post and don’t answer it.)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 17, 2005, 08:57 AM | #

Ooops, I the whole thing just came to me in a flash—we already knew Amalek was Asian Boy, and that’s how the person who tipped you off knew—he simply remembered what we others didn’t.  (It’s all right—I have lapses like that when I haven’t had my morning coffee yet—am having it right now, you’ll be glad to learn, so I should be OK from now on—sorry for that obtuseness on my part!) 

Posted by JB on December 17, 2005, 01:41 PM | #

here’s something these liberal irish-american idiots should be worried about:

Irish could be minority ethnic group here by 2050 - professor

http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/topstories/5233563?view=Eircomnet

Ireland’s native population could be in a minority by the middle of this century, the president of Dublin City University (DCU) will claim today. But large-scale immigration is still essential if we are to remain prosperous, Prof Ferdinand von Prondzynski will say.

Posted by Matra on December 17, 2005, 02:34 PM | #

From JB’s link:

this is based on some demographic projections which also suggest that people of Chinese origin may form the largest of the new ethnic groups.

Surely not. Last I heard there were only 50,000 Chinese in Ireland. Notice also Prof von Prondzynski’s emphasis on economic growth.

Posted by Phil on December 17, 2005, 02:54 PM | #

But large-scale immigration is still essential if we are to remain prosperous, Prof Ferdinand von Prondzynski will say

Economic growth. (chuckle)

That reminds me of a few passages from Jonathan Swift.

Posted by Svigor on December 17, 2005, 07:50 PM | #

Martin’s point is hard to dispute.

Lol.

Martin brought the whole fucking thing up in the first place.

That’s usually the way of it.  Someone mouths off about “anti-semites,” someone who pulls jewry off its pedestal and deals with it precisely as he would any other ethny responds, and the former ends up criticizing the latter for always harping on jews.

I’m very familiar with the pattern, I call it the GNXPerience.

Posted by Phil on December 17, 2005, 07:53 PM | #

Martin brought the whole fucking thing up in the first place

True.

Posted by Phil on December 17, 2005, 08:27 PM | #

It’s been a looooooooooong time since I paid to have anti-white sewage pumped into my home

So you don’t watch TV at all?

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on December 17, 2005, 09:20 PM | #

Svigor, I brought it up only to remark that it was useful and refreshing to note the evil influence of other ethnic groups, rather than always harping on about about the Jews.  The monomaniacs on this site then couldn’t resist the opportunity to beat the same old boring and inaccurate drum.

I find it EXTRAORDINARY that nobody but me has remarked on the House of Representatives’ action last night.  Are you guys all living in caves?

Posted by Svigor on December 17, 2005, 09:41 PM | #

It’s been a looooooooooong time since I paid to have anti-white sewage pumped into my home

Durning football season I watch maybe three hours a week.  Other than that and maybe an hour or two a month of Charlie Rose, I get the majority of my teevee from the few seconds I see it while warming up or turning off my DVD player.

I’m not counting movies as teevee of course.

Martin: I’m all for airing everyone’s dirty laundry, including that of my own group.

Posted by Erik Hart on December 17, 2005, 10:10 PM | #

Um,  I don’t know if most of you folks realize,  but it’s been a heck of a long time since most Irish-Americans have been Democrats.  My grandparents,  and most of their neighbors, switched teams when they moved to the suburbs in the 1950’s.  We have always been socially conservative, but around that time we also began to become economically conservative.  Judging by his name Mr. O’Dowd is most likely a more recent immigrant with leftist tendencies.  Mr. Hutchinson, you do not have to worry about the majority of Americans of Irish descent whose forbears came to this country over 150 years ago.  We DESPISE the nationalists, what theys stand for, their blind belief that they somehow represent us, and most of all, the destruction they’ve done to the populations of Northern Ireland and England.  This is not to say that there are not some here with insidious loyalties, but I can assure you they are confined to recent immigrants from the north and their offspring,  horribly misguided leftist “intellectuals”,  and some Democratic politicians, mostly in NY and Boston, who think this nonsense will win them votes.  The only liberal Irish politicians left are the ones who’ve been around for decades and their time is running out.  We are patriotic Americans,  thousands of whom are currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Heck, the head of the American forces in Iraq is named Casey.  Please do not let the treasonous actions of a relatively small number of ill-informed fools to tarnish your view of upwards of twenty million proud, loyal (and in many cases Anglophile)Americans.  And by the way,  most of us are on the side of O’Reilly, Buchanan, and Hannity on this issue, not some nobody named Niall.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on December 17, 2005, 10:43 PM | #

Erik, Im sorry, I don’t mean to denigrate the millions of great Irish-Americans, but only a segment of their political class. I have an Irish-American ex-wife as well as a Jewish one; she too is a good Republican, though she was a Democrat when I married her (one takes credit for these little achievements in life!)

Posted by Tournament of Champions on December 18, 2005, 12:00 AM | #

I find it EXTRAORDINARY that nobody but me has remarked on the House of Representatives’ action last night. 

HR.4437’s passage is IMO organized Jewry’s first major defeat during the Bush administration (sorry, I had to use the J word).
It could serve as a fascinating case study.

The other noteworthy legislative action is the non-renewal of the Patriot Act by the senate, which restores to Americans the right to not-to-be-disappeared-by-the-feds. In some sense not really news, since no more than a few dozen ppl even knew they had lost that basic legal protection.

Posted by The other guy on December 18, 2005, 09:07 AM | #

Well, this is interesting.  Another dog bites man story on MR.  Irish doing only what a lot of WASPs doing (UCC and UU are constantly screaming for immigration, hardly Irish) and it’s news here.  Of course soon enough the Jews get it.  It seems the Anglo master race has an attention span problem.

“Which Irish?  Do you mean the shit-hearts who slaughtered Scots-Irish and English men, women and children in the latter decades of the 20th century?  I trust not.”

Gee, the English have suffered so from the Irish.  Of course, no Irish men, women and children were slaughtered by the Brits in the time period mentioned.  Sorry you have a need for such self pity.  Maybe there is a 12 step program for you.

Posted by Guessedworker on December 18, 2005, 09:19 AM | #

So justify Claudy ... Enniskillin ... Warrington ... Omagh.

This is how it is.  Being a big, hard terror-man at your keyboard isn’t like actually doing the killing, is it?  If you are so full of anti-human hatred that you could kill a child for politics you may, by all means, argue with me as you do.  If you are not actually that psychotic, however, you are nonetheless a moral turd.

Defend killing children for Ireland or get off the blog.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 18, 2005, 09:56 AM | #

The Other Guy’s sole contribution to this site is perennial skulking hypersensitivity about perceived slights of the Irish Catholics.  That’s fine in the proper context, I suppose—he’s Irish Catholic, the Irish Catholics are fine folk, and it’s fine of course to defend your race and religion.  But there’s something wrong with this picture, as the saying goes ... and it’s that TOG can’t seem to see the broad purpose of this web-site.  The broad purpose of this site is not to argue about, or dwell on, narrow racial-ethnocultural disagreements and bitternesses within whitedom but to defend all of whitedom from the mortal danger which has reared its sickening race-murdering head the past two or three decades, that mortal peril which I call forced race-replacement but others here have their own names for.  TOG, we all here happen to like the Irish Catholics in the overall scheme of things but they have their faults, and if from time to time someone brings up an imperfection of theirs that’s not a signal that we’re fundamentally against them.  On the contrary—if we didn’t wish them well as part of the Euro folk whom we’re concerned about, we’d rejoice rather than express alarm at the typical Irish-Catholic Mary-Robinson-type stupidity, leftism, and extreme narrow-mindedness that’s made them put their country on the fact-track to complete race-replacement by 2020 (someone said 2050 but it’ll obviously happen decades before that, at the rate they’re going).  We criticize Scandinavians, Anglo-Saxons, Germans, Walloons, the French, the Dutch, and others for the same stupid, destructive behavior so stop being so hypersensitive about the Irish Catholics—or at least, if you want to continue being that way, try to contribute something additional to the site along with it, because all we get from you is your skulking, resentful, bitter, wounded hypersensitivity about the Irish Catholics.  Do please try to contribute something to this site other than your ever-vigilant surveillance in search of slights against the Irish Catholics.  Thank you.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 18, 2005, 11:18 AM | #

Correction:  in my comment above I wrote that MR.com’s broad purpose had to do with questioning that phenomenon which I refer to as race-replacement.  That was misleading, of course, in that MR.com came into being for many purposes, that (as I see it) being just one of them, one of many.  But I think the main point of my comment addressed to TOG was clear.

Posted by Matra on December 18, 2005, 01:01 PM | #

Since we’re naming ethnic groups opposed to border control we shouldn’t forget that others are involved in helping illegals. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops, Methodists groups, and, of course, the US Chamber of Commerce have all come out against HR 4437. Another conspicuous group promoting open borders is the AFL-CIO. I can understand why many capitalist money-grubbers and religious bleeding hearts support illegal immigration but it doesn’t seem to make sense for labour unions to do so. It’s not as if many Mexicans, Arabs, and others getting into the country are ever likely to be union members. Indeed if anything the Mexicans could almost be classified as scab labour.

Erik - An interesting post. I think you’re right about Irish Americans who live in the MidWest and the West but not about those in the North East. Although as I pointing out at the start it’s encouraging to see Congressman King of NY involved in HR 4437. I hope the tide is turning against Ted Kennedy crowd.

Posted by The other guy on December 19, 2005, 09:48 AM | #

Well, I seem to have hit a nerve.  Of course, the attack comes with a challenge to justify events.  Never would GW feel he has to justify anything.  No, Bloody Sunday was glorious.  The murder of Finucane and Nelson with RUC collusion, okay.  The blinding of Emma Groves, no problem.  Hey, if I were not so lazy, I could come up with hundreds.  Go ahead defend the British terror apparatus in Ireland.  Of course, there would be weasel words.  After all, when asked about Dresden, his answer was that that was a political decision.

Do I defend incidents where civilians were killed?  Absolutely not.  Does the death of one civilian in war invalidate a cause?  Well that question was not asked.

“Being a big, hard terror-man at your keyboard isn’t like actually doing the killing, is it? ”  Well Mr. GW, there is a lot of tough guy rhetoric thrown around here.  I certainly did not think of myself as a hard terror guy.  Actually, I am quite aware of the nature of this medium and try not to use “fighting words” because in the real world, unpleasantness might occur.  I am just trying to point out were I disagree and I did not think I was being offensive.  Suffice it to say calling someone names is easy on the web, but nothing you would do to my face.

Posted by The other guy on December 19, 2005, 09:52 AM | #

Ah, Scrooby is stalking me again.  There is no point in answering him as I have already outed him as an empty windbag.  After all, when he told someone else how he responds to Jewish immigration enthusiast and was challenged as to the fora where he made such corrections, we had no answer.

Posted by Guessedworker on December 19, 2005, 10:05 AM | #

ToG,

I expected you to duck out.  Finucane ... Dresden ...!  May I remind you that you are the one defending murder, which is why you attempt to turn it into retaliation, of course.  By that means you only expose the moral bankruptcy of your position.

I know it is bitter gall for you.  But you are wrong on this issue.  Terrorism is not war.  It is flat WRONG ... an absolute evil.  One day, perhaps, you will find the peace in your own heart to understand that.  But for now you are so eaten up with hatred, you can’t see and can’t argue straight.

Now, Fred has repeatedly invited you to enter into the blog’s wider activity.  If you can’t do that ... if all you can do is to spill racial hatred on the page, this is not the place for you.  I have banned an hate-filled Linderian a while back before his emotion could disfigure the blog.  It makes no difference whether it is hatred of Jews or of Scots-Irish and Englishman.  I will not allow hatred a place on this page.

Either get this message or leave.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 19, 2005, 10:13 AM | #

“After all, when [Scrooby] told someone else how he responds to Jewish immigration enthusiast and was challenged as to the fora where he made such corrections, we had no answer.”  (—TOG)

I don’t know what you’re taking about here, TOG.  Make yourself plain, please.  And while you’re at it get a life, because you’re becoming incredibly boring.

Posted by Matra on December 19, 2005, 12:55 PM | #

TOG - “Well, I seem to have hit a nerve”

The guy does irony!

Pat Finucane, “British terror apparatus”, Bloody Sunday (though not Bloody Friday or any other IRA massacre of civilians) - TOG sounds like a Ted Kennedy supporting card-carrying member of Amnesty International. Of course, that would not be unusual for an Irish American from New England.  No wonder he isn’t offended by the new lobby group’s decision to advocate illegal alien friendly legislation. No doubt if ol’ Pat Finucane, that great human rights lawyer,  were still around he’d be giving his support.

Here’s the website of the Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform.

This page aims to give a voice to the thousands of Irish undocumented whose stories often go unheard.

It’s true that we don’t often hear the voices of the Irish “undocumented workers” but surely we hear enough sad stories from Mexicans and others in the country illegally to make this superfluous. But then the idea behind this lobby appears to be to split Irish Americans from the rest of the European American community.

Posted by The other guy on December 20, 2005, 08:09 AM | #

If GW had read my post, I specifically do not defend murder.  No, it is you who defend murder, by refusing to address my questions.

“Terrorism is not war.  It is flat WRONG ... an absolute evil.”  Dresden was war ergo gentlemanly conduct.  Like I posted on another thread, if the Germans had actually landed , there is no atrocity you would not have defended. 

Somebody questions you and all of a sudden you get vicious.  It is your blog, go ahead ban me.  The facts remain, England in Ireland was theft and oppression and the reaction was resistance.  You can rant against me and call me what you will. We both know you would not do it to my face.

If you are the lads stopping race replacement, the West is dead.

Posted by The other guy on December 20, 2005, 08:20 AM | #

Ah Mr. Scrooby forgets.  On another thread, someone mentioned how Jews were for immigration to Western countries.  Scrooby replied how he told them there should be unlimited immigration to Israel. 

Well, I immediately asked him where and when he told the Jews what to do, Vermont, having no dearth of Jewish residents.Nothing of course was heard from Mr. Courage.

Hey, maybe I am wrong.  Maybe he is active up there confronting the issues in public.  Come on Scroob.  You have areal opportunity to injure me here.  If I find out you actually walk the walk, I’ll need a pacemaker.

Posted by The other guy on December 20, 2005, 08:40 AM | #

“No doubt if ol’ Pat Finucane, that great human rights lawyer, were still around”

Thanks to government sponsored murder, we shall never know.

Posted by Guessedworker on December 20, 2005, 09:24 AM | #

To what ancient and settled theft are you referring to justify Claudy, Warrington etc?

The Troubles are not really hard to understand.  Unless you actually wanted to ethnically cleanse the north of Scotsmen today - now - you would have no case for deserting normal, peaceful democratic means.  Just so in the 1970’s.  The fact that desertion of peaceful means was chosen then may have its roots in historical precedence in the south.  But the fundamental driving force was the racial hatred that the Catholic population in the north (mean IQ 93 - not an irrelevance) felt for its Scots neighbours.  That is why moderation was drowned by the sound of gunfire.  The people from whom the IRA sprang wanted gunfire, not politics.

Far away as you are from the events in Ireland and in my country, you still exhibit the pathological racial hatred of your people.  Look in the mirror.  Ask yourself whether you can give it up now, or whether it is too central to your being.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 20, 2005, 10:00 AM | #

TOG, what I think I may have said was “Turnabout is fair play” is a good tactic to use when debating hypocrites like Jewish neocons who want race-replacement for the U.S. and every other white country but not for Israel—the Max Boots, Jonah Goldbergs, David Frums, Ben Wattenbergs, and John Podhoretzes of the world. 

I’m afraid this is the last time I’m going to have anything to do with you, TOG.  Your sense of personal inadequacy is so strong and deep, your only interest in coming here is to attack those whose posts intensify that sense of inadequacy, apparently in some sort of effort to make those posters stop posting comments because their comments cause you to feel so inadequate—comments having nothing whatsoever to do with you, which is really amazing. 

Others come here, believe it or not, to actually discuss issues, not to try to ward off overwhelming feelings of their own personal inadequacy or to deal with yours. 

You’re also, to put if frankly, just too stupid to deal with—you never manage to grasp what the issue is that’s being discussed, but always instead find a way to deviate toward some sort of reflection of or manifestation of your own inadequacy.  Your inadequacies don’t interest me in the slightest or, I dare say, anyone else here. 

So long, TOG.  As Phil said in another context, I don’t have time to spend debating the double digiters.  See ya!

Posted by Svigor on December 20, 2005, 05:55 PM | #

I find it EXTRAORDINARY that nobody but me has remarked on the House of Representatives’ action last night.  Are you guys all living in caves?

http://www.vdare.com/mann/051219_hr4437.htm

Posted by The other guy on December 21, 2005, 08:40 AM | #

I hope Scrooby really means it this time and is finished stalking me.  This is a good idea.  After all, if someone outs you for the gasbag you are, it would be a good idea to shut up.

I knew the weasel words would come.  He was quite up front about how he told Jews off and now he is sliding away.  Was anything else expected?

Posted by The other guy on December 21, 2005, 08:55 AM | #

Ah, GW.  He never anwers, but demands explantions and makes unwarranted accusations.

But finally, he gives away his real attitude. “(mean IQ 93 - not an irrelevance).”  For such a dim group, with no resources they did pretty well against a modern force with all the advantages.

Anyway, I know what you are.  I am sure you tell crude hunger striker jokes (which I have heard from your type who did not know where I stood).

No it is you who are the hater, you who are “Being a big, hard terror-man at your keyboard.”

Posted by Guessedworker on December 21, 2005, 11:05 AM | #

What I am is very simple to understand.  I am an English nationalist of Conservative outlook.  I look upon Irish murderousness in the cause of political change with horror and disdain.  I cannot respect those who do otherwise and assume that shortfall to be because they are infected by hatred.

As to your supposed questions, I know not what relevance Dresden has to the horrors perpetrated by your kinfolk, beyond it serving as a straw which you might grasp.  I don’t see why I should allow you to so widen the conflict as to escape from the issue we are actually debating ... which is Irish hatred.

Here’s another question, ToG.  Click on this link.  Scroll almost half-way down to the heading, Multiculturalism.  Assuming that this doesn’t mean or entirely mean that Sinn Fein is all for making Ireland brown - though it might, I suppose - one can only read it as a commitment to seat anti-sectarianism within the general EU and member-state drive for racial harmony.  Very well, let us take this as an honourable ambition on Adams’ part.  Does it not call upon you, as a supporter of terrorism in Northern Ireland and England, to set aside your hatred, as best you may, and make the moral journey to join with the rest of mankind?

Posted by Matra on December 21, 2005, 12:55 PM | #

Guessedworker - You are right about the Troubles being easy to understand. They are an ethnic dispute between Ulster Irish Catholics and Ulster Scots Protestants with the Republic and the UK mainland being dragged in. But a lot of outsiders, particularly in the US, even after all these decades, think it’s a battle between the English and the “Eye-rish”. Many seem to quite genuinely believe the English (both politicians and people) want to stay for imperialist reasons and some are even so dense as to believe the British government has fought tooth and nail against the IRA! 

British troops were sent into Ulster in 1969 to prevent a breakdown in order that would’ve favoured the Protestants who at the time had more control of the state and most of the privately owned firearms. Needless to say the Catholics welcomed them - at first - and unsurprisingly the first rioters shot dead by the British army were Protestants on the Shankill Road. The role of the army in Ulster has never been to crush the IRA - that could’ve been done rather easily. Their job has been to maintain order whilst the politicians in London try to get their counterparts in Ulster to agree to some settlement. That has almost always meant putting pressure on the Protestant side - the abolition of the Stormont government, trying to push Sunningdale down their throats, Thatcher’s Anglo-Irish accord in 1985, and even the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement. All of these measures had the support of Catholics and were opposed, often violently, by the Protestants. Even on terrorism - despite occasional collusion between loyalists and local members of the security forces - the security forces were far more successful combatting Loyalists than Republicans as is shown by the arrest and conviction rates for the two sides between the early 70s and 90s. For every case of an Ulster Protestant member of the security forces helping loyalist gunmen there were dozens of cases in which they infiltrated these paramilitary groups and eventually put many of their members behind bars. But I wouldn’t expect know nothings like TOG to understand such matters. They seem to have given up on white America. It’s just so much easier to adopt an “Irish” identity and to hate the imperialist English than to take on blacks, Hispanics and the political correctness brigades.

Posted by Matra on December 21, 2005, 01:02 PM | #

Incidentally, the government of the Irish Republic also favours a US approach to immigration that helps the “undocumented”.

http://www.westernpeople.ie/news/story.asp?j=28613

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 21, 2005, 02:28 PM | #

“But I wouldn’t expect know nothings like TOG to understand such matters. They seem to have given up on white America. It’s just so much easier to adopt an ‘Irish’ identity and to hate the imperialist English than to take on blacks, Hispanics and the political correctness brigades.”  (—Matra)

Whence the advent of monstrosities coming out of the state of Massachusetts like the Kennedy family dynasty, Congressmen Edward Markey, the late Congressman Tip O’Neill, leftwing Boston Irish Catholic commentator Mark Shields, loudmouth and obnoxious radical left-wing Irish Catholic comedienne Rosie O’Donnell (who’s from Long Island, not Boston, but it’s actually all the same with this crowd) and others too numerous to mention.

Posted by The other guy on December 22, 2005, 12:37 PM | #

To summarize:

GW believes Irish Republicanism is only motivated by hatred and Britain in Ireland has in the recent troubles committed no atrocities.

I understand Mr. Scrooby from the American policy of deinstitutionalization.  I am surprised that that policy is practiced in the mommy country.  GWs viciousness at any disagreement is nuts.

“They seem to have given up on white America. It’s just so much easier to adopt an “Irish” identity and to hate the imperialist English than to take on blacks, Hispanics and the political correctness brigades.”

Whatever Matra may think about me, his inferences are wrong.  One thing I know however is that Matra is not taking “on blacks, Hispanics and the political correctness brigades.”  He is just posting on a blog.  If I am wrong about this, please tell me where and when you have taken them on and I shall be happy to apologize.

When oh when will Mr. Scrooby finally ignore me?

The link to Eirefirst is not working correctly.

This is it for me.  There is no point.  Your articles are not without interest but your little anglo lovefest is silly.  At the end of the day you are just talking and wanking.

Posted by Matra on December 22, 2005, 07:43 PM | #

Whatever Matra may think about me, his inferences are wrong.

My inferences were mostly directed at the Irish, especially Irish Americans in the North East, not you personally. However, because you (unlike at least one other Irish American who posted on this thread) refused to discuss the matter at hand I assumed you’d no problems with the actions of Irish American lobby groups and politicians.  If you have evidence to suggest that I’m wrong about the Irish being prone to leftism especially on immigration and racial issues by all means post it. Believe it or not I’d be happy to be proved wrong.

One thing I know however is that Matra is not taking “on blacks, Hispanics and the political correctness brigades.” He is just posting on a blog.  If I am wrong about this, please tell me where and when you have taken them on and I shall be happy to apologize.

Man, you’re really seriously hung up on the individuals posting here.  Almost every single post of yours on every thread has been about individuals here rather than the topics at hand.  Creepy!  Since you know most of us are anonymous and thus anything we say we’re doing beyond blogging can’t be verified why would you even ask?  Unless, of course, your real objective is to ascertain info that would allow you to “out” us (SPLC?).

This is it for me

That sounds familiar.

Your articles are not without interest but your little anglo lovefest is silly.

Unlike you, an American (I think), carrying a chip on your in behalf of Irishmen everywhere!

Other than a half-hearted couple of words here and there you haven’t seriously addressed any of the topics. If you also believe in things like border control then why not express your views or give us info or anecdotes about what’s happening where you live? It would be far more interesting than crying about other posters being too Anglo.

Posted by Matra on March 01, 2006, 02:30 PM | #

An update on the efforts of the Irish Lobby For Immigration Reform to amend HR 4437 and to get the Kennedy/McCain guest worker bill passed.

http://www.emigrant.ie/ny/local.htm

The starting point for the committee debate next week is Senator Specter’s “Chairman’s Mark” which is an amalgam of reform legislation authored by Senators Cornyn and Kyl, McCain and Kennedy, and Senator Hagel. According to the ILIR website (http://www.irishlobbyusa.org) while Senator Specter’s “Chairman’s Mark has many positive aspects, for the moment it also contains a modified “report to deport” treatment for undocumented immigrants. If made into law, undocumented people in the US would have to go back home to their country of origin and apply for a new visa to return, a process that could take years with no guarantee of application approval. Pro-immigrant advocates, the ILIR maintains, will have to fight hard to have that bill amended positively, so that the final product is more proactive in terms of letting undocumented people stay in this country and work towards their permanent residency.
“It’s a critical time for people looking for immigration reform,” Butterfield said. “We have to keep the pressure on these elected officials and make our voices heard. Remember, it’s an election year and they know that people going to the polls in November will remember how they voted on this bill in March.”

Meanwhile the government of the Irish Republic has given €30000 ($36000+) to the Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform

http://foreignaffairs.gov.ie/Press_Releases/20060123/1963.htm

So it isn’t just Mexico that is trying to change US immigration law to suit its interests.

Posted by Mike on April 11, 2006, 12:04 AM | #

I’m a middle aged Irish American born to Irish parents. Because of my Irsh name, appearance, and everyone knowing I was full Irish by virtue of my parentage,  (few Irish Americans around me due to geography and dispersion, etcetera)  and they knew/know that I knew that they knew, etcetera.  I can tell you that it is a very strong social disadvantage in every way—-up to and including mob action. And it is not hidden.  I have always thought and still do that Irish Americans are America’s Jews. (“Jews’ in the sense of the classic outgroup.)  But very interesting to hear how great America (i.e. Americans) is.  To me the’re ingrates and sheeplike. George Washington said everyone should tip their cap when they encounter an Irishman.  From Washington to Bush.  It doesn’t take a scholar to see America is not well.

Posted by mungo on August 24, 2007, 07:01 PM | #

One has to remember that the roman catholic church is the most bigoted and ant-semetic organisation ever. Fact is the corrupt kennedy clan where up to their necks in dodgy dealings and nepotistic practices plus had an undeniable chip on their shoulders not to mention taking usa into an unpopular paternalistic chauvanist war.
thick boston micks to a man and all passivly buggered by the local priest like they where brought up to. if one visits west belfast today (r catholic ghetto ) one will see the palestinian flag flying high - in the protestant east of the city the occasionl star of david is evident.
remember the inquisition and its nazi catholic ethos, and remember the reformation the open bible and the requirement for every man and woman to be educated and then decide for themselves - there is a vast diffefence. which do you prefer?
the roman catholic church beget hitler, de valera and the southern irish supported him and openly instigated anti jewish and anti protestant pogroms in that place that reduced the number of irish protestants and jews from 20% population to 3% population between 1920 and 1940. a fact. 

mungo

Posted by mungo on August 24, 2007, 07:25 PM | #

would also add that the majority of americans with roots in the island of ireland are methodists, presbyterians and baptists (ulster scots) who came to north american in the 18c and are found in the southern states as opposed to the more recent influx of RC micks who arrived much later and never integrated but stck togeter like scared sheep at night
.
The first group where the chaps (and gals of course) who wrote, printed and fought for the constitution and formed the free, liberal and open demopcracy the usa is today. ie. theydefined the “american character”.

the latter never integrated, formed cliques and hung on in a scared cluster in the north east, hence hang ups today. you may still find em in an ” irish pub” just down the street, dinking a “pitcher” and watching “big brother” of some other naff tv show. they tend to like english premier league soccer for some reason - so much for irish culture !

whinging paddys!

ya gotta laugh.

mungo

Posted by Brian Reynolds on February 17, 2008, 02:28 PM | #

For anyone with an intestest with Irish American culture, you may find the following website of interest.

www.irishamericanstoryproject.com

Regards,

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 17, 2008, 06:58 PM | #

If they’d just stick to Irish jigs, leprechauns, and their charming lilting banter and gift-of-the-gab, Brian, I’d like ‘em fine.  The problem arises when they like things like Gerry Adams, the Kennedys, and open borders.

Posted by Matra on March 19, 2008, 12:13 AM | #

Bertie Ahern and the Irish government are getting some criticism in Ireland and from the Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform (ILIR) for not pushing the lobby’s plan for an illegal alien amnesty. Also the word ‘amnesty’ isn’t being used much these days by the Irish-American lobby; instead, they talk about a ‘bilateral agreement’ with the US. That’s good news as the Irish lobby in the US had been hitching its wagon to the general amnesty movement in the US. They mustn’t be very hopefully about that at present.

This article explains some of it and has some good letters at the bottom from Irish readers who don’t seem too sympathetic to their countrymen in the US.

Posted by michael spendelow on November 01, 2010, 02:27 AM | #

I have to smile when I see some one refer to them selves as “Irish American”. 
  The only group who can make this claim are those that are actually BORN IN IRELAND and them take up residence in the USA.

  Those who have Irish parents but are actually born in the USA are one hundred per cent AMERICAN !

  What is so hard to understand about that ? But then, we are talking about people of Irish descent !!

Posted by Irish Anti-Commie on November 03, 2010, 02:30 PM | #

I have to smile when I see some one refer to them selves as “Irish American”. 
The only group who can make this claim are those that are actually BORN IN IRELAND and them take up residence in the USA.

Those who have Irish parents but are actually born in the USA are one hundred per cent AMERICAN !

What is so hard to understand about that ? But then, we are talking about people of Irish descent !!
Michael Spendelow

I suppose you believe blacks are “one hundred per cent American” too, not African-American. No doubt you consider anchor babies American too. What about WASPs or Anglo-Americans? Should those terms be banned for those not with English born parents.

Americans with an Irish born parent or grandparent are entitled claim Irish citizenship. An Irishman named Seamus O’Shaughnessy with two Irish parents goes back to Ireland as a baby and grows up with an Irish accent. Would he still “one hundred per cent American”?

An American with one Irish grandparent is far more Irish than a black child of Nigerian asylum seekers who just happened to born in Ireland in my opinion. And an American with eight Irish-born great-grandparents but not a single grandparent or parent born in Ireland is entitled to call himself Irish-American, as he is of 100% Irish stock, even if he or she not entitled to Irish citizenship.

Now do you “understand”? But you are American so maybe you can’t.

Posted by Irish Anti-Commie on November 03, 2010, 04:28 PM | #

The start of the second sentence in second paragraph from my comment above should start ‘An American born man named Seamus O’Shaunessy with two Irish born parents .....’.