Multi-racialism, more commonly know by its politically correct euphemism “multi-culturalism”, is a social policy which has been implemented in Europe without the consent of European peoples. More relevant to Ireland First it appears to have been implemented by the Irish Government without any forethought as to the consequences. Without any study of places such as the United States in which the policy has already been tried. This, implementing a political policy which involves social change on a massive scale, the consequences of which could be good or bad for generations, perhaps for ever, to any thoughtful mind, is recklessness on a magnificent scale. May I be so blunt as to say that only an idiot would put in place multi-racialism without any forethought, without any consultation with scientific experts or more importantly, without even asking indigenous people? Yes, only a magnificent idiot would do that.
Anytime I have come across questions of multi-racialism being raised I have heard those questions immediately dismissed by liberals. This breed of despicable and intolerant individual holds that anyone who is opposed to multi-racialism is “racist” but this view is a naive one for the issue is far more complicated than they realise and opposition, at least my opposition, is not about so-called “racism”.
There are many questions which need to be asked about this important subject and when we are finished asking those questions we will find that multi-racialism is a) right for Irish society or b) wrong for Irish society. I will begin this important questioning process which thus far has been ignored by our society. I am not attempting to cover all the ground rather I am just trying to stimulate thought and discussion which has thus far been stifled by naive journalists and politicians.
What happens to multi-racial societies?
First we should ask ourselves what happens to multi-racial societies; more specifically: do they flourish, decline or totally collapse? Liberals usually don’t even get to this point because they dismiss discussion of the issue off the bat as “racist” but I think more intelligent readers will agree that this first question is an important one and one which should have been asked many years ago. For the answer perhaps we can look across the pond.
The United States has been a multi-racial society for a while now and hasn’t yet collapsed but for all we know it may collapse in the future as a direct result of multi-racialism – this is something we must keep in mind. So has it declined or flourished in any way? I have no idea but as I wrote, this is a good question and it should have been asked before implementing the policy. Maybe it would be wise to pose this question to the Americans? The liberals reading will no doubt be yelling “racist!” at this point.
Another question we can ask is this: do multi-racial societies divide in any way, along racial lines for example, and is that a bad thing? It is reasonable to presume that such societies do divide along racial lines. Organisms, including humans, instinctively seek out organisms which are like themselves and thus form groups of similar individuals. Any teacher will attest to the phenomenon in which students sort themselves into groups of quiet studious students, rowdy class clowns and out-casts and so on in the class room. Given all this it is reasonable to assume that people will sort them selves into racial groups in a multi-racial society. I would expect to see racial groups assorted into geographic units in a long established multi-racial society and if I were to look at the U.S. I am confident that is what I would find. From this we must wonder if there are any negative consequence of that sorting and we must also wonder if, because of those negative consequences, a multi-racial society is best avoided. This is not a “racist” question. It is a wise question and I will attempt to demonstrate that.
Suppose we were in an Ireland of the past in which there were no immigrants and one day an idea struck us. The idea being the creation of a multi-racial society. The wise among us would consider the consequences of introducing such a change to our traditional homeland. They would reflect on the idea and discuss it. Now suppose we could not imagine the consequences of the change no matter how hard we tried and had no evidence from other countries which already implemented the idea, of the following two options which should we choose?
1) Implement the change and just blindly hope for the best or
2) Leave things as they are just in case there are negative, irreversible and devastating consequences
I would invoke, as any sane man would, the precautionary principle and choose option two. The precautionary principle is thus: If the consequences of an action are unknown do not take that action because the consequences may be devastating. This is simple, common sense, prudence.
I have asked the Government if they investigated the state of affairs in multi-racial societies like the U.S. or Britain before allowing immigrants from all corners of the globe flood our homeland and in response I received an email which did not answer the question. From this I must assume that our Government did not consult those who knew about the consequence of multi-racialism. It thus seems our Government is unfamiliar which the common sense notion of prudence. They have it seems, implemented a social policy without any idea as to the ramifications – this I believe has been an act of magnificent stupidity.
What characterises multi-racial societies?
Not long ago I read a paper (Gerald McCallister et al.) written by political scientists from a U.S. university which found that societies which our not racially homogeneous have an increased incidence of within-state conflict compared to racially homogeneous societies. I bet the powers-that-be do not know this and I suspect they would not care if it was pointed out. Personally I do not wish to live in a society which is characterised by racial conflict and I must object to multi-racialism on this one thing alone. As I have asked myself this question so must the rest of society.
Sentiment towards Culture
There are those who see the building of mosques and the introduction of other elements of foreign culture offensive or at the very least, deeply saddening. These people see their culture eroding before their very eyes and they have a right to feel regret this but unfortunately, liberals immediately shoot these feelings down, calling such people intolerant and hateful. I find it abominable that people who have a love of their culture and are saddened to see it changing drastically have their feelings ignored and I feel it is time their sentiments were acknowledged. So another question is this: Do we want our culture influenced substantially by the culture immigrants bring with them? And with this question may we remember that it is acceptable to resent our culture changing – I insist on this being so.
In Summary
Liberals dismiss those who object to multi-racialism as “racist” but this is naive because there are many questions which need to be asked some of which are:
- Do multi-racial societies flourish, decline or totally collapse?
- Do multi-racial societies divide in any way, along racial lines for example, and is that a bad thing?
- If we cannot conceive of the consequences of multi-racialism should we invoke the precautionary principle?
- Do we want to live in a society characterised by racial conflict?
- Do we want our culture influenced substantially by the culture which immigrants bring with them?
I more or less just posed these questions without probing too deeply but that was my intention. Importantly we decided that resenting the influence of other cultures is acceptable. Perhaps more importantly we decided that implementing a multi-racial society without knowing the consequences is imprudent and magnificently stupid.
1: Gerald McCallister et al., Ethnic Homogeneity and Interstate Conflict. Univ. of North Texas.
while you carp on that any ‘liberal’ will be claiming the points you make are racist..I’d like to disagree with this point…I believe that your veneer of concern in the pointless, meanderings which you posit as questions reveal nothing more than the usual posturing of the nazi in hiding, why not reveal yourself for the Hitlerite scum which you truly are…don’t beat around the bush…show your true face
Firstly you have no way to determine whether or not my words are a veneer or not and you are very wrong to presume that my concern is a mere veneer. Secondly, my questions are not pointless and nor are they meanderings; they are relevant questions – I suggest you look up “pointless” and “meander” in a dictionary. Allow me to give you some advise: your entire comment serves only to belittle yourself.
Here is a definition of “pointless” for your convenience:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pointless?r=1
Sense 3 is the relevant one and as can be seen my questions do indeed have a point. The point being to determine if multi-racialism is desirable. How is that done? We determine if multi-racialism is desirable by asking questions of the consequences of multi-racialism and determining our feelings regarding those consequences. Hopefully this clears up your confusion as to the meaning of “pointless”. As for “meandering”, well the questions are regarding the direct consequences of multi-racialism so I think you have made a bad word choice. Maybe you are not used to intelligent thought and asking (by the measure of ordinary things) deep questions appears to be meandering to yourself.
Well said Liam. As far as I am aware there is no Nazi party in Ireland. It goes to show how people like Frank Rafferty are educated by tabloid sensationalism when they are reduced to buzz words like “Nazi”. I suppose it is the only way to oppose what most people see as truth.
Many people I know boycott businesses who shun Irish workers. They must be Nazi’s. When arguments are made in a tabloid like fashion it shows how far our education system is failing some.
The tone of Frank Rafferty’s comment shows how much venom and hate the Liberal left have for freedom of speech and opposition. It has an ANC tone to it. If people like that had their way, any opposition to the colonisation of Ireland would be dealt with by ‘necklacing’.
Left wing Liberals promote and tolerate a great many things. Whilst many make fortunes off bogus asylum claims and live in ivory towers. They tolerate YOU being out of work. They tolerate YOU living in a polarised multicultural society. They tolerated YOU being isolated in a community of non nationals.
They are neither humanitarians, nor sincere. They are part of a booming cottage industry which is designed to make money. FGM Pamela is a good example of how these people can extract huge sums of money from the taxpayer.
I would just like to ask what is the point of this article? Other than demonstrating to the world that you don’t like the thought of “foreignors” living in “your” country.
The fact is people have been immigrating from one country to another since the beginning of human existence. The Irish are a prime example; we have taken root in more countries than can be mentioned here.
To your question of racial divisions. If you look at it that way, we might as well all stay within the confines of our counties.
People from south county Dublin are a completely different culture to people living in rural Mayo for example.
Furthermore, given the current economic situation (alot of which was the doing of our own, before you begin), the majority of our current youth are being forced to immigrate abroad. If they don’t they will have no jobs. Foreign immigrants in Ireland are not stealing their jobs. The university graduates can hardly be expected to stay in Ireland to work in a shop.
Which raises another point, what races of people are you against letting into Ireland? Are they only people who have a different colour skin than you? People from Eastern Europe? Or is it just everybody?
I shall presume that you are too ignorant to realise the celtic tiger would never have happened if it weren’t for the enormous grants we received from Europe. That the majority of companies which provide work in Ireland are international companies.
Are you proposing that we shut ourselves off from the world, allow nobody “foreign” in, and what? We spend the rest of eternity marrying our cousins, and growing potatoes?
I enjoy reading a good controversial argument, but as a whole your article lacks any sort of credibility, there isn’t one concrete argument put forward, and there isn’t even emotional appeal. It would merely be exhausting to hold a debate with you, because you are presumably a stubborn, old man set in your ways and oblivious to how the world and our economy works. Go back to the farm and learn how to draft a real argument.
By the way, don’t bother replying, in fact just go ahead and delete the comment. I just discovered you existed, and in a fit of disgust had to write something. I will have forgotten about this by tomorrow, and would rather not receive any emails that you’ve replied. So once read, please delete, Go rabh mile.
Laura, you’re an empty vessel in any case so you aren’t worth responding to.
I think you will say anything Laura.
“I just discovered you existed, and in a fit of disgust had to write something”
LOL….comical comment! Laura sounds like our typical liberal feminist multi-cult devotee.Her kind are a virus that Ireland needs to shake off in a hurry
I am delighted to have found this website, and I look forward to more action happening on it in the future, especially any meet-ups.
Good work guys,
Mary
I think Liams conerns about multicultrual societies are well founded. I would also like to include the point that what will future generations make of this crazy gamble we are taking today, I doubt they will thank us for the ghettoes that will be in every urban city, where crime comes like strawberries and cream..we are only a population of 4.5 million, how long before the dail is full of Afican decendance and we end up like the ‘utopia’ in South Africa with a rape every 29 seconds??, Regrettably historians will look at the present Irish generation as the greatest bunch of cowards which where effortless mauable to believe anything the press/ politicians told them, propaghanda did not die in WW2, the same techniques are being used by the left today…
As Irish African, I find it quite funny when the Irish start talking about “race” and “foreigners” in their country while Ulster is ruled by a “foreign” country. This Victorian nonsense about “free speech” was actually invented in “Liberal” Britain – a brutal empire.
Funny enough those who are using “race” and “multi culturalism” as a venue to fight “the liberal left” are the ones close to National Socialism – an oxymoron since “socialism” or “liberalism” is always transnational and impossible to nationalize however much you hate “liberalism” while living in a “liberal state”. This is yet another Anglo America “right wing” dumb rhetoric making the rounds.
Hitler’s main ideology is ironically Anglo American eugenics (a Victorian invention), his philosopher was Madison Grant, an American not Karl Marx of the “German Ideology”; his technical “consultants” was IBM, an American company; he is Austrian/Prussian from a multicultural background (not German or “genuine”), his rhetoric is borrowed from the “purity of blood” myth of the Spanish reconquest. So much for nationalism and us and them. The people echoing this American “racism without racists” anti multiculturalism here are basically doing the something by recasting the victim status. Opposing immigration, multiculturalism and “liberal left” from a country that was described in the 9th century by the abbot of Reichenau in these words: “the Irish are now so used to exile that it is part of their heritage” is rather silly.
The simple fact is that if you oppose “multiculturalism” or “multiracialism” you are not only opposing the inclusive state the “liberal leftist” founding fathers of the Irish state spelt out in the Easter Proclamation (and were executed here in Ireland for). You are also tarnishing the vision of people like Frederick Douglas who visited Ireland in 1853 and also Daniel O’ Connell abolition horn liberation theology.
Finally Ireland has always been a “multicultural” society. The proof is clearly inscribed in the place where Irishness was first invented – Louven in Belgium (nationalism is always transnational, you can ask the French because they invented it)
“From the early middle ages, migration to and from Ireland shaped her culture. In different parts of the country, people with Norse, Norman, Gaelic and other ancestry counted themselves as “Irish” (Inscription in the Louven Institute for Ireland in Europe http://www.louvaininstitute.com/)
This is why the so called “debates” on migration or ethnicity (never mind the Anglo American idea of “race”) are, to be honest, stupid and are based on British Victorian assumptions that since the 19th century have never been proven. So, I am sure everyone here can understand why I get irritated by people who sound like Phil from East Enders calling me a “foreigner”. Never mind the fact that the Cork accent is Caribbean in origin or the fact that St. Patricks was an immigrant.
You are scarcely worth the effort it would take to respond to your gibberish.
Having said that, I will respond to the silly, juvenile claim that Ireland has always been multi-cultural. Firstly, you either 1) don’t understand the word, 2) are dull or 3) are merely engaging in a tiresome liberalistic word game.
I will help you understand.
Consider:
A) Ireland of the pre-1990s
B) Ireland of the 1990s to the present day
Compare A to B, that is, list the characteristics of A in relation to B. You will see differences between the two and it is the differences (the characteristics of B in relation to A), which are encapsulated by the terms multi- racialism, culturalism, ethnicism.
But I am not educating you, am I?
Grow up and take the following advice with you: No one believes the puerile claim the Ireland has always been “multicultural”, and scarcely anyone buys the implicit implication of the claim so try something else.
Festus,
‘Finally Ireland has always been a “multicultural” society. ‘
No, it hasn’t. Read ‘Origins of the British’ by the geneticist Stephen Oppenheimer. Ireland and parts of britain were settled 8,000 to 10,000 years ago by people from the Basque regions. Later migrations/invasions had a tiny impact on the overall gene pool. This idea is cherished by liberals and yet has no factual basis whatsoever.
The second point I would like to make is that demographics is destiny. The founders of the Irish state intended Ireland to be Irish. If Ireland were filled with more Africans it would be more African and less Irish. Culture cannot be absorbed that easily and racial genetics does matter. African Americans had plenty of time to adopt the ways of the American whites. Blacks today dominate Detroit demograpically and it looks exactly like an African city. A once nice, livable city has been more or less destroyed. Same for Gary (Indiana), South Central LA, Johannesburg etc. Go on, open your eyes, look them up in Google images.
Have the victorian notions of ‘race’ and eugenics been disproven? You should read (I doubt you’ll bother) ‘Why Race matters’ by Michael J. Levin, ‘Understanding Human History’ by Michael Hart, ‘The Bell curve’ by Murray and Herrnstein and any of Richard Lynn’s books. Please don’t make unsubstantiated comments unless you can support what you say with proper fact-based evidence and I’m not talking about the rubbish that passes for journalism on these issues in the Irish Times or any other mainstream fishwrap.