IRISH SAVANT: Ruled by traitors

 

Ruled by traitors

Posted by By Savant March 2, 2022

http://www.irishsavant.net/?p=1858

That the West is ruled by traitors has been a constant refrain of mine. That’s not hyperbole, I mean ruled literally by traitors. Merriam-Webster offers two definitions of the word:

1: one who betrays another’s trust or is false to an obligation or duty

2: one who commits treason

There can be no greater betrayal of a people’s trust than that of opening the gates to the city while the citizenry sleeps. Most Western nations have been or are in the process of being destroyed by uncountable numbers (again, literally) of unassimilable and resentful if not outright hostile foreigners that entered through the gates opened by the traitors while the citizens metaphorically slept.

Watch this very short video from the always wonderful Morgoth’s Review - http://nwioqeqkdf.blogspot.com/ - on Britain’s National Census for 2021 and the scale of the treachery becomes apparent.

“For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.” – Marcus Tullius Cicero January 3, 106 BC – December 7, 43 BC

 

The bitter truth about multiculturalism

September 29, 2012/85 Comments/in Costs of Multiculturalism, Political Correctness /by Peter Stuyvesant

 

 

Heinz Buschkowsky, mayor of the Berlin problem-district Neukölln (41% immigrants), has written a book that will unleash a lot of discussion. Bild [a leading German tabloid] has published exclusive excerpts:

At this point my case is more about the daily powerlessness in a world where shoppers walk through the supermarket, collect products, pass the cashier without paying, and make clear to the cashier what will happen to her when she calls the police.

There, where five persons walk abreast over the sidewalk and all others should make way. There, where possibly everyone is gazing into nothingness before the traffic light to avoid trouble with the streetfighters in the car next to you and being asked: “Do you have a problem? We can resolve it here and now!”
There, where small children are asked for a ‘road tribute’ or a ‘consumption tax’ for the use of the playground. Where young women are being asked if they wish to have a ‘fertilisation process’. Where people throw their softdrink over the head of the bus driver when he asks for your bus ticket. This simply puts you in a bad mood, just by reading it.


As long as we pursue a policy of all-understanding and all-forgiving and make clear to the people that we are not thinking about changing these conditions, because this neglect of manners belong to ‘cultural identity’ and ‘openness to the world,’ we will only find lukewarm partners for a genuine successful  integration policy.



Usually it is the elderly who suffer under this territorial behavior, or the very young who find out who has the final say on the streets.

There is a demonstrative neglect of manners such as courtesy or consideration — the simplest rules for how to behave toward others in the public. That is the issue which makes people think: Where am I at the moment? Is this still my town, my homeland?

That’s why at some point many come to the conclusion: I don’t like these people. If they don’t want to live together with me, I also don’t want to live together with them.

These are not excessive incidents, but the goal of the “top dogs” is all about demonstarting that the Germans have nothing to say; they don’t care about the rules at all. They are not completely without success.

For example, in the Sonnenallee of Neukölln cars are often parked three abreast. The first car is on the sidewalk, the second in the normal parking spot, the third on the street, i.e., in the first driving lane.When the drivers are unlucky, a car stops in the second lane and the driver loudly starts talking with the people who are drinking thea or coffee in front of the cafe. Don’t make the mistake of honking or getting out of your car. You might end up in an uncomfortable situation.

Any problem that you might have can be ‘solved’ directly [i.e., by confrontation]; or when you think that you have something to say about manners as a German, they will show you that you can lick their boots. The police patrols  don’t have a different experience.

Police officers are careful not to come within arms’ length of a person. It could happen that suddenly a cap or other things will be taken. Loud  talking starts, which is unintelligible for anybody, but nobody knows whose car it is and the police should just proceed and don’t bother them.

All this is happening with an agressive posture and with an agressive tone. If the situation gets out of control, the police have to call for reinforcements and really must restore the situation, there may well be physical violence.

Afterwards it can happen that the police officers are questioned by their team leader—asked if they have ever heard about the ground rule of proportionate conduct. Asked if they were aware that resistance was to be expected. Asked whether they are aware of how such conduct will be judged by the judicial system.

These judicial procedures usually end up with the acquittal of the traffic ruffian, in which case the police officers should be happy that they have not been convicted. Many judges are not even inclined to let the police do their government-assigned work of regulating traffic; they are not inclined to support them by applying the law.

The aggression and other difficulties in enforcing the law that police officers have to endure while doing their duty do not trouble these “do-gooder judges” with no firsthand experience.

Gaertner, the police commissar who was active in Neukölln for decades recently told me that he could not recall ever reading a report of a handbag theft or a robbery by an immigrant youngster on a woman with a headscarf [i.e., a non-German].

The enemy are the hated Germans; they are the target of their agression, and they have nothing to counter the flashmobs: via cell-phones numerous people appear in mere minutes who directly start to behave threatingly. Germans are considered easy targets.

Germans are considered easy targets.

It can happen to anybody on a normal day. It can happen to you that you experience a suprise at a normal traffic accident, particularly when the person you collided with is easily recognisable as an immigrant.

In that case you and the other driver are quickly surrounded by numerous “witnesses,” who happen to have it seen very clearly. The man behind rearended your car, but they will  swear that you have callously driven your car backwards into his car.

When in doubt, the ground rule is to help the ethnic sisters and brothers. What is true or not has no value in the case of a “disbeliever” [i.e., those in outgroups have no moral standing—an case of moral particularism]. These are some of the small experiences that makes the people here so “happy.”

We Germans educate our children to be non-violent. We reject violence in encounters and teach that to our offspring. Others teach their children to be strong, brave and ready to fight. The ground rules basics are simply different from the beginning.

Heinz Buschkowsky’s book Neukölln ist überall [Neukölln is everywhere] appeared on Septemebr 21^st at Ullstein Verlag.
Translated by Peter Stuyvesant

Letter from Sweden

October 8, 2012/176 Comments/in Costs of Multiculturalism, Featured Articles, Immigration /by Christian

 

 

There is a rising tide of aggressive anti-Semitism in Europe. This primarily comes from Muslim youth. In cities like Malmo, Paris and London, Jewish religious life is coming under attack by Muslim youth. I do not think this is acute conflict, but at least Jews are not as well-protected as before.
 
The Jewish establishment have always pushed for new laws to protect their interests but now, when there millions of Muslims and Africans in Europe it is not as easy as before. Muslims and Africans are quite difficult to blame, because that would undermine the elitist notion that immigration is “always good and always provides economic and cultural value” to the West. 
The only way for the politicians to protect the society is to establish new departments that control public opinion and increase surveillance and law enforcement. Their hope is that the conflicts arising from multiculturalism are manageable. They will not change immigration policy.

Last night there was a large debate between the leaders of the eight parties in the Swedish Parliament. It was only the Swedish Democrats that wanted to lower the immigration levels (by 90 percent). The conservative, liberals and socialist parties wanted no change in policy and the Green Party said they wanted a policy of more open borders. 
The key argument from the establishment was “humanism”, “anti-racism”, “human rights” and that these immigrants will soon show that they are an asset to the Sweden. They also told stories about poor Somali children. 
 It was quite extraordinary that they could not put forth any empirical argument, but relied instead on moral exhortations.
 
But much more are on stake now. Sweden has taken in two million immigrants since 1975 and now at least twenty percent of the population is non-European. 
Crime rates are rising and whole municipalities are now at least partly controlled by foreigners. 
The state spends billions just to keep things running smoothly on the surface but schools, hospitals and police are on their knees. 
The conservative government ran on a pledge to lower taxes in the elections of 2006 and 2010. 
Now they must indirectly raise taxes just to keep up with the failed immigration policy. 
Some scholars have pointed out that one fourth of the public budget goes straight into the immigration industry. 
Immigrants are using hospitals, committing crimes at higher rates, live fully or partly on welfare (half of them if not more), are unemployed, and are addicted to a variety of other social programs.

A couple of years ago, the Swedish government lowered immigration from Somalia. Somalis have a 90 percent unemployment rate and the crime rate it off the charts. They are very difficult to assimilate or “integrate” (to use the term favored by the Swedish establishment). After heavy lobbying from the media and identity politics organizations, has now decided to grant all Somalis asylum or residency. That means that Sweden has a completely open border policy when it comes to Somalia.

Many people are getting worried. Even the Prime Minister observed it at the debate last night that “it all will just be fine.” Two or three months ago some municipalities (financing of welfare is decentralized to municipalities) stated that they were not able to take in more refugees, especially not Somalis. They cannot afford it without saying to the voters in the upcoming election in 2014 that they have to cut down libraries, swimming pools, school teachers and municipal government workers. The State sent some money – but it will not be enough. 

Financial issues related to the costs of immigration are on the minds of the elites and the people. The municipality of Borlänge noted in a policy document that at least 50 percent of adult Somalis are illiterate. They also concluded that most of the Somalis in Borlänge will never enter the workforce. Nevertheless, these and many more municipalities will continue to take all these people. 

Because of the burden of immigration the more well-off municipalities use every way possible not take any responsibility for these immigrants. The conservatives refuse to change the law to force them to – why? They would quickly lose all support. Now, the socialists who run the municipalities are buying up castles (not a joke), large estates (not a joke) in order to remake them into apartments for immigrants. They also buy large private homes in well-off communities for large immigrant families to live there rent free.

The Swedish elites are afraid. The mainstream media have made it impossible to put comments under online articles. They use all their powers and there a lot of propaganda for multiculturalism and free immigration. The largest media companies are also lobbying heavily for abolishing civil rights.

But something is happening pretty rapidly now. The middle class are waking up. You see it at the University and at private and public institutions. You notice it in your family and among your friends. There are actually normal people who are quite critical of current immigration policy. Before it was the working class that first protested immigration and multiculturalism. Now it has become more common among the middle class. 

What I have also seen is that people working for the government are worried. Before it has been social workers, nurses, teachers, police and doctors — people on the frontline that have seen all the mess. Now, even the statisticians, investigators, public officers, clerks and other administrators see what is going on. People in the private sector are also wondering what is going on just  by looking out the window.

Stockholm, Oslo and Helsinki are now infested by gypsy beggars from Romania and Bulgaria. 
You see Africans taking over the drug trade, exploiting White misery. 
You see Yugoslavian, Russian, Albanian and Syrian Mafia control restaurants. You see Muslim fundamentalism taking place right on the streets of Stockholm, Oslo and Helsinki, at currency exchange offices and small banks. 
You see organized crime on the street and the police do nothing. 
In the upcoming election, the Green Party will run on a platform of lower funding for police. They are the third largest party in Sweden and are rising.

Currently part of the elites has tried to direct public anger on Muslims. This neo-conservative tactic has been reasonably successful. A couple of years ago a lot of nationalists in Europe seem to have taken it to heart and pushed for support for Israel and American intervention. This has been the case for the Swedish Democrats – where two Jewish brothers together with a couple of Christian Zionists have pushed the discourse into hating Muslims because of their religion. The terrorist act of  Anders Breivik changed things; it is not as easy anymore to be Islamophobic. The elites have also discovered that they will gain little support for it. Sweden had a version of EDL, but it never grew beyond a few members.
 
There is a new star on the Swedish Internet scene. A couple of years ago, Widar Nord, a former IT consultant, established his own online paper. He came from the libertarian camp but was quite critical of typical libertarian attitudes on immigration policy, their pro-Israeli views, and their lack of nationalism. His idea was to present an anti-establishment nationalist, paleo-libertarian and paleo-conservative fast-paced news site. 
Until his arrival on the scene, most of the anti-establishment opinion came from Politically Incorrect, a site close to the Swedish Democrats. It was strictly a counter-Jihad blog. 
Later it turned into Avpixlat. Both Avpixlat and Politically Incorrect are quite similar to the American Jihad Watch blog run by Robert Spencer.
 
Widar named his site Fria Tider (Free Times). It quickly became a success, rising to among the 200–300 most visited sites in Sweden. Because of not following the Counter-Jihad ideology it was pushed out – though it continued to grow. Now it is the 56th most popular site in Sweden (approximately as popular as Avpixlat and the 9th largest newspaper in Sweden on the Internet).
 
Fria Tider is successful because
1) They publish fast pace news.
2) They report what the MSM does not report, especially on the costs of multiculturalism. For example, this article deals with claims of sexual harassment of Swedish girls by immigrant youth. There are many articles on immigrant crime.
3) They post articles from famous paleo-conservatives, libertarians, and classical Marxists. Paul Gottfried has appeared there.
4) They are critical of Israel and the establishment;
5) They publish their own material. Just an hour ago they published an article about 9/11 and its connection to Israel;
6) They write about culture, economics, society, technology and many other things.
 
This is done with a quite low budget and freelance writers that do much for free or for a very low fee. These guys have no problems writing about race, traditionalism and many other subjects that are taboo. The difference between Fria Tider and “White nationalist”, “traditionalist” or “Counter-Jihad” sites is that Fria Tider does not “work” for anything. They have no explicit political agenda other than to publish free news from alternative perspectives. This explains also how difficult it will be for the establishments to push Fria Tider down. Media and anti-racist organizations have tried to do so, but have poured most of their energy into attacking Avpixlat because of its connection to the Swedish Democrats.
 
A couple of weeks ago – The nationalists took control over the Swedish Democratic Youth – so things are changing here.
 

Elite Ideologies—Flexible in the Face of Multiculturalism: Immigration at all Costs

 
It is very true that libertarianism, liberalism and Marxism focus on materialism, but it’s also very true to point out that these ideologies were created in another time. These ideologies were exclusively for Whites in a White and Christian context. These discourses sometimes included Jews, but seldom non-White races.
In fact, mainstream social-democracy in Europe was more similar to National Socialism in Germany then this “post-Marxism” we see today. Before the 1930s in United States, ideologies like libertarianism and liberalism were often pro-White. 
The idea of ethnic, cultural, racial and religious conservatism was often embedded in these radical liberal, libertarian or Marxist ideologies. In the Third World we still see ethnic or racial versions of Marxism.
 
Often libertarianism, liberalism and Marxism were exported to the Third World, but that was rather a way for the first and second world to control different civilizations – not to create a paradise. It was after WWII that these old ideologies took a turn toward open borders and criticism of White culture and Christianity.

Libertarianism, Liberalism and Marxism are today just shells and are disconnected from their roots. What we see today is something we should call post-Marxism, post-liberalism or post-libertarianism. Let me give you some examples of how their arguments are used:
 
1) Post-liberals use liberal rhetoric and arguments, but their agenda is different from that of the old liberals. Post-liberals claim that White people do not exist when Whites claim emancipation and nationhood. In another context, Whites do exist for the post-liberals but and are responsible for oppression and racism. They also claim that Whites should not talk in terms of “We vs. them” because such thinking is racist, sexist and “fascist.” This argument is taken from French post-modernism and the Frankfurt school. But this is only the case when Whites criticize non-White behavior. When the opposite is done by minorities or the post-liberals, the dichotomy “we vs. them” is no longer immoral.
 
2) Post-libertarians claims that they are only for individual rights. But when it comes to Israel, they suddenly are all for ethnic nationalism. When it comes to illiberal Jewish practices like circumcision and Kosher slaughter, libertarians are supportive. In such contexts post-libertarians have no problem accepting a libertarianism that is connected to communitarian philosophy. The right to property is one of the key notions in libertarianism but when it stands between free immigration and people’s property (e.g., higher taxes to support public goods for immigrants), they claim they are rather for free immigration. In fact, many libertarians would rather live in a socialist society then have national borders. When Christians want to baptize their children, these atheist libertarians call it an act of religious cruelty. To cut body parts of Jewish children is “okay” but to flush a few drops of blessed water on an infant’s head is “pushing religion on individuals.”

3) Look at the post-Marxists way for arguing. They reason the same way. They rather live in a libertarian or a liberal state then changing the immigration policy or outlaw Jewish (and Muslim) practices. Many post-Marxists go even further and are all okay with the most barbaric cultural practices that minorities do – just to push for “tolerance for diversity”. Now, many of the most extreme post-Marxists are marginalized. They are so because they sometimes push Israel in a corner and the establishment does not like that.

These three political elitist groups have other agendas alongside their open border and multicultural ideology. Often it boils downs to LGBT rights, abortion, polygamy and feminism. This is an “old” agenda that was and still is used as a tool to deconstruct Western culture and to socialize Whites in weakness, self-deception and self-hate. What we can see now is a shift. Feminism is now dominated by post-colonialist feminism critique instead of Western feminism. Years ago, the veil was looked at as oppression. Today’s feminists have little problem with Muslim conservative faith, even if it from a Western view it is quite the opposite to what these feminists fought to push on White women. Today, liberal and socialist feminists are still aiming their message at White women but not on non-White women. The reason is quite obvious. If Western feminism was applied and non-White women were forced to assimilate into this Western feminism, there would be a clash with the “Other” and maybe even lowering the immigration numbers.
Muslims, Africans, Arabs and people from the Third World are not keen on abortion, feminism and LGBT-rights. Nevertheless, multicultural elites have said and continue to say “We are all the same and all people share the same fundamental norms.”

They project their own ideas on the rest of the world. When you read the academic literature you quite clearly understand that this is a political tactic rather than anything else. In fact, they all realize that people are different but that if they would “talk about the differences” that would lead to racism, so we must not talk about it. It is quite extra-ordinary that they remain in the mode of critiquing the bourgeois power structure but use this tactic to further their political goals. Still, there is a reality out there and all these ethnic minority groups are not very keen on liberalism, Marxism and Libertarianism. These minorities are also not very keen on the multicultural utopias they are presented.

Some of these protected groups or ideals need to be dropped to ensure open borders. The first protected group that the elites drop is children. If some of the ethnic minorities want to keep children from school, beat them or practice barbaric customs on them (e.g., female genital mutilation), the multicultural elites are perfectly happy with it. 
This is seen quite clearly in Europe where children’s rights have been undermined so that the Muslim, Jewish and African communities do not feel offended and leave. 
In the circumcision debate in Germany, Jewish identity organizations said quite clearly that if Europe wants to continue to be multicultural and not chase away minorities, this ban on circumcision need to be rescinded.

Of course, politicians were afraid and obeyed the pressure groups. It also shows us that politicians care more for foreign norms then northern European norms. 

Soon, these protected groups will have more political power and not be so dependent on terrified politicians of European descent to promote multiculturalism.

Interesting enough, the elites do not change any laws to satisfy ethnic minority groups in Europe. Just as in the United States when dealing with illegal aliens, European states instead undermine existing laws by refusing to enforce them.

Kevin MacDonald : Muslims dominate the natives on the streets of Norway

Muslims dominate the natives on the streets of Norway

May 6, 2013/8 Comments/in Costs of Multiculturalism, Immigration, Muslim Immigration, Western Culture /by Kevin MacDonald

 

 

Gates of Vienna has an article showing just how unfathomably bad things are in Norway as a result of immigration and multiculturalism (“Everything You Have Learned in School Is Wrong“). The main story is the familiar one throughout the West: elites encourage immigration and are able to avoid the costs. As noted in Enoch Powell’s “Rivers of Blood” speech,  the costs are paid by those who can’t flee the areas impacted by immigration.  In Norway

well-off natives can afford to move to safe, pleasant white enclaves, where they may send their children to school among white native speakers of Norwegian. Less affluent citizens are not so fortunate, however, and are forced to endure the humiliation and degradation of the Multicultural behavioral sink in which their political masters have consigned them to live.

The costs for the less fortunate are dramatic. The article is important because it shows how aggressive the Muslim immigrants are, especially against the native boys. This is a Darwinian dominance struggle between males.

At TOO we often emphasize the individualism of Western societies and the collectivism of pretty much the  rest of the  world. This dichotomy is much on display here: Muslims have large social networks based on kinship and they are aggressive in groups, whereas they are cowardly when alone. The result is a very clear dominance hierarchy, with the natives at the bottom and groups of Muslims at the top. One of the informants, Andreas, says

“There is a hierarchy, where ethnic Norwegian boys are on the bottom rung on the ladder. They will be targeted unless they accede to their rules, if they don’t they become Norwegian immigrants. If a Norwegian boy gets into trouble, odds are that he has a small family and a tiny social network. Unlike a Pakistani or Somali boy, he doesn’t have a clan of brothers and cousins and uncles who come rushing to his aid in the event of a conflict. Most of the time the only thing he has is a single parent.”

An astute commenter on the article writes: “That atomisation and isolation celebrated as ultra-individualism and the contempt for association or commonweal, branded as socialist conspiracy in progressive  conservative  political dogma, is inhibiting the formation of a mass European opposition particularly at street level.”

The  article makes clear that not only are the Norwegians forced to encounter  hostile gangs of Muslims without social support from friends and relatives, they get no support from the schools (which accommodate Muslim culture and excuse Muslim aggression as resulting from war in their native countries) or the media (which refuses to publish accounts of the reality of life on the streets). (It should also be noted that the justice system fails native Norwegians by giving out lenient punishment and failing to invest resources against the epidemic of Muslim men raping Norwegian women).

So the Norwegians are completely isolated. The Muslims exist in large kinship networks that aid each other in times of need. The genius of Western societies is that individualism allows the construction of civil societies where kinship ties are much less important. This is  why Syria and  Iraq cannot construct civil societies but are riven by kinship groups that are in constant conflict.

Western societies have uniquely been high-trust societies, a point made, e.g., by Francis Fukuyama and a basic corollary of the psychology of Western individualism (see here, p. 27ff). The problem is that we think that everyone is “just like us”—willing and able to set up individualist societies with democratic and republican institutions. As Ian Morris writes in his Why the West Rules—For Now, people are pretty much the same the world over (see Brenton Sanderson’s review). We want to believe this so badly that it was easy to pull off the big lie. It’s the foundational lie of multi-culturalism. (see “The Iraq Nightmare”)

But collectivism is very effective in competition against individualists within a society. This is doubtless the main reason for the success of Judaism as a collectivist culture in relatively  atomized Western societies: Ethnic networking by Jews is very effective in the intellectual world (the theme of The Culture of Critique) and all the other  centers  of power throughout the West.

Highly disciplined, cooperative groups are able to outcompete individualist strategies. Indeed, an important thread in the following chapters is that Jewish intellectuals have formed highly cohesive groups whose influence to a great extent derives from the solidarity and cohesiveness of the group. Intellectual activity is like any other human endeavor: Cohesive groups outcompete individualist strategies. (CofC, Chapter 1, p.5)

The result is that as the collectivists become dominant, many of the individualists accept their subordination and begin to look up to the collectivists, just as so many Whites throughout the West admire Jews as a dominant group. As noted in The Culture of Critique:

Once Jews had attained intellectual predominance, it is not surprising that gentiles would be attracted to Jewish intellectuals as members of a socially dominant and prestigious group and as dispensers of valued resources. Such a perspective fits well with an evolutionary perspective on group dynamics: Gentiles negotiating the intellectual status hierarchy would be attracted to the characteristics of the most dominant members of the hierarchy, especially if they viewed the hierarchy as permeable. Writer William Barrett, a gentile editor of Partisan Review, describes his “awe and admiration” of the New York Intellectuals (a group of predominantly Jewish intellectuals discussed in Chapter 6) early in his career. “They were beings invested in my eyes with a strange and mysterious glamour” (in Cooney 1986, 227). (previous link, p. 3)

A similar phenomenon can be seen with Andreas when he encounters Muslim groups:

He lowers his gaze, he wants to be like them, talk like them, he alters his language, limits his vocabulary, makes deliberate spelling mistakes — ‘an school’, kebab-Norwegian, buys a soft gun, wants to be like the older, tougher, cool Pakistani guys that have cars and money and no job, why not become a Muslim, become a brother?
He wants to be like them, but he doesn’t become like them, something inside him is resisting.
Fragments: the bad grades in the Norwegian classes, the bad friends, Islam, he notices how they view women, as an object, how they react when he tries to discuss Islam with them, how they talk about respect, but don’t show any respect, how they refer to Norwegians as f***ing Norwegians, whitey, potato; something inside him resists.
He withdraws. They notice that he withdraws. Then it starts.

Others respond to the dominance of the Muslims with fear.

“They are afraid. They don’t dare to speak out. You should have a look at the number of principals that have come and gone at Vestliveien school in recent years, and ask them why they left. They don’t have control, but they do everything to accommodate the Muslim students. In home economics classes everybody has to prepare halal meat. Immigrants do not have to attend ‘NyNorsk’ classes [literally New-Norwegian, which is a different dialect and a different way to write Norwegian — there are two forms of written Norwegian]. I have to attend these classes. The Muslim girls do not have to attend the physical activity classes; because of course they cannot undress in front of other girls. We have to adapt to their culture. They don’t have to adapt to ours.”

Others  stand up to this onslaught, but the result  is the same:

[Marius] doesn’t lower his head. He refuses to take any crap. He answers back. He’s loudmouthed. He is who he is. It does not matter. But that’s not why they target him. It is an autumn evening in seventh grade. He is playing tennis. When he leaves the court to collect some tennis balls they appear. They are seven or eight Somalis. The beat the crap out of him, he has to get new teeth put in.
Marius doesn’t slow down. He calls a Roma girl a gypsy, something that isn’t appreciated. When her brothers and cousins come for him, he hides in the principal’s office.

And girls naturally look up to socially dominant males:

“There is one thing that annoys the hell out of me. They can start chasing Norwegian girls, but we cannot go after theirs. It’s something you learn early on. You just don’t go after a Pakistani girl, but Norwegian girls are available to immigrant boys. Norwegian girls prefer them. I don’t know why. I guess it must be that brown skin. That they are tough, that they have money despite not having jobs. They don’t see that they fight in packs, that they are cowards. I asked my best female friend if we could get romantically involved, and she told me that I have the right personality, but the problem was that I’m Norwegian. She wants to become involved with a foreigner.”

 The domination of native Norwegian women by the  Muslim men is the ultimate evolutionary disaster for Norwegian men.

The domination of native Norwegian women by the  Muslim men is the ultimate evolutionary disaster for Norwegian men. (And, as noted in Andreus’s comment above, Muslims view women as objects, whereas in the West the position of women has always been much higher—a result of monogamy putting a damper on sexual competition among males.)

This sexual dominance is played out in little ways. When journalists accompany Andreas to the  subway station, they encounter two Muslims who stare at them. “We lower our gaze first.” Another example:  A  group of Muslims yells, “‘Hey Marius have you got yourself a girlfriend,’ and it’s not the words that are threatening, but the way they are being uttered, do you understand, how they look at me and my girlfriend who starts to cry, do you understand?”

Girls don’t want  to be with boys who are made fun of by other males. Immigration and multiculturalism are a disaster for the West.

Biology Beneath: Exposing the True Costs of Mass Immigration

November 21, 2013/3 Comments/in Costs of Multiculturalism, Featured Articles /by Tobias Langdon


In the West, we talk about the “tip of the iceberg.” In Africa, they talk about the “ears of the hippopotamus.” It’s the same idea: that there’s something big in the water, but you see only a small part of it. Mass immigration is like that. Its harmful consequences are reported every day even in the liberal media. But the full extent of the harm is concealed. Here’s an example from the BBC:

Christina Edkins killing: Phillip Simelane detained

A man who killed 16-year-old Christina Edkins on a rush-hour bus in Birmingham has been detained indefinitely under the Mental Health Act. Phillip Simelane, from Walsall, stabbed the teenager in a random attack as she made her way to school in March [2013]. He had been released from prison, unsupervised, three months before the attack – despite warning signs over the state of his mental health. … Mrs Justice Thirlwell, sentencing Simelane, said it was “likely to be a life-long order”. The judge added: “It is made for the nature of the offence and necessary to protect the public from serious harm.” She also expressed concern that Simelane had not been receiving treatment at the time of the killing.

Christina Edkins: A victim of mass immigration

Christina had been travelling to LeasowesHigh School in Halesowen on the number 9 bus, two weeks after her 16th birthday, when she was attacked. Simelane, who was sitting behind her on the upper deck, stabbed her in the chest as he walked past to get off. He was arrested a few hours after the attack following an extensive manhunt. … A memorial garden dedicated to Christina is due to be opened at her former school on Thursday. Speaking on behalf of the family, the great uncle said Christina was a “bright, beautiful girl” who was looking forward to her school prom and loved sports. He added: “Her headmaster said, ‘if a school could choose its pupils it would be full of Christinas’. Now the family asks the question –  when this man was discharged from prison on 13 December 2012, why was the recommendation, made a few weeks earlier by mental health experts, that he be supervised after release whilst adjusting to life back in the community, not followed up?” (Christina Edkins killing: Phillip Simelane detained, BBC News, 2nd October 2013)

According to the BBC, Phillip Simelane is “from Walsall.” In fact, he’s from Swaziland via Walsall:

Phillip Simelane in his pre-schizophrenic days

The 24-year-old was born in Swaziland, southern Africa, and arrived in the UK at the age of nine. He lived in Walsall with his siblings and mother, who had separated from his father. (See here)

Why was he here? Immigration from Africa imposes huge costs on the UK and has never had a democratic mandate. If Christina Edkins’ great uncle had pointed this out, he would have been in serious trouble. Instead, he was the model White victim, complaining only about the lack of services for the perpetrator: “Speaking [after the sentence], Christina’s great uncle Chris Melia said: “We have no sense of vengeance or revenge. We just want him out of the way and [to] remember Christina. The authorities didn’t help him, [they] just let him out of the prison door and let him go, just abandoned him. If there had been some help and authority he wouldn’t have been on the bus.”
The BBC also says that Simelane carried out a “random attack.” It’s always “random” when a non-White murders or assaults a White without an obvious motive. We’re forbidden to suggest another possibility: that many non-Whites hate Whites and enjoy harming them. If the great uncle had suggested that, he would also have been in serious trouble.
However, he’s right that the murderer would not have been on the bus if the authorities had provided expensive help funded by White tax-payers. The problem is that another Black schizophrenic might have been there instead. The murder of Christina Edkins is the tip of the iceberg: beneath it lies a stark biological reality. Blacks are not only much more violent than Whites, they are also much more prone to schizophrenia (see here). Over the decades, the White nation of Britain has spent billions of pounds treating and providing hospital places for mentally ill Blacks. Many billions more have been spent on imprisoning criminal Blacks and on trying vainly to raise Blacks from low achievement.
In other words, Britain has spent huge sums trying to do the impossible: alter the biology of Blacks. Without mass immigration, there would have been none of this useless expense and Christina Edkins would still be alive.
So would many other White victims of Black murderers. Britain’s crime statistics would look much healthier in other ways, because Blacks commit rape, assault and robbery at much higher rates than Whites. So do Pakistanis and other non-Whites (see here, here and here).
All this has been obvious for many years. Non-Whites in Britain cost huge sums of money and commit huge amounts of crime. The same thing is happening in Norway, which has watched Britain from across the North Sea — and decided it wanted some vibrancy,of its own. This means that Norway also had a brutal bus-murder this year. In fact, it’s had three of them:

Failed asylum seeker kills three on bus

The man accused of stabbing to death a woman and two men on an express bus in western Norway was an asylum seeker from South Sudan who was due to be deported from Norway on Tuesday … The 31-year-old, who was living at an asylum reception centre in Årdal,  was due to be deported to Spain on Tuesday, after having his application rejected in June.
“This person had applied for asylum, and come to Norway in April,” a spokesman for Norway’s immigration directorate said. “He was rejected in June, and was supposed to be returned to Spain under the so-called Dublin Regulation.”

Margaret Sanden: Another victim of mass immigration

The man is accused of killing the bus driver, Arve Haug Bagn (55) and Margaret Molland Sanden, a 19-year-old biotechnology student at the Oslo and Akerhus University College of Applied Sciences. The third victim,  a Swedish man in his 50s, has not been named. Police believe that the three victims were the only people on the bus when the man attacked.
… The attack marks the second time the Valdres Express has been hijacked. In 2003, it was hijacked by a mentally disturbed 26-year-old Ethiopian man who stabbed the driver to death. (Failed asylum seeker kills three on bus, The Local (Norway), 4^th November 2013)

The Norwegian authorities haven’t released the name or picture of this murderer, but he seems to be claiming mental illness too (see here), which may mean that he will be allowed to stay in Norway.
Either way, the similarity between the murders of Christina Edkins and Margaret Sanden makes me wonder if there was something sexual at work. Blacks don’t react well to rejection by attractive White women. But that’s crime-think, of course. For liberals, it’s far better to pretend that these very similar crimes were random tragedies. They weren’t: they were direct and predictable consequences of mass immigration. Non-Whites are violent in their homelands and violent in the West. If you import Third-World people, you will get Third-World pathology. This is not hard to understand, so liberals have no excuse for opening the borders.
Now let’s turn to a third story about vibrant enrichment. This one might seem more like farce than tragedy:

Taxpayers foot £350k legal bill for Muslim pubic hair battle

A top judge has criticised the “astonishing” £350,000 cost of a legal battle over a couple’s right to shave their disabled daughter’s pubic hair. The mother and father of the young woman, who cannot be named and is referred to as ED in court documents, said their daughter’s pubic hair should be removed in line with Islamic tradition. But their local council, which has cared for their daughter since 2008, questioned whether the disabled woman had the mental capacity to consent to her hair being removed. In 2011 the couple applied to the family court for their daughter, now in her thirties, to be returned home and raised the “stark” issue of her pubic hair being removed – leading to a long-running, £350,000 taxpayer-funded legal battle. But the couple have now dropped the case at the last minute, leaving a judge at London’s High Court “utterly baffled”.
Mr Justice Roderic Wood said: “I thus remain utterly baffled by the course this litigation has taken, and perplexed by this lack of clarity in their case. Obtaining a 10-day slot of a High Court Judge’s time is not easy, for there are many competing cases of equal if not greater urgency than this one.” … (Taxpayers foot £350k legal bill for Muslim pubic hair battle, The Daily Telegraph, 29^th October 2013)

If £350,000 is an “astonishing” cost, think how much the local council is spending on care for the disabled woman. It will work out at millions. That’s more expense for White tax-payers because of mass immigration. But is it fair to blame the Muslim parents for an unlucky roll of the genetic dice? Almost certainly it is. This is another iceberg story. Just as Blacks in the West suffer from schizophrenia at much higher rates than Whites, so Muslims suffer from “disability” at much higher rates. Why? It’s simple: in-breeding. Pakistanis, in particular, have a vibrant custom of marrying close relatives:

700 children born with genetic disabilities due to cousin marriages every year

The problem is worst among children born in Britain’s Pakistani community, where more than half of marriages are between first cousins, and children are 10 times more likely than the general population to suffer genetic disorders. The medical risks of first cousin marriages include higher rates of infant mortality, birth defects, learning difficulties, blindness, hearing problems and metabolic disorders.
As adults, the children born from first cousin marriages are at increased risk of miscarriage or infertility. A third of children affected die before their fifth birthday. An investigation by Channel 4’s Dispatches programme found that although more than 70 British studies have proved the risks, and 700 British Pakistani children are born with associated genetic diseases every year, many people deny the dangers. Ann Cryer, the former Labour MP for Keighley, suffered abuse for trying to highlight the problems.
“It’s a public health issue and we deal with public health issues by raising awareness, by talking about subjects such as obesity, such as drug addiction, such as alcohol,” she said. “But for some reason we’re told that we mustn’t talk about cousin marriages because this is a sensitive issue. I think it’s absurd, we have to talk about it in order to find solutions.”
Research shows the number of cousin marriages has risen dramatically in the UK over the last three decades, mainly between British Pakistanis, but also between first cousins in the British Bangladeshi community in which nearly a quarter of people marry their first cousins, and in some Middle Eastern and East African communities. (700 children born with genetic disabilities due to cousin marriages every year, The Daily Telegraph, 22^nd Aug 2010)

This is a “sensitive issue” because it might be exploited by racists who say that non-White immigration is very harmful to the West. Racists are wicked people, you see: they speak the truth. So would liberals rather die than admit their errors? No, they’d rather you and your family die. Liberals get the righteous glow of supporting Third World immigration; ordinary Whites like Christina Edkins and Margaret Sanden pay the price. But it can’t go on. The iceberg of human biology will sink the ship of liberalism. Our job is to ensure that the West doesn’t sink with it.

“Become other than White”: Ireland and Radical Jewish Activism

“Become other than White”: Ireland and Radical Jewish Activism

August 30, 2019/86 Comments/in Featured Articles /by Andrew Joyce, Ph.D.

 

 

“Five Jews came from over sea with gifts to Tairdelbach [King of Munster], and they were sent back again over sea.”
           Annals of Inisfallen, 1079 A.D.

“I propose an interrogation of how the Irish nation can become other than white (Christian and settled), by privileging the voices of the racialised, and subverting state immigration, but also integration, policies.”
Ronit Lentin (Israeli academic), From racial state to racist state: Ireland on the eve of the citizenship referendum, 2007.

Prelude

Tairdelbach of Munster (Turlough O’Brien 1009–86), who was, by 1079, effectively the High King of Ireland, probably holds the world record for the fastest expulsion of Jews. He dominated the Irish political scene, had crushed the Viking leadership of Dublin, and possessed “the standard of the King of the Saxons.” His son had even commenced raids into Wales and the British coast. Unfortunately, we can only surmise the nuances of the 70-year-old warlord’s reaction to the sudden arrival of a handful of gift-bearing Jews, because the Annals of Inisfallen are thin on detail. The delegation almost certainly originated in Normandy, where Jews thrived under a symbiotic financial relationship with William the Conqueror. William, of course, had introduced Jews to Anglo-Saxon England thirteen years before the approach to Tairdelbach, leaving open the possibility they could have travelled directly to Ireland from one of these new Jewish enclaves in England. In any event, it is almost certain that they arrived seeking permission to settle in Ireland’s urban centers, forge a relationship with the Irish elite (Tairdelbach himself), and engage in exploitative moneylending among the lower social orders. This was a pattern that had hitherto been witnessed throughout Europe. And yet Tairdelbach’s reaction was to reject the gifts and immediately expel the Jews. They would not be able to form a community in Ireland for several centuries.
It’s probably no coincidence that Tairdelbach was regarded in his lifetime as a good and Christian king. He enjoyed close relationships with the Irish church, and the church in England, and was patron to a number of religious figures and scholars. He was almost certainly a literate and educated man, and his decision to expel the Jewish delegation may have been based on a body of knowledge rather than mere instinct. Historians Aidan Beatty and Dan O’Brien comment on the expulsion:

No one in Ireland had ever seen a Jewish person prior to this incident, yet the visitors are unambiguously described as “five Jews” (coicer Iudaide) and the Irish people already have a word for Jews, Iudaide, a medieval Gaelic word that clearly has its roots in the languages of classical antiquity. But more than that paradox, there is also a certain kind of cultural knowledge at work here. The medieval Irish who gave such short shrift to these Jewish guests “know” something about Jews, or more accurately they think some things about Jews: they “know” that Jews are not trustworthy, that Jews bearing gifts are not to be taken into one’s care. And Jews are not suitable for residence in Ireland – they should be expelled from the country.^[1]

The impression is therefore that Tairdelbach was a savvy and selfless leader, who sought the good of his people more than the good of his own short-term financial situation.
Jewish revenge, direct or indirect, occurred a century later, when the glory days of the Gaelic High Kings like Tairdelbach came to an end thanks to the Norman invasion of Ireland by Richard “Strongbow” de Clare. In common with the Norman invasion of England, Strongbow was financed by Jews, in this case an England-based Jewish financier named Josce of Gloucester. After the Norman invasion, the new Norman elite brought a small number of their Jews into Ireland, primarily for financial activities at ports rather than large-scale settlement. A grant dated 28 July 1232 by King Henry III to Peter de Rivel gave him the office of Treasurer and Chancellor of the Irish Exchequer, the king’s ports and coast, and also “the custody of the King’s Judaism in Ireland.” These few nameless Jews would have been dispensed with after the expulsion from England in 1290, and Jews were absent from Ireland until the time of Cromwell, who also holds a special place of notoriety in Irish history.
By following in the wake of the Normans and the English, the Jews have certainly placed themselves on a dubious historical trajectory in relation to the Irish. But perhaps nothing seen in the past compares with what is seen in the present. Because it is globalism that has now invaded Ireland, and Jewish activists are shaping the thought and policies of the new global-imperial culture.

Mass Migration and Indoctrination

Between 2002 and 2016, the proportion of the Irish population born abroad rose from 5.8% to more than 17%.^[2] Given the relatively small population of Ireland, if the current pace of immigration persists, the Irish stand to be overwhelmed in their ancient homeland in the coming decades. The biggest increases have come in the form of growing numbers of Pakistanis, Romanian gypsies, Afghans (an increase of 212% on the previous census), and Syrians (an increase of 199% on the previous census). Ireland has also become home to a large and rapidly growing African population, which has been described by University College Dublin academic Philip O’Connell as being mired in “exceptionally high unemployment rates.” 

The African population has also presented some novel difficulties for the Irish police who have had to bust a West African fraud ring in Dublin and Meath, contend with Black gangs attacking each other with machetes in the middle of busy roads, deal with the aftermath of gang rapes carried out by Nigerians on teenage girls in Kildare, sustain several attacks on police by Nigerian drug gangs, deal with one particularly nasty rape and murder of a young Irish mother by a Nigerian immigrant, and attempt to control an African gang called The Pesties who “have been terrorising people prominently in the west and north of Dublin, carrying out vicious assaults on delivery drivers and taxi men.”
African and Muslim cab drivers have also been behind a large and growing number of rapes and sexual assaults (for example, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). In fact, sexual offences in Ireland increased by 17% between 2017 and 2018. In financial terms, the expanding asylum process is costing the Irish government more than €1 billion every five years, and in the midst of an Irish housing crisis, immigration is putting immense pressure on every aspect of the nation’s infrastructure.

Strangely, the Irish media hasn’t been making much of this aspect of Ireland’s changing complexion. Instead, much discussion has taken place on the fact Ireland has no real “hate crime” laws with the exception of the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989, which has managed to achieve a grand total of five criminal convictions in the last 30 years. 
Dr Ali Selim, of the Islamic Cultural Centre in Dublin, has said “there is a desperate need for hate crime legislation. Today we have a wide range of diversity and faiths and that increases the need to have hate crime legislation.” In a way, I agree with Dr Selim, because diversity inevitably means restrictions on the freedoms of the native population. More migrants mean more laws to protect those migrants from criticism.

But, despite the interventions of Dr Selim, the origins of Irish conceptions of “racism” and “hate speech” don’t lie among the growing Muslim population, but among a very small number of influential Jews. In 1969, some 890 years after Tairdelbach expelled the Norman-Jewish delegation, a young Jewish sociologist arrived in Ireland from Israel. Ronit Lentin, the sociologist in question, was Associate Professor of Sociology in Trinity College Dublin until her retirement in 2014. From 1997 until 2012 Lentin was Head of Sociology, and acted as director of the MPhil program in “Race, Ethnicity, Conflict.” She was also the founder of the Trinity Immigration Initiative, from which she advocated an open-door immigration policy for Ireland and opposed all deportations, as well as engaging in activism to liberalise Irish abortion laws.^[3] As an academic and “anti-racist” activist, Lentin formulated what would become some of the cardinal facets of Irish self-recrimination on matters of race, beginning with her definition of Ireland as “a biopolitical racist state.”^[4] By her own account, before she began her work on stoking Irish race guilt in the early 1990s, “most people were not conscious that Irish racism existed.”^[5]

In some senses, then, Lentin introduced the concept of an Irish racism. Her first step in assuring the Irish that they were indeed racist was to deny their existence as a people. She asserted that the Irish were merely “theorised as homogeneous — white, Christian and settled.”^[6] Quite who had developed this theory of the Irish, and when, was never specified by Lentin, nor did she attempt to show that the white, Christian, and settled status of the vast majority of the Irish population was anything other than a matter of fact and reality. It appears to have sufficed for Lentin simply to assert that Irishness was nothing but a theory, and to leave it at that. She was particularly aggrieved by the fact the Irish, apparently unaware they were a figment of their own imagination, voted (80%) to link citizenship and blood (ending “birth-right citizenship) by constitutionally differentiating between citizen and non-citizen in a June 2004 Citizenship Referendum. This move was taken primarily in order to stop African “birth tourism” and “anchor babies” by African women, which had become increasingly common by the early 2000s. To Lentin, however, the move was symbolic of the fact “the Irish Republic had consciously and democratically become a racist state.”^[7] She concludes that any idea of the Irish as historical victims should be dispensed with, and that “Ireland’s new position as heading the Globalisation Index, its status symbol as the locus of “cool” culture, and its privileged position within an ever-expanding European Community calls for re-theorising Irishness as white supremacy.”^[8] [emphasis added]

So, in Lentin’s worldview, Irishness is not only a fiction, but a racist, white supremacist fiction. Lentin’s advice to the Irish, should they wish to rid themselves of the delusion of peoplehood, is to enagage in mass celebrations of “diversity and integration and multiracialism and multiculturalism and interculturalism,”^[9] Lentin adds: “I propose an interrogation of how the Irish nation can become other than white.” Keeping up the family tradition, Ronit Lentin’s daughter Alana moved to Australia a few years ago, where she quickly established herself as an equally rabid promoter of White guilt and engaged in successive critiques of Australian “racism.” She is now President of the Australian Critical Race and Whiteness Studies Association, and has penned articles for The Guardian asserting that Australian identity is are fictional as that of the Irish, and demanding Australia adopt an open borders policy so that it too can become other than white.

If Ronit Lentin’s activism can be regarded as cultural sabotage, then that of her co-ethnic Alan Shatter could be regarded as nothing less than legislative warfare. Shatter, an Irish-born Jew, has been discussed previously at The Occidental Observer, but not since 2013. Shatter’s impact on Ireland has been extraordinary, and is difficult to exaggerate. His first targets in government were the weakening of legislative controls that helped maintain stability in the family (via the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act 1989), and the gradual erosion of highly conservative Irish laws on contraception (by writing the 1979 satirical tract Family Planning — Irish Style, featuring mocking illustrations designed by co-ethnic artist Chaim Factor). He has also been a strident pro-abortion activist since at least 1983, and a very early proponent of homosexual marriage and the adoption of children by homosexuals (he was essentially the author of both bills). Shatter was also central to the founding of the Oireachtas (Parliamentary) Committee on Foreign Affairs, something he then used as a vehicle to pursue Zionist-friendly objectives. In 2013 The Times of Israel reported “Israel may finally have some luck with the Irish” because “Israel could not have a more understanding or reliable Irish ally than Shatter, a stalwart supporter even during times of controversy. Occasionally combative, he has been highly critical of previous governments’ strident criticisms of Israel, and he hasn’t retreated from subsequent abuse.” The article made sure to celebrate the fact Shatter enjoyed “an exceptionally influential position in the Irish government” as both defense and justice minister, and noted that he “was particularly active during the 1980s and ’90s in advocating for divorce and family-planning rights. His urbane Jewish background appeared to put him at an advantage, freeing him from the baggage that weighed on his Catholic counterparts.”

Alan Shatter

But it was in his efforts in the field of immigration that Shatter demonstrated real revolutionary zeal. Between 2011 and 2014, Shatter utterly transformed the Irish citizenship process, personally granting Irish citizenship to 69,000 foreign nationals. In August 2013 he took steps to expand the Irish asylum process, citing the Syrian Civil War as the reason but later conceding that the highest number of asylum applications was actually coming from Nigerians and Pakistanis. In fact, Shatter was so keen to boost the number of Africans entering Ireland that the rejection rate for African asylum applications dropped from 47% to 3% as soon as he took office. He was so celebrated in Africa that he won the Africa World Man of the Year Award in 2012. Many of these asylum seekers, primarily Nigerians, have gone on to terrorise and assault their hosts, while others have been noted as publicly masturbating in their cabs during rush hour while they wait for customers. In 2013, Shatter proposed a new bill that would grant an amnesty to the thousands of illegal immigrants accumulating in Ireland. And, in contrast with the reality of mass immigration — crime, stretched resources, and the breaking down of a sense of community — Shatter announced in 2014 that Ireland had to do more to “speak out and combat racism and related intolerance” because:

This recent migration … has had a transformative impact on Irish society – and, for the better. Persons of non-Irish origin are playing an increasingly important role in many walks of life, not least in sport, and have greatly enhanced the social, cultural and economic fabric of our society. It is important that Ireland remains a nation which welcomes those who have already settled here and will do so in the future. It is equally important that we adapt to the increasingly diverse nature of Irish society.

When Shatter was forced to resign in May 2014 following a policing controversy, it was the incomplete state of his immigration reforms that he told the press was one of his biggest regrets. He told the Irish Times that one of his “big frustrations” upon leaving office was the failure to publish “very comprehensive” legislation in relation to immigration, residency and asylum, and explained that he was “very disappointed” that his party colleague and successor Minister for Justice Frances Fitzgerald appeared to be opting for a less revolutionary Bill. He added:

Unfortunately, the Bill I thought I would see published at least 18 months ago was on the back-burner waiting to be dealt with … There was also great pressure to try and fragment that legislation and deal solely with the asylum issue and not deal with the very important reforms needed in the immigration area. I was concerned if we dealt with the asylum area alone, we would never see the comprehensive Bill that is needed. [The revised Bill] will not deal with overall immigration reforms which are badly needed.

Although Shatter was forced into early retirement, much damage had already been done, and his legacy will continue.

If Shatter and Lentin weren’t enough, Twitter recently erupted due the recent emergence of Laura Weinstein, a New York PhD who now lives in Ireland and claims to be an expert in Irish history and culture. Of all the aspects of Irish history and culture she could have chosen to focus on, however, Dr Weinstein has decided she is most interested, like Lentin, in the “myth” of a homogeneous Irish identity and “right wing Irish nationalism,” and appears to employ her Twitter account, to a large degree, to the trolling of Irish political figures opposed to mass immigration. Several days ago, for example, she responded to a post by the National Party pointing out that multiculturalism essentially results in identity crisis for all in society by basically implying that Irish opposition to immigration would leave the Irish like “neurotic” “inbred” “dogs.” She wrote: “Gene flow as a result of immigration prevents the negative impact of inbreeding. But, go ahead and constrain migration and gene flow if you want to create a race of humans that reflects the neuroticism of “pure bred” dogs. Just be sure to hold a referendum on inbreeding first.”

Now, I’ve lived in Ireland for long periods during my life, and have shown American, German, Finnish, and South African friends around the country. They were all fascinated with the landscape, music, ancient history, and food, but, unlike this Jewish woman, I can’t recall a single instance where one of them was in any way concerned with the genetic homogeneity of the Irish. And not only is Weinstein’s fixation exceedingly strange and unsettling, it’s also fanciful. Genetic studies have shown the Irish already possess a diverse gene pool in the form of genetic clusters of Scandinavian, Norman-French, British, and Iberian origin. This is of course a considerably wider gene pool than that of Dr Weinstein’s Ashkenazi Jews, who are all descended from a single group of 350 individuals.

Needless, to say, Dr Weinstein provoked a robust reaction from Twitter because of her response to the National Party, which in turn led her to make the even more extraordinary claim that “No one loves Ireland more than I do.”
We can be sure that Lentin and Shatter would say the same thing. And perhaps they do love Ireland, but not the Ireland that was, and has been for millennia, but the Ireland that “is becoming” and is “to be” — the Ireland overcome by globalism, with an international population devoid of the “white supremacy” of Irishness. 
Perhaps they love the Ireland of gay pride parades and the arid metallic stench of the abortion mills. 
Perhaps they love the Ireland touched by Nigeria, the one sprinkled with mosques, and where young White mothers hang themselves in homeless despair while asylum seekers are housed and fed mere yards away. 
Perhaps they do indeed feel some kind of love, and they see what they’ve done, and are doing, as the bringing of gifts to Ireland.
But Tairdelbach’s lesson of a thousand years ago is that you don’t have to accept them.

---

^[1] A. Beatty & D. O’Brien, Irish Questions and Jewish Questions: Crossovers in Culture (New York: Syracuse University Press, 2018), 1.
^[2] S. Garner (2007). Ireland and immigration: explaining the absence of the far right. Patterns of Prejudice, 41(2) 109–130, 5.
^[3] See Lentin, R. (2013). A Woman Died: Abortion and the Politics of Birth in Ireland. Feminist Review, 105(1), 130–136.
^[4] R. Lentin, After Optimism? Ireland, Racism and Globalisation (Dublin: Metro Eireann Publications, 2006), 3.
^[5] Ibid., 1.
^[6] Ibid., 2.
^[7] Ibid., 55.
^[8] Ibid., 107.
^[9] Ibid., 165.