- Joined
- Sep 11, 2021
- Messages
- 1,182
- Reaction score
- 1,469
Recently Taoiseach Micheál Martin has stated that saying “Ireland for the Irish” is “tantamount to an incitement” to violence, explaining that:
This operated like a starting gun for numerous other commentators, some supposedly on our side on the anti-mass migration debate, who weighed in in opposition to this ‘racism’. For example Thomas Sheridan on twitter:
Maria Steen addressing Fingal County Council on the 12 Sept 2025, referring to immigrants to Ireland:
Captain Kieran Kelly, the Waterford fisherman who is much mentioned by the mainstream media in recent weeks, outlines his views here in a video he posted on his facebook page on the 22nd September 2025 (0:14-1:22):
In any case this has sparked quite an ongoing debate on the likes of twitter which thankfully has allowed many commentators to push back against this and say that we cannot be indifferent to race, we do indeed want Ireland for the Irish.(2) Anyway I just wanted to contribute to that debate a bit, starting with a discussion of why the globalists are pushing this ‘anti-racism’ line.
The abolition of national identity as part of the globalism push
Where we are at as a society, is that there is a group of people intent on creating a totalitarian one world government and as part of this they want to destroy nationalism in each country, because obviously nationalism is the kickback which would oppose the world government.
But, you might ask, if they have as much control over the most powerful countries of the world now, which I and other commentators would say is true, then why not just invade all the other countries and set up your one world government now? Well in a way that was tried with Napoleon and then Hitler, who had conquered almost all of Europe at least, but there is a flaw in that strategy.
You can see the flaw if you watch a clip of the well known contemporary WWII film, Casablanca. In that you can see some French emigrés crowding over a piano and breaking into the Marseillaise. As I say its a contemporary film, its reported that some extras and actors were in tears for what it signified. It signified that, yes, you can roll tanks into a country and take it over like Germany did to France then, but thats only half the story. If the people of that country still retain that strong almost mystical sense of identity with their country, nationalism, then they will always fight back and hence Hitler only lasted in France a few years.
So that type of purely militaristic thinking is old hat, nowadays its recognised that what you need to do is degrade the sense of identity and nationalism over many decades in the target country and then when you eventually invade there will be no pushback, because you have sought and pulled out, as it were, the roots of nationalism, the very core of what causes people to identify with their country so strongly as to risk their lives in fighting an invader. You can see this articulated, for example, by the former KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov.(3)
So that is what the Globalists are now doing actually to all countries, but particularly those old proud nations of Europe which they might have thought would oppose them vigorously. So instead of a proud Frenchman standing over the great civilisation that they have brought to the word, whether it be Pascal or Descartes or whatever, now its all about Colonial exploitation and how France, like many European countries, tried to enslave the world etc etc.
Which brings us back to race. Imagine the scene now if you had some Parisian emigrés crowding over a piano after say a Russian invasion. The obvious point is that they probably aren’t French, they or their recent ancestors will have come from North or Central Africa or Asia or the Middle East or wherever. Frankly they don’t care what really happens to France, a country they might live or are even born in but are actually trained to, and hereditably prone to, despise. The Globalists know this very well, the number one way of degrading nationalism in a country is simply by expelling the natives somehow and replacing them by a mongrel polyglot of races with no identity to the target country.
Its not just that these immigrants will never really identify with the target country, but you will degrade the sense of nationalism among the remaining natives if you can push the idea that ‘the colour of your skin doesn’t matter’ and objecting to all this is ‘racism’. Look at it this way, picture an English person and ask yourself where does he get his sense of identity, what are the roots of nationalism there? Well maybe he gets a sense of pride watching some old BBC drama of a Jane Austen novel, as an example. He sees all the beautiful manners and manicured gardens and stately homes, and he might feel that England has contributed a lot to the world. Now imagine him looking at it and the host of that great house is black, and others Asian etc (as is now often the case with those films), does that matter? Does he feel the same way about it? Of course not, its just not him or his country anymore.
You can see how changing the race in a country and then pushing that into the faces of the remaining natives will, hopefully from the Globalist perspective, just collapse that persons sense of identity and nationalism. Also, contrary to all this talk of ‘diversity is our strength etc’, communities only really get together if they are of the same race, at least in the long term and during difficult times, diversifying away from one race will just collapse community spirit, and thats a good thing also from the Globalists perspective, because then it makes it easier for them to control communities.
Last edited:
