Punching Back for Ireland

Conor McGregor and the Immigration Debate

On St Patrick’s Day this year, just about a week ago, the Irish MME fighter and sports personality Conor McGregor delivered a scathing commentary on the immigration policies of Ireland from his position as a guest invited to Trump’s White House to discuss the issue. Here is part of what McGregor said in his commentary:

The immediate response from mainstream media to this explanation of Ireland’s current mass immigration and its dangers was of course the usual one. Whenever the dangers of mass immigration are explained, in any western nation, and whenever any voice asks for a halt to what are effectively open borders and a policy of ethnic replacement, the response is always the same.

The messenger gets shot, metaphorically speaking. At least, it’s still metaphorical for now.

Sky News rushed to present us with the bleating condemnations of the mainstream Irish political establishment, the very people who have presided over the immigration betrayal and ethnic replacement policy McGregor describes (accurately) as a travesty. The BBC told us immediately thar the Gardai, Ireland’s police force, reject McGregor’s description of Dublin as an increasingly dangerous city. The Guardian had an immediate piece talking about the inaccuracy of McGregor’s “anti-immigrant rant’. Dublin Live expressed the standard reaction in Ireland, the UK and Europe by reminding us that lots of Irish politicians were very, very upset with McGregor’s comments.

Nearly every mainstream outlet led with a line peddled by Simon Harris, which was that McGregor “does not speak for the people of Ireland”. Typically, the only time ‘liberal’ progressive Globalists care that a person intervening in politics isn’t an elected speaker, comes when that person says a thing they disagree with. The same politicians ready to thrust forward any celebrity they can find to endorse mass immigration, and ready to have policy on it decided in unelected chambers of the EU or the UN, suddenly screech ‘no mandate’ when anyone with a public profile disagrees with them. Reuters, The Irish Examiner, Rte, The Irish Times, The Guardian, The Journal, The Independent….all exactly the same.

Such theatrics of recoiling horror are now a standard tactic of the political and media Establishment, who are less than a hair’s breadth away from reacting to any criticism or any disagreement the same way the most hysterical Democrat voters react to the name Donald Trump. The performative horror is an attempt to render all honesty on the effects of mass immigration as beyond the bounds of acceptable discourse, to exclude it entirely from the public sphere and to continue with the policies being criticised without ever being forced to defend or explain them.

And it’s not just the mainstream media and the mainstream political leaders who behave this way, as if we should judge the truth of a thing not by what is actually said, and certainly not by our own reason, perception or experience, but solely by their emotive reaction to it, or solely by the uniformity of their condemnation of even mentioning these ideas. Newspapers, magazines and TV channels all proclaim “the horror, the horror” like a character in a Conrad novel confronted with a literally unspeakable idea. And then they bolster that by essentially saying, look at how many of us are offended. Look at how many high status individuals are telling you peasants not to listen to this.

None of which of course addresses any of the points made by critics of mass immigration, open borders, and ethnic and cultural replacement deliberately encouraged and increased by political and media elites divorced from the consequences, at all. The horror is designed to close the discussion, and acts as a substitute for any rational defence of current immigration levels. And this combination of emotive condemnation with argument by authority, this peculiar ‘reporting’ and ‘response’ which basically consists of don’t dare say this because it offends the Bishop or don’t dare say this because it offends the Chief of Police or don’t dare say this because it offends the Admiral is now the usual way in which any serious topic is framed.

There isn’t even an attempt any more to deal with the issues raised or discuss them. Establishment horror and loathing, as well as establishment titles, status and credentials, are supposed to somehow represent axiomatic and unchallengeable Truth which only the most perverse of persons would dissent from. If the howl of horror doesn’t convince you, surely thrusting an OBE, knighthood or Order of Saint Fenian of the Holy Mortar (whatever the Irish honorifics are) in your face does the trick instead.

And if that doesn’t work, they will go Full Tyranny and just send you to prison for criticising them:

Of course it’s purely coincidental that these potential charges arise immediately after McGregor criticised Irish immigration policies, right?

Even when it’s not as obviously tyrannical as that, it’s still a bizarre combination of How Dare You! And Do You Know Who I Am! which encapsulates the sclerotic, demented insularity of an entire political and media class horrified at even the thought that someone could think differently to them. And as I said it’s not restricted to the people you’d most obviously think have a vested interest in the status quo. Unherd, for example, is a publication which is supposed to be representing a sort of intellectual rebellion against false consensus, which claims to represent ‘going against the Herd’, but it too condemns McGregor’s intervention:

“In due course, McGregor’s visit to the White House will have faded into the background for most people. But if he somehow manages in the meantime to make himself a leading voice in the immigration debate, a sort of Irish Tommy Robinson, the main effect will be to make it almost impossible for sensible criticisms of Ireland’s immigration policy to be heard. Currently, that is the last thing the country needs.”

The interesting thing here is that this Unherd article (Conor McGregor is Toxifying Ireland’s Immigration Debate, by David Quinn who should perhaps be drummed out of reporting for using a word like ‘toxifying’) actually AGREES with every main point McGregor is making. The article agrees with McGregor on all of this:

1. Ireland’s immigration levels are dangerously high.

2. Ireland’s populace don’t want this.

3. Ireland’s leaders are doing this deliberately.

4. This immigration has obvious very negative consequences.

Unherd point out that Ireland’s small population can’t sustain the current levels of mass migration into Ireland. They state that it’s currently running at 80,000 or so per annum which given that Ireland’s native population is only 5 million is equivalent to 1.2 million arrivals in a year to the UK. But actually it’s running higher than they admit, well over 100,000. And it’s increasing.

Unherd though, want a polite rebuttal of a disastrous policy, one which avoids describing the actual inevitable consequence and the actual apparent purpose. It’s McGregor being plain on what this immigration does to Ireland’s people and identity that puts his commentary in the shock horror must not be said category, because he quite rightly and honestly declares that this level of migration replaces the Irish people and destroys Irishness and Irish culture. That’s what you aren’t allowed to say.

Even though its only end result is ethnic and cultural elimination and replacement, you can’t SAY that out loud.

Unherd’s second objection is that McGregor is a poor champion for these issues and their expression. To some extent I can understand that line and it may even be sincerely meant. McGregor has faced domestic abuse claims and charges. He’s almost what you should pick if you wanted to discredit the points being made on a purely snobbery basis OR on a more meaningful moral basis of the character of the speaker. McGregor looks and talks as you would expect a cocky, successful, somewhat arrogant guy who made a living from pummelling other guys would look and talk.

Really though, anyone rational must dismiss these points. It now no longer matters WHO the champion is. It doesn’t condone domestic abuse to recognise that what McGregor is saying is true, and to frankly not give a damn about his character or his personal life given the urgency of what he is saying.

What is true and urgent about what he says is true and urgent and, frankly, would remain so if he were personally the most objectionable and vile human being who ever lived.

The class and aesthetic criticisms are shallow and frankly part of the problem. There’s a reason these views have to be expressed by outsider figures, some of whom border on the ridiculous in their personal presentation and some of whom aren’t very articulate and some of whom aren’t very pleasant. And the reason why we tend to have ugly champions or crude heroes is not because the ideas they are sharing are false or even their morality, on these issues at least, is wicked.

Its because nobody in the pampered, manicured and well presented class, the class schooled in presentation and surface appeal, the class who have the respectable jobs, the comfortable lives, the private sins all neatly tucked away and hidden, is on our side. They are all united on a policy of monstrous and immoral betrayal. We don’t have any respectable champions because everyone respectable is in on our betrayal. That’s true in almost every western nation and especially on the topic of the Great Replacement and the elite genocidal desire to replace the populations they are ruling.

Give me a choice between a man telling the truth on a threat to my entire culture who may have hit his partner, and a man who has never hit anyone telling lies that lead to hundreds of assaults on women, or thousands of deaths that could have been avoided, or even the end of everyone like me and my entire nation, and who am I supposed to pick?

Am I endorsing domestic violence because I agree that importing tens of thousands (in Ireland’s case) or tens of millions (in Britain’s case) of violent savages is going to bring, and has already delivered, far more evil than anything the worst spokesman we could find has done?

I have seen the footage of Irish children being bullied and beaten up and harassed by immigrants. What about those innocent terrified victims of respectable, comfortable ideas? What about that thuggery? The hypocrisy of dismissing arguments against mass immigration because one man making them might be a thug with a poor attitude to how you treat women is breathtaking coming from those who sit in luxury demanding that you and I should keep our mouths shut when they import people who rape and murder children. Where is the majority of evil in this equation?

In McGregor? Or in those who genuinely seem to want to turn their whole nation into a playground for violent savages who don’t have the least concern for any Irish person?

In some senses I don’t have, as the saying goes, a dog in this fight. I have some probable Irish ancestry through a grandmother whose maiden name was Cruise and indicated by the fact that I have a relatively rare blood condition particularly associated with Irish ancestry. But the majority of my DNA and the entirety of my cultural loyalty is English. And Ireland hasn’t exactly been a friend to me and mine, any more than we have to it. There’s much of me that despises Irish support for the IRA, Irish foundation in terrorism, Irish anti English bigotry and Irish support for Hamas and the Palestinians, which I also find morally repugnant. I can’t think of any Irish government since independence that has ever acted as a friend to mainland Britain.

Like many Europeans, they have been long alleged allies, rather than real ones. Like the EU that they embraced so fully, they have often done little other than demand British money while spreading hatred of our history and identity at the same time. Unlike many Brits I don’t get a teary eyed sense of fellowship for my neighbours on St Paddy’s Day because I still recall when the IRA were bombing people in British pubs and an awful lot of Irish citizens thought that was justified.

Despite this, though, I can understand McGregor. Not as a person I particularly admire, but as a person who is telling the truth. Not as someone whose every action I can endorse, but as someone who at least isn’t supporting Islamic terrorists and child rapists the way much more respectable figures are. As someone who does indeed have the right to speak up for the country and people he clearly does care about more than their respectable leaders do. And as someone whose people have a right to exist and continue to exist without being betrayed into non existence by their leaders.

As despicable as I find IRA support and Hamas support, as grotesque to me as hatred of the English or hatred of Jews is, I know there are a very large number of decent people in Ireland who perhaps don’t have those sins on their record and who are pretty normal and ordinary people who deserve their existence and their safety. And however unelected McGregor is, however wrong his fists have been in the past, his heart is right on THIS. And more moral than his current elected leaders, and far less evil than his current elected leaders.

The Irish do deserve to remain Irish, whatever other differences we have. What’s being done to them IS a crime, as is a similar policy of replacement throughout Western Europe including in my own country. It is perhaps the greatest crime of self eradication the world has ever seen.

I have not seen any populist champions uglier than the thing they are fighting. They can’t match the evil of respectable Globalism.

It isn’t even a close fight.