Why are you comparing US companies to EU judges? To me it seems like private business in the US is much more involved in the legislative than the judicative branch.
I have the impression that most people believing and repeating this "great replacement" narrative are not members of the demographics they claim are being replaced. To me it seems mostly spread by people living outside of Europe trying to paint Europe in a bad light in order to push fear and anti-immigration policies in the general west.
Unfortunately, it's not an uncommon thing to hear from people when performing community outreach (think door knocking). External push, definitely, but it's also being repeated by the demographic this narrative is being pushed to.
I can't comment on whether or not they believe it, but it's certainly repeated by some here in Ireland.
> but it's certainly repeated by some here in Ireland.
To be fair to Ireland and history they have a valid complaint going back centuries wrt outsiders taking their lands, language, governance, food and labour all while debating "the Irish Question" and reaching for eugenic "solutions".
> To be fair to Ireland and history they have a valid complaint going back centuries wrt outsiders taking their lands, language, governance, food and labour all while debating "the Irish Question" and reaching for eugenic "solutions".
Odd then, that they didn't notice when this happened post GFC when basically all of the land banks and large assets were sold off to (predominantly) US based private equity funds.
And honestly, Irish anti-immigration sentiment is far more driven by both our complete failures at building infrastructure for a growing population (which we've never had before) and the fact that all refugees are housed in poor areas (which already had much worse services).
But it's very important that no residents of South Dublin should be inconvenienced, even at the cost of our society.
I wouldn't say anyone didn't notice "when basically all of the land banks and large assets were sold off", there was years of protest and reporting about this.
> Irish anti-immigration sentiment is far more driven by both our complete failures at building infrastructure
Yeah, I'd largely agree it's a services issue, and most people I speak with correctly direct that anger at the state.
> I wouldn't say anyone didn't notice "when basically all of the land banks and large assets were sold off", there was years of protest and reporting about this.
I definitely was upset at the time, but didn't really notice many people paying attention. We basically sold off our future development policy to get out of the Troika bailout (and I understand why this happened, but I think the long term consequences of this are have been shown to be really, really bad).
> Yeah, I'd largely agree it's a services issue, and most people I speak with correctly direct that anger at the state.
And they are correct to do so. Basically all FFG have done is wait until the housing issue had gone way too far (and started impacting their voters) and then done a bunch of demand side initiatives which have just pushed up prices rather than focusing on the development side.
Not to mention the absurdity of our national spatial strategy where we won't zone more in Dublin and instead want people to move to Meath & Wicklow and commute for hours to their jobs.
But at least no-one's left in negative equity. FML.
I more or less nodded along in general agreement save for
> for a growing population (which we've never had before)
and feel I might remind you that in the time span of my comment (past centuries) Irelands population nearly tripled in the 40 years following 1700 to a peak greater than the current population number.
> and feel I might remind you that in the time span of my comment (past centuries) Irelands population nearly tripled in the 40 years following 1700 to a peak greater than the current population number.
True, the political system was very different then though, and the government of the time (to put it lightly) was not concerned with the needs of those citizens (c.f. penal laws etc).
So if you look at money, education etc basically the south of Dublin is incredibly rich relative to the rest of the country. It tends to be where much of the media and business interests of the country are focused, and you never see (for example) a Traveller halting site, or an immigration centre being set up there. Whereas, if you look at a place like Tallaght (which to be fair is also south dublin) you'll see worse services, and lots of immigration centres.
It's a comment on the geographical inequalities and their impact on politics.
Don't get me wrong, I live in a similar Northside enclave, but it's really upsetting to me that much of the media and political elite live in bubbles where they don't see the consequences of their (bad) decisions.
Well, those are common talking points in some quarters, but I can tell you they're false, because I live in a southside suburb, the kind of place that journalists describe as "leafy". For the last couple of years, a large immigration centre has been operating a kilometer and a half away from my house. (You haven't heard of it because there were no protests about it.) There's a halting site located a kilometer away from me in the other direction.
Is the system perfect? No, of course not. But the Us vs Them polemics are unfair.
> Is the system perfect? No, of course not. But the Us vs Them polemics are unfair.
Fair enough, I recognise that I may have been unfair to many residents of South Dublin in my generalisation. That being said, there is a really common pattern of anything that inconveniences higher income voters being pushed into poorer areas.
For a good example, look at where all of the large apartment buildings are being actually built (as opposed to being judically reviewed). There's a pretty clear pattern of them being built in poorer areas relative to richer ones, and I guess that's where I'm coming from here.
Like, I live in a similarly leafy suburb (but on the Northside) and they wanted to build a set of high rise apartments on a junction next to the N3, and it was shut down with many angry comments. Meanwhile, over by Blanchardstown shopping centre (a much poorer area) they're building a similarly sized apartment block with local objections being steam-rollered.
IMO there's a massive difference between what's happening today, with individuals claiming asylum, compared to the State level interference of our history.
Seems like a low bar given the entire span of Britain's history - Londinium was founded by Mediterraneans, Danelaw covered half the Big Island for a good period, the Anglo-Saxons were Germanic immigrants pushed back by the Norman wave . . .
The UK is immigrant wave after wave all the way back to when it was nothing but solid ice pressing down the entire landmass and practically all the islands.
So what? That changes nothing about their policies and views.
Ernst Röhm was one of the most powerful people in early Nazi Germany and famously gay. And still, the NSDAP brutally and systemically persecuted queer people.
You act as if hypocrisy, bigotry, moral flexibility and opportunism weren't core "virtues" of far right populists.
With Röhm you are close to Goodwin. The difference is Röhm was hiding his sexual preferences, while Weidel is pretty open about it. Röhm was killed because of it by his party members. Weidels sexual preference is a non issue for AfD members.
Your comparison with Röhm just shows once more that AfD policies are quite opposite to those of the NSDAP.
what? is this serios? to quote my link from the most major jewish organisation:
"Die Zeit der nationalsozialistischen Gewaltherrschaft mit Millionen getöteter Juden, Sinti und Roma, Homosexueller und politisch Verfolgter ist für den Fraktionsvorsitzenden der AfD lediglich ein „Vogelschiss“. Die darin zum Ausdruck gebrachte Haltung verharmlost in unerträglicher Weise die Gräuel der Geschichte. So wie vor wenigen Jahren bei Pegida oder in Chemnitz laufen AfD-Politiker nun bei Querdenker-Demos neben Hooligans und Rechtsextremen. "
Maybe get out of your buble. Most jewish and gay people despise the AfD. Most jewish and gay people want to leave the country in case of AfD majority. But hey Im talking to an account calling the AfD "most pro-jewish" party.
Which "leftists" have monopolized the EU? What positions do they have to exert that kind of power, and what parties are they affiliated with?
Or is the EPP with the likes of Weber and von der Leyen "leftist" now? You have move quite far towards the extreme right for traditional conservative politicians to appear "leftist" to you.
> Why would you expect to find that? It doesn't make sense.
Can you explain why it doesn't make sense? Closing nuclear plants, which forces replacing them with fossil fuels, which come from Russia, seems quite plain to me, and was entirely predictable (and was in fact predicted) ahead of time. Can you point out where I am making an error?
They weren’t forced to replace nuclear with fossil energy. They wanted solar and photovoltaics but the past administration favored cheap gas and oil from russia.
They actively hindered the expansion of renewable energy sources.
The greens where in early opposition to the energy deals with Russia.
lol. Germany still used ~40% fossil fuels and another ~8% in "biomass" (unclear how much of that meant cutting down forests) in 2020 - did the Greens think 40% of German electricity consumption in renewables would magically materialize only after nuclear power plants were shut down, that's why they didn't want to promote renewables first and shutting down nuclear only after fossil fuels were eliminated from the grid?
> the past administration favored cheap gas and oil from russia
So it was Merkel's CDU that did Russian bidding, and the Greens were just useful idiots?
I'll explain my reasoning, after you show that the decision to decommission nuclear plants (which was made about 10 years ago, by the conservative CDU) led to a significant increase in fossil imports from Russia, and that nuclear power would reduce dependency on Russia. As far as I'm aware, Russia is also an important source for nuclear fuel.
Additionally, just from a purely economic perspective, nuclear energy is not very competitive (if not just very expensive).
Also, just going by actual geostrategic standpoints, you would be hard pressed to find sympathy for Putins Russia in the green party, probably the least amongst all significant parties in Germany.
That's why I have a hard time understanding your original comment.
> As far as I'm aware, Russia is also an important source for nuclear fuel.
I couldn't find a source on where Germany got its fuel, but did find that Canada, Kazakhstan, and Australia are also nuclear fuel producers, so at the least they had options.
But supposing they did get their fuel from Russia - nuclear fuel [1] costs $1.5 per MWh [2], while natural gas (the cheapest fossil fuel) costs $13.2 per MWh. So Russia gets ~TEN TIMES more money per MWh if selling gas vs. nuclear fuel.
> find sympathy
Let me know how much effect sympathy has compared to diverting capital into Russia.
[1] Only the fuel, so this does not include the full cost of operating a nuclear plant, and the electricity produced is thus more expensive, but this is what Russia would get paid.
Practically nobody "likes" war. However, when facing adversaries like Putin who don't care for democracy, human life, human rights, agreements and contracts, who have no conviction beyond "might makes right", not ensuring clearly superior military capabilities ultimately means submitting to their plans of domination. Reflexively rejecting any kind of military investment is naïve and plays into the hands of the likes of Putin. It is no surprise that in the west, political parties and actors with proven ties to the Russian regime predominantly promote this faux-pacifist narrative, effectively inviting the fox into the chicken pen.
reply