Egregoros

@georgia You're the racist here though, trying to downplay the shit they've been put through because "they're just white".
"genocide bad when it's against me, but it's lame to complain about it when it's against whites", right?
The Irish are "our guys" in the sense of common continental roots, it has nothing to do with ideology. Anyone not insane would feel sympathy for a nation related to theirs be it in blood or faith that suffered repeated attempts at being wiped.

@nerthos I'm not actually anti-white though I just think "white culture" has been celebrated enough like beating a dead horse. the irish diaspora are prominent in major powerful institutions they are a successful minority to the point of fully assimilating. saying a country isnt cool isnt racism. and extermination of a people is literally never justified no matter how you spin it. you are only righteous in your own conceit, far more noble are racists who know theyre hateful people and that hate is wrong. this is like you calling me a misandrist because i occasionally passive aggressively post about males when I would never argue for the actual oppression of men and literally all of my friends are male or male at birth.

@georgia Every people should celebrate their own achievements. White culture is celebrated in white countries just like indian culture is celebrated in india or chinese culture is celebrated in china. Yet there's never a complaint towards the indians, "you've been celebrating yourselves like beating a dead horse for 5000 years bro, stop, it's getting old", it's only towards whites, in their own nations. That's being anti-white, you demand of white people things that you don't demand of other races.

The irish diaspora have people in prominent institutions because they went through all the bullshit and difficulties required to climb there despite the hurdles deliberately put in their way to prevent that from happening, in the same way that say, german immigrants in north america or italian immigrants in south america were treated like second class citizens when they arrived, but instead of fighting with everyone over it they started business and participated in society so by the time their children were adults everyone else considered them part of the core population and didn't differentiate them anymore. They worked to assimilate, instead of putting in the effort to separate themselves from others. Assimilating to a land you migrated to is an achievement, not a point of criticism.

I don't argue for extermination on the grounds of "I don't like their colour or how they were born", I argue for the use of violence to destroy any and all threats to my people and to humanity in general, regardless of their race. Even in the case of jews, God's great hurdle, I am fine with the orthodox guys that just want to stay in their villages praying, and with the ones who chose to convert and ditch their ancestors' beliefs to pursue something better, it is the actions and beliefs of the invasive ones and of israelis that require fighting against. It's not a "what race you were born as" thing, it's a "what beliefs and actions do you support" thing. There comes a point when dealing with certain groups when enough chances were given and the good will was taken advantage of every time, and strength of arms is required.

See a more distant to you example: Argentina's campaign against the Mapuches. 200 years of them massacring the natives of the southern cone, killing the men and taking the women and children for themselves, years of attacks against Buenos Aires in which they again murdered the men and took thousands of women captive to rape and enslave, and hundreds of thousands of heads of cattle stolen. Argentina's government made three separate treaties with them, giving them tribute and drawing borders, which they accepted each time and then immediately disregarded to continue their attack as soon as they were paid. After the third time, Argentina gathered the funds and the men for a campaign of extermination and pushed them all the way to Chile, recovered the captives and the cattle. And the surviving native tribes that had previously been victims of the Mapuches joined the Argentinian army, fought together, and were given land as recognition and reward for their cooperation. This bought us about 120 years of peace, and yet the descendants of the Mapuches are now carrying out terrorist attacks in Chile and Argentina, funded by British NGOs, their thanks for not being completely exterminated. In this case, clearly, full extermination is the correct path, they have proven themselves deserving of it, and unable to coexist even when given every opportunity.

I am not conceited. You usually assume bad faith from me, but if there's one thing that has always defined me is that I am always honest and my opinions and beliefs are in open display. Any belief I hold I will give the reasons for if asked.

@nerthos except im not personally against any European person for being European I'm against whiteness as an oppressive social construct that divides peoples within and without. I think you have made some assumptions as to what motivated my initial post what I was criticizing was not irish people supporting Ireland but (often third-worldist) leftists unusual fixation with Ireland a white christian first world western country. it strikes me as odd and against the spirit of supporting a multipolar world. as an alternative I argued that certain "developing" countries should be celebrated more. I dont know about the situation of the mapuches but I'm 100 percent sure that a people rejecting treaties and comitting terrorism doesnt justify genocide and never has, just as the Israeli genocide against Gaza isnt justified or the chinese oppression of the uyghurs.

@georgia White people have every right to have a concept of whiteness for themselves, and run their countries however they want. A "multipolar world" built on focaultist ideas of marginality and "who's more oppressed?" is an atrocity, that in oligarchic fashion tiny minorities want to enforce upon a majority that doesn't want it, and have consistently failed at doing despite massive resources being dedicated to it and extreme support from institutions and governments, because the people just don't want anything to do with it and the very moment the threat of violence isn't absolute, people undo it.
Ireland deserves celebration because despite the constant attempts at destruction against them over centuries, they managed to make it to "white christian first world western country" as you put it, the quality of life standard everyone wants to have regardless of how much they complain about whiteness.

>I'm 100 percent sure that a people rejecting treaties and comitting terrorism doesnt justify genocide and never has

Tell me, if neither leaving them alone, diplomacy, tribute, nor displacement has worked, what solution do you propose? Everything except total extermination has been tried, and the result to every attempt has them continuing to carry out unjustified violence against everyone else. Should everyone else just lay down and take it? let themselves be killed and raped and set on fire?
The other difference between the case of the Mapuches and that of the Israeli genocide of Gaza or the Chinese genocide of Uyghurs is that the Mapuches had their own land and carried out genocidal expansion, and were destroyed by the people they tried to conquer and enslave. In the other two cases, it's the invader committing the genocide, not the ones being destroyed.
If the Palestinians ended up invading Israel and wiping it out, or the Uyghurs did the same to China, or if the Irish had ended up overpowering and wiping out the English, I'd go "lmao that was poetic, nice"

@sun @georgia @nerthos
Tangential thought:
this may be true but I'd encourage you and anyone else to not let your thoughts on that particular matter terminate there.

Yes, sure, those are good sounding reasons/explanations. However, note that the same exact reasons/explanations were given for the Armenian genocide. They're extremists, they are separatists, they support the enemy, they are disloyal, they disrupt unity, they're working with the Russians, among other things.
Were some Armenians involved in such activities? Sure
Were all 1 million+ victims? Of course not
And neither were all tens of thousands displaced.
The real reason was most likely a combination of those excuses mixed with the strong fear of rebellion the ottomans had after (russia-backed) Christian nationalists in the Balkans successfully broke away from the ottoman empire, as well as the desire to steal the wealth of Armenian merchants/bankers to fund their faltering empire

... The point is, good propaganda is based partly on truth, but the whole picture should always be kept in mind

@georgia @nerthos the English were shooting children in the streets. Not to agree with nerthos because I think actual racism is retarded but the irish were culturally replaced, displaced, occupied, and shot dead for centuries. the only actual case of white genocide that ever happened. I'm sure if Great Britain had missiles they would've been blowing up childrens hospitals too. Erased the language starting centuries before the potato famine. imprisoned and killed irish for speaking irish.

@OneRatOneVerySmallTrenchCoat @nerthos @rowb1t @scathach not sure why im talking to someome openly "anti-india" but the fact that you consider the Hindi people to be colonialists of any kind because of the controversial partition of india which saw death and displacement on both sides is certainly a unique take. they are not occupying or creating colonies in other parts of india that are tamil or gujarati or bengali. they are just a plurality of indians with a prestige culture and dialect. Hindustani people have prominence in both india and Pakistan, creating hindi culture in india and Urdu culture in Pakistan. do you consider Pakistan to be "occupied" by the urdu-speaking people? or do you consider Pakistan preferable because it has one major ethnoreligious group instead of india which tries to emulate a secular ideal (before modern hindu nationalism) while being pan-hindu and sikh and muslim? is there an article that states your opinion you could link me? I have mostly read about the history of india before British colonialism