“The Irish flag could offend people.”

More than two and a half years ago, I wrote a post, about how there were apparently plans to display Irish flags in every Irish primary school class. At the time I predicted a possibility that this would eventually be considered “offensive” to foreign students and that there would be calls to remove the flags. Well I never found out if this ended up being the case. However, I did just hear that apparently a local Dublin Councillor has come to a similar conclusion about displaying the Irish flag on top of the council building.


From Dublin Live

A Fingal County councillor has warned against flying the Irish flag outside County Hall, saying the move could offend foreign nationals living there.

Is the sheer idiocy of the statement not completely self-evident? If there really are people who find symbols of our country so offensive, then why are they even in the country?

At a meeting of the council, Solidarity-People Before Profit’s Matthew Waine opposed a motion proposed by Sinn Fein’s Daire Ni Laoi to hoist the national flag at the council’s HQ in Swords.

I hope this guy does not get re-elected.

Don’t vote for this crowd, fellow Irish people. I can’t blame you for feeling disillusioned with the major establishment parties. I completely agree with you there. But if you must vote for something different, please throw your support behind a different party than this one. They need to understand that we will not tolerate this blatant disrespect for our culture and our heritage.

The councillor was one of just two who voted against the motion, suggesting that the red flag of Marxism and socialism should be flown instead.

“The Irish tricolour which represents Irish culture might be offensive to foreign nationals.”



“The red flag of Marxism, a flag which represents an ideology under which tens to hundreds of millions were brutally enslaved, tortured and murdered, won’t be offensive”.

Not offensive
Not offensive
Not offensive
Not offensive


Councillor Waine said: “We have one of the most multi-cultural populations in the whole country living in Fingal and I think we need to consider the sensitivity of this.

Yes it’s so insensitive subjecting them to the sight of the flag of a country they willingly chose to immigrate to. Thank you Comra… er I mean “Councillor”, for being our moral compass.

“The issue of religion, language, nationality…all of those issues are extremely sensitive and we’ve seen how that can play out to divide people.

This is what the left always do. They always project. He talks about certain issues being used to divide people, when that is exactly what he is doing right here, with his implication that our national flag is divisive. There wouldn’t be an issue if not for people like him making an issue out of nothing.

“I would prefer to see the flagpoles used to express solidarity, so for example on the week of Pride we should show the Rainbow flag.

Instead of displaying a flag which is representative of the Irish people as a whole, lets display a flag which is representative of a small minority.

“I think we should fly the flags of minority groups like Pavee Point. I come from the tradition of the workers’ movement which doesn’t see the country of your birth as being anything significant.

“I would prefer to see the red flag fly outside County Hall and maybe in the future that will be the case.”

“Because I have certain beliefs about nationality being unimportant, I think they should take precedence, over the beliefs of everyone else. I don’t care if patriotism and national identity are important to other people. What I think is what matters.”

Enter a caption

His view was supported by Independent Councillor David O’Connor who said: “You’re saying what a lot of people think.”

And a lot more people than that, think that he’s talking complete crap.

Another one to avoid voting for.

Councillor Brian Dennehy (FG) also said he understood where Councillor Waine was coming from, because he said flags could be “used as a wedge to divide people”.

A pathetic wimp trying to sit on the fence, instead of taking a solid stance one way or the other.

For your cowardly refusal to take a principled stance one way or another, I declare you untrustworthy, and wouldn’t recommend a vote for you either.

But Fianna Fail’s Darragh Butler said: “I think it’s staggering that a councillor should say we shouldn’t fly our national flag, or hide our own flag away.”

No love for Fianna Fail on my part, but I gotta give credit where credit is due. Fair play Councillor Darragh Butler, for telling this prick exactly what all sane Irish people think.

In recognition of his respect for our culture, I hereby call for Cllr Darragh Butler, to be named as the new leader of Fianna Fail.

Independent councillor Jimmy Guerin said: “I take offence at the comments of Cllr Waine. I’m not surprised at him.”

image (1)
Another champion of Irish culture. I hope this guy gets re-elected.

Councillor Ni Laoi said: “I’d love to see the national flag flying from the turrets of Malahide Castle and Swords Castle and Ardgillen, but for now I’m just proposing that this flag, this symbol of tolerance, inclusion and respect, be flown outside County Hall.”

I completely agree with this. It should be flown everywhere.

After a lengthy debate in the council chamber, with the majority of members supporting the proposal, the motion was carried by 34 votes to two.

Thankfully, our country hasn’t gone completely insane just yet. However this does worry me. It always starts off slowly, and in such a way that we ridicule it, much like we are now. But these monsters are relentless. They don’t ever give up. They only make tactical retreats until they’re ready to try again. I doubt this will be the last we hear of this. I’m certain either he, or one of his comrades will try something like this again. We must never ever give them anything. The more we give them, the further they’ll push. We must always remain vigilant and treat these people with the same contempt, that they treat us through their disrespect for our culture. They deserve nothing less.


My thoughts on the recent George Hook controversy.

I want to compare two different scenarios. In scenario one, I lock up my home when I have to leave. When I return, I find out that someone has broken in and stolen my TV, PC, games consoles, and various other expensive pieces of property. In scenario two, I leave my front door wide open when I leave, and when I return, I find that a similar burglary has taken place. In neither situation is it justified that my property has been stolen, but in scenario two, I’m more likely to receive some criticism from others for not taking the precaution of locking my door, than I would in scenario one, were I did take precautions, but something bad happened anyway. The story behind scenario two could then potentially be used as a warning to others to take the kind of necessary precautions that I should have taken myself. This isn’t being done to shame me, or to “blame the victim”. It’s being done to hopefully prevent other people from experiencing something similar themselves, by informing them of the potential consequences of not taking the right precautions.

Lets give another example of these kinds of scenarios. In scenario one, I’m walking home at night and there are two routes home. One is a long walk around the block, and the other is a shortcut through a dark alley. Concerned for my safety, I choose the long route, but I end up getting attacked and mugged anyway. In scenario two, I choose to walk down the dark alley instead, holding a wad of cash in my hand while doing so, and the same thing happens. Once again, in neither situation is it justified that I was attacked and mugged, but in scenario two, it’s more likely that I’ll receive some criticism for being irresponsible, and my story could be used as a warning to others: “Don’t walk down a dark alley alone at night, with your money out. Keep your money hidden, and try to stay in well lit and open areas.” Once again, this isn’t being done to shame or “victim blame” me. It’s being done to prevent others from getting into a similar situation themselves by warning them of the potential dangers of doing what I did.

So now that that’s out of the way, let me get to the main point of this post. A few days ago, Irish radio host George Hook created a massive controversy when discussing a recent case in the UK, in which a 19 year old girl was allegedly raped. The girl in question, met a man at a bar, went off with him to have consensual sex, and claims that she was soon after, raped by one of his friends. Hook made it clear that the rapist is a scumbag, and he condemned his actions fully. However, he did also make a point of raising the issue of the girl’s own behaviour. To quote what he said:

“She was passed around went the story apparently. She went to bed with one guy and he went out and another guy comes in. She doesn’t want to have relations with the second guy but he forced himself upon her. Awful,

But when you then look deeper into the story you have to ask certain questions. Why does a girl who just meets a fella in a bar go back to a hotel room? She’s only just barely met him. She has no idea of his health conditions, she has no idea who he is, no idea what dangers he might pose.

But modern day social activity means that she goes back with him. Then is surprised when somebody else comes into the room and rapes her. Should she be raped? Course she shouldn’t. Is she entitled to say no? Absolutely. Is the guy who came in a scumbag? Certainly. Should he go to jail? Of Course. All of those things.

But is there no blame now to the person who puts themselves in danger? You then of course read that she passed out on the toilet and when she woke up the guy was trying to rape her. There is personal responsibility because it’s your daughter and my daughter. What determines the daughter who goes out, gets drunk, passes out and has strangers in her room or the daughter that stays out, stays halfway sober and comes home, I don’t know. I wish I knew what the secret of parenting is.

Is a point of responsibility the real issue?

There is a point of responsibility that young girls are taking for their own safety,”

Now I specifically bolded the parts where he condemns what happened, but none of this matters. What people are focusing on instead are the bits where he talks about personal responsibility. You see in an ideal world, there wouldn’t be any rapists, women wouldn’t have to ever feel unsafe, and there would be no need for taking any precautions, just like how in an ideal world, I should be able to leave my doors unlocked without getting burgled, or walk down a dark alley with a wad of cash in my hand, without getting mugged.

Unfortunately, we don’t live in an ideal world. We live in a world with bad people, who do bad things. People are getting outraged at Hook, claiming that he’s victim blaming, and trying to tell young women what they can and cannot do. That’s not the impression that I get at all. I don’t think anyone is telling young women that they don’t have the right to get stupidly drunk, and go off with a stranger they’ve just met and know nothing about for sex. What he’s saying is that there are predators out there who will victimise vulnerable people if they get an opportunity to do so, and is trying to warn other young women to look after themselves so that they don’t end up becoming their victims. He just articulated in a very poor manner.

I’ve come across numerous quotes online from people suggesting that instead of teaching young women to take responsibility for their own safety, we should “teach men not to rape”. The fact is, men already know not to rape. Rapists don’t rape people out of ignorance that’s it wrong. They do it because they’re bad people, who simply don’t care. By the same logic, we may as well be saying that we should teach people not to murder or steal, in the ridiculous belief that when potential murderers and thieves find out that murder and stealing are wrong, they won’t do it anymore.

No, what I believe is that we should be teaching people about the very real risks and dangers that are out there, as a warning, rather than living in a fantasy world were people are free to do whatever they want, without any potential consequences. If a woman decides that she still wants to get extremely drunk and go off with a man that she just met, after being informed of the risks involved, then that should entirely be her right, and nobody should tell her otherwise. But lets not pretend that declaring something to be a “right” means that any dangers associated with it, suddenly stop existing.

The debating skills of the politically correct perfectly illustrated.

Galileo~ “Um you know guys, most of these migrants aren’t genuine cases. Here’s my evidence”
Politically Correct Inquisition~ “HERETIC… I mean… RACIST!!!”

So I came across a Facebook event calling on the Irish people to demand that our government take in more “refugees” in light of that horrific picture doing the rounds of that poor drowned Syrian child. Naturally, because most people are good, they found the image disturbing and wanted to help. I myself take no pleasure in seeing innocent children die. However, as I have tried to illustrate time and time again, the vast majority of these “refugees” aren’t fleeing from warzones like Syria, nor are they children. They are in most cases young, fit, black, African, men of working age, who leave for economic reasons, rather than to escape persecution or danger. Seeing the number of people joining the page (over 10,000 at this point) I was naturally alarmed, and decided to go and share some information, not because I have some irrational hatred of other races, or because I wanted to upset people, but because I recognise the very real trouble it could cause for Ireland in the future, just from looking at what has happened to other European countries. I decided to use a fake profile (picking the generic name John Smith) because I also know how nutty some of these do-gooders can be, tracking down people they disagree with and going out of their way to ruin their lives (all while claiming to be tolerant themselves). Below are screenshots of my interactions with others. I’ve hid their surnames and profile pictures. I don’t advocate harassment or victimisation of others, so I believe it’s only right to protect their identities. My aim was simply to inform, not to harass or annoy. Here’s how the discussion went.

My first post was to provide links to video footage of the migrants, to illustrate who they are, and how they are behaving in their host nations. I also linked to various news articles such as one about illegals buying fake Syrian passports in order to claim asylum, how some migrants are spending their food vouchers on prostitutes, information about Sweden’s rape statistics (which coincide with opening their borders to outsiders, etc.).


This post was completely ignored, as other users continued to argue amongst themselves. I then provided this post.

If they had checked my links from the first post, they would know that I was saying here was true.
If they had checked my links from the first post, they would know that what I was saying here was true.

So what response did I get to this question?


Instead of arguing the point that I made, Laura decided to attack me personally, and I responded as such.


A third party, Paul joined the discussion.


And Laura responded.


So I decided to respond to both of these people with this post.

I think I've been fairly reasonable so far. No insults. No personal attacks. No putting emotions ahead of objective facts.
I think I’ve been fairly reasonable so far. No insults. No personal attacks. No putting emotions ahead of objective facts.
“I don’t have a response to your points, so I’ll just keep attacking you, block you so I don’t have to deal with you, and be a winner in my head”

Now, she raises a fair point about me using a false identity. She’s right, I do genuinely fear using my real identity, but it’s not because what I’m saying isn’t true or that I don’t stand by it, but rather because it doesn’t fucking matter that it is true. People are so politically correct these days, that people who don’t blindly follow their line of thought are liable to have their reputations ruined, lose their jobs, or even be physically attacked for expressing their opinions. I’m not trying to become a martyr by saying the things that I do. I say it because we need to start moving the overton window away from the politically correct points of view, and back to the truth. I’m not going to destroy my own life to do that, but I am going to help in whatever way I can.

Anyway, lets continue.


Another user then leaves a very reasonable and fair comment.

High five Carol. You have my genuine respect.
High five Carol. You have my genuine respect.

Paul then rejoins the discussion.

I can assure you Paul, I wasn't lying.
I can assure you Paul, I wasn’t lying.

Laura tells Paul to block me, much like she herself has decided to do. Again, not once has she actually addressed my arguments. She just insults me.


Paul in fairness to him doesn’t. He admits that he hasn’t actually seen my links, but acknowledges that there may be some basis to my points afterall. He does finish off with a somewhat snide comment, but that doesn’t bother me, because I assume it was just to save face after attacking me so confidently before.


I of course have no interest in attacking him for this. I’m simply hoping that he’ll see the information I provided, and realise that I’m telling the truth, unlike Laura who refuses to acknowledge reality. I then post this reply.


And now, over an hour later, nobody has responded to me and apart from a few posts that aren’t directed towards anyone in particular, the thread has virtually died. So what were the links I posted? Well, here they are.

Fake Syrian passports

Most Syrians refugees are fake

Refugees spending food vouchers on prostitutes

Statistics on who refugees are (Most are young men under the age of 35)

Sweden’s rape statistics

But no, clearly I’m just a hate filled racist out to see those poor Syrian children drown. No wonder Laura wouldn’t argue with me. It’s so completely obvious that I’m just a stupid racist, what possible argument is needed to beat me?

Irish people can now “self declare” their gender.

I can just hear the Social Justice Warriors grinding their teeth as they prepare to rage at me for my “ignorance” on this topic. Sorry SJWs, I know your hearts are in the right place (at least I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt here and assuming you have good intentions). However, I have done my research on this topic and despite my best efforts, I have failed to find any scientific evidence that a sex change is biologically possible. All I see evidence of is people pumping themselves full of the opposite sexes hormones, and mutilating their genitalia so that they look more like the opposite sex. I see no evidence that they actually become the opposite sex.

This is what these people actually believe.
This is what these people actually believe.

Yes, I know transgender people are being honest and genuinely feel as if their biological sex does not match the gender they identify as and I do feel genuine sympathy for their plight. I don’t envy what they’re going through one bit, and I don’t think it’s right to bully or discriminate against them. However, the schizophrenic man is being honest when he says he hears voices in his head. The anorexic person is being honest when she says that she sees an obese girl looking back at her when she looks in the mirror.

This situation again.
This situation again.

Do we tell him that these voices are real and that he should listen to what they tell him to do? Do we tell her that she really is fat and that she should keep starving herself to lose weight? Of course not, because we know how harmful it could be to cooperate with these delusions. So why is that when a guy says he feels like a female and that he needs to take estrogen and have his penis and testicles surgically removed so he looks more womanly, do we play along? Yes, I know not all trans people go that far. I’m simply pointing out the most extreme example which can (and has) been reached. I think it’s very irresponsible for society to treat this obvious disorder like it’s just a different lifestyle. These people need compassion and help, but sometimes that necessitates a dose of tough reality. Instead, our state is opting to take the cowardly and easy route of just cooperating with the condition rather than trying to help people with it.

From The Journal

TRANS PEOPLE IN Ireland will now not have to rely on testimony from psychiatrists or endocrinologists to have their gender recognised by the state.

Instead, their self-declaration will be accepted, for the purpose of updating passports, driving licences, obtaining a new birth cert, and getting married.

Tánaiste Joan Burton announced this evening that the Cabinet has agreed that, under the Gender Recognition Bill currently before the Oireachtas, changes of gender will be effected by a “statutory declaration,” for those over the age of 18.

Well I will say one thing in its favour. At least it’s limited to over 18s for now. Not like America where they allow children who don’t yet know any better to make these life changing situations.

If Friends was made today instead of 20 years ago, they would have had a storyline about Ross's son Ben transitioning to being a girl after he played with a Barbie doll in that one episode.
If Friends was made today instead of 20 years ago, they would have had a storyline about Ross’s son Ben transitioning to being a girl after he played with a Barbie doll in that one episode.

“A person who transitions gender will have their preferred gender fully recognised by the State for all purposes – including the right to marry or enter a civil partnership in the preferred gender and the right to a new birth certificate.”

“Following today’s Cabinet decision…amendments will be made to the Bill at Committee Stage to ensure there will be no need for a supporting statement from a medical practitioner.”

The medical testimony requirement had been a controversial element of the bill, with Sinn Féin MEP Lynn Boylan describing it as “an insult to transgender people.”

“A person’s gender identity is a matter for each individual. Transgender people know their own identity. They don’t need medical evaluation to prove their identity to anyone.”

I have no doubt they genuinely do “know” it. That doesn’t change the biological reality of their sex though. No more than the anorexic girl “knows” she’s overweight. Seriously why exactly do feelings take precedence over objective, undeniable, physical reality?

This whole denial of reality reminds me of this guy, who thinks if he imagined something, that makes it real.

The requirement will, however, remain in place for those aged 16 and 17, the Tánaiste has confirmed.

The government has also dropped a section of the bill that would have forced trans people who are married to either get divorced or not have their gender transition recognised.

Minister of State Kevin Humphreys explained:

“As the marriage equality referendum has been passed there is no Constitutional barrier to a person in a marriage or civil partnership having their preferred gender legally recognised.”

So there you have it. No doubt, people who claim to care so much about the plight of transgender rights will take offence to my comments, but as I’ve said, I don’t think it’s right to treat these people badly. I just think it’s wrong to cooperate with the condition and promote it to the world as something normal. We know that the suicide rate is still very high even after transitioning, suggesting that treating it as normal doesn’t always do the sufferers any good. We don’t know what causes it (there may in fact be multiple causes and we can’t yet rule out young children imitating what they see as normal being a possible cause). From what I’ve seen, the majority of people aren’t convinced that this is the right way to deal with the issue.

So what reason or reasons do we have to treat it this way? If someone could provide scientific evidence that a sex change is biologically possible, that sex changes are a good thing, and that there’s a 0% chance of impressionable kids thinking that they’re transgender and being mistaken as such (when they’re not) because its promoted as being normal, then please go ahead. Keep in mind that for as long as we’ve known about transgenderism, we’ve considered it to be a disorder. Therefore seeing as that is the old position and the new position is that it’s perfectly normal, the burden of proof is on those who are presenting the new idea rather than the old. So please, show me the proof that this is the correct attitude to have.

Ireland: One of the most inconvenient places for the demands of Muslim tourists.

So according to a recent Irish Times article, Ireland is one of the “least friendly” countries in the world for Muslim tourists.

From The Irish times

Ireland one of least Muslim-friendly countries – report

Ireland is considered to be one of the least friendly places for Muslims to visit, according to the Global Muslim Travel Index, which has just been published.

First of all, I don’t appreciate the blatantly misleading heading of the article, which simply labels us as being “unfriendly” to Muslim tourists. This is of course to trigger the typical feelings of guilt that naturally manifest in people whenever they are accused of being prejudiced in some way. A more appropriate headline for the story in question would be the one that I used in for this post, because that’s what it’s really all about. It is being implied that we should somehow feel bad about how things are here and change things to make another group more comfortable.

You hate filled paddies. I’m only demanding that you do exactly what I want in order to make me feel more comfortable in your country. Why must you oppress me so?

The report evaluates countries in terms of their attentiveness to the needs of Muslim travellers, including the presence and accessibility of “halal” restaurants with food prepared to Islamic standards, and the provision of prayer rooms at airports, shopping centres and hotels.




Key factors in people from the global muslim community making travel decisions are restaurants serving food that is halal, or permissible under Islamic law, as well as readily accessible mosques or prayer rooms.

Why the fuck should we be required to have Mosques or prayer rooms available for their use? Do the Irish people want them? Do we need them? I don’t think so, so why should we be expected to provide them for outsiders? What responsibility do we have to cater to their beliefs and values?

We have about 6 of these in Dublin already. We’ve done more than enough already.

Oh, and don’t even get me started on halal meat. A disgraceful (as far as I’m concerned) practice that involves the causation of needless pain and suffering to innocent animals. I’m not some vegetarian whacko or anything, but I don’t believe that an animal should have its throat slit unstunned and be left to slowly bleed to death. As far as I’m concerned, halal (and kosher for that matter) meat, has no place in a society that respects animal rights.

I didn’t want to show an actual image of Halal slaughter because of how sickening it is. The cartoon gets the point across.

According to the report’s authors, they are also conscious of safety with rising anti-Muslim sentiment in some Western countries and an increase in Islamist militant attacks are worrying.

Interesting that it brings up safety issues due to militant Islam generating a lot of ill will towards Islam in general. I’d love to see the stats comparing Muslims killed by native Europeans vs Native Europeans killed by Muslims. Even then, at least the Muslims have an option of returning to the safety of their own countries. For Native Europeans, the danger is here with us. We have no safe place to return to.

“The halal lifestyle is a key component of the global travel industry,” Fazal Bahardeen, Crescent Rating’s chief executive said. “More so, because destinations are trying very hard to diversify their tourists.”

Why do we need to diversify our tourists? Is it not better to just continue to attract tourists who like us for what we are as opposed to attracting new groups who demand that we change things to suit their specific needs? Is it really worth it?

If they want halal food prepared to their standards, and the provision of prayer rooms in various public areas, they can find these things in Islamic countries. It is not our responsibility to cater to their every demand. We are what we are, and we shouldn’t have to change to suit the demands of others.