3 ms·

disappointing as it appears the EU is doing the opposite of what it was founded for, which was to end european wars. i dont think people understand how the rec

disappointing as it appears the EU is doing the opposite of what it was founded for, which was to end european wars. i dont think people understand how the recolonization of ireland is landing with the actual irish, an indigenous population with over a millennium of history and a distinct culture and identity facing erasure by EU anti-sovereign policies. dismissals from the administrative classes only inflame it. we are anticipating similar speech laws in canada to prevent resistance to a commitment by the new PM to double the national population within 14 years (5% annual immigration compounding). the message from the EU and the networks behind these policies elsewhere reduces to, "resistance is hate, citizen" and they're trying to move fast enough to get ahead of the growing sentiment for a just war of defence they know they are starting with their erasure of national cultures. i wouldnt underestimate the impact of these laws and the efforts behind them or the reaction that has been building.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
0dayz 1y ago
How is making a country have hate speech laws somehow causing wars to emerge? Ireland also choose to join the EU, how are they being "colonized".
- voidspark 1y ago
  > How is making a country have hate speech laws somehow causing wars to emerge? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution
  - 0dayz 1y ago
    ...That was due to taxation without representation not hate speech.
    - voidspark 1y ago
      It was due to many reasons, including taxes.
- motohagiography 1y ago
  the reaction to them. If the Irish govenrnment enforced loitering and vagracy laws instead of making up new hate speech laws or accepting them from the EU, they wouldn't have an integration problem. the homes and hotels in ireland being filled with people from EMEA nations are being filled by new colonists. the cause of the hate speech is not actually race based, but behavioral. all that standing around and loitering in public is anti-economic activity, where not only is it unproductive, but nobody wants to invest in anything (property improvements, homes, businesses) where these men gather to loiter. it destroys economic value in the towns and broader society when people no longer want to invest in local economies because of mass anti-economic activity. the flight from US cities like SF is a useful control example. enforce loiting and vagrancy laws instead of inventing "hate speech" laws, and the underlying integration problems vanish almost instantly.
hn_throw2025 1y ago
> doing the opposite of what it was founded for, which was to end european wars The European Coal and Steel Community was created in 1952, to make it harder for members to have the independent industrial capacity to mobilise against each other. Particularly France and Germany, whose grievances began with the Franco Prussian war of 1870 and rumbled on through two world wars. It became the EU federal superstate we have today because politicians can’t resist a power grab. The EU was created in 1993, so the entity you refer to was not created to end European wars. Because the “member states” (it will never refer to countries) had already been NATO members for decades at that point, guaranteeing each others safety and making invasions like the previous ones unimaginable and infeasible. In fact, with it’s obsession of absorbing more territory and people, gaining power, and lukewarm attitude towards NATO, I think it’s more likely to start a war than prevent one.
- motohagiography 1y ago
  interesing view, my memory of the launch of the euro currency, schengen area and the coordniation of policy in brussels was sold as a peace plan to prevent future wars. where I think they are about to cause war is the EU's (and now UK's) attacks on farmers and cynical mass immigration together are creating the conditions for popular revolt in several countries. hate speech laws are to prevent people from organizing popular resistance to these policies. that we have the tech to make hate speech laws unenforcable means the EU will have shown its undeniable malice toward europeans while demonstrating its own weakness. it would be forfeiting moral authority during an attempt to destroy these national cultures with draconian speech laws, and I would bet against it surviving the popular counterpunch. this counterpunch scenario is the war I would foresee being a likely result.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

0dayz 1y ago

How is making a country have hate speech laws somehow causing wars to emerge? Ireland also choose to join the EU, how are they being "colonized".

voidspark 1y ago
> How is making a country have hate speech laws somehow causing wars to emerge? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution
- 0dayz 1y ago
  ...That was due to taxation without representation not hate speech.
  - voidspark 1y ago
    It was due to many reasons, including taxes.
motohagiography 1y ago
the reaction to them. If the Irish govenrnment enforced loitering and vagracy laws instead of making up new hate speech laws or accepting them from the EU, they wouldn't have an integration problem. the homes and hotels in ireland being filled with people from EMEA nations are being filled by new colonists. the cause of the hate speech is not actually race based, but behavioral. all that standing around and loitering in public is anti-economic activity, where not only is it unproductive, but nobody wants to invest in anything (property improvements, homes, businesses) where these men gather to loiter. it destroys economic value in the towns and broader society when people no longer want to invest in local economies because of mass anti-economic activity. the flight from US cities like SF is a useful control example. enforce loiting and vagrancy laws instead of inventing "hate speech" laws, and the underlying integration problems vanish almost instantly.

hn_throw2025 1y ago

> doing the opposite of what it was founded for, which was to end european wars The European Coal and Steel Community was created in 1952, to make it harder for members to have the independent industrial capacity to mobilise against each other. Particularly France and Germany, whose grievances began with the Franco Prussian war of 1870 and rumbled on through two world wars. It became the EU federal superstate we have today because politicians can’t resist a power grab. The EU was created in 1993, so the entity you refer to was not created to end European wars. Because the “member states” (it will never refer to countries) had already been NATO members for decades at that point, guaranteeing each others safety and making invasions like the previous ones unimaginable and infeasible. In fact, with it’s obsession of absorbing more territory and people, gaining power, and lukewarm attitude towards NATO, I think it’s more likely to start a war than prevent one.

motohagiography 1y ago
interesing view, my memory of the launch of the euro currency, schengen area and the coordniation of policy in brussels was sold as a peace plan to prevent future wars. where I think they are about to cause war is the EU's (and now UK's) attacks on farmers and cynical mass immigration together are creating the conditions for popular revolt in several countries. hate speech laws are to prevent people from organizing popular resistance to these policies. that we have the tech to make hate speech laws unenforcable means the EU will have shown its undeniable malice toward europeans while demonstrating its own weakness. it would be forfeiting moral authority during an attempt to destroy these national cultures with draconian speech laws, and I would bet against it surviving the popular counterpunch. this counterpunch scenario is the war I would foresee being a likely result.