Search This Blog

Sunday, 30 August 2009

Euro Wars V: The Lisbonites strike back

And just to annoy you, here is a propaganda images done by the Youth organisation of Fine Geal, one of Ireland's Largest Parties.

Classy guys, real Classy. As someone with a great deal of interest in the field of propaganda... this is both insultingly lazy work, crass and borderline, to use an American term, lame.

Ok, about time I posted something political relating to Ireland, and I still have to make that post regarding the Prince of Monaco's visit to Ireland. But before that let us take a gander at this little thing called the Lisbon treaty. And to let you all know how nuesiatingly hate-filled I am for this naked power-grabbing this post shall be posted in a shade of European Blue. Sickened? No? Dang.

It should be noted that before I go on here, I first became aware of the lisbon treaty, (and essentially how invasive the EU has been in Irish affairs, right down to new parks on city corners. Seriously I can name one and take a picture of the stone that proudly states how a european commission helped fund it. Little white dove in a halo of stars on a blue field background image and all.), via a religious newspaper when on a whim one day I went into a Dominican church for the sake of a prayer or two. Hey, free newspapers, I was hardly going to complain. And it was here I found scathing remarks regarding EU policy as a whole and outright condemnation of this treaty which until then I had never heard of. Now this was wierd, I was a political Sicence student in School so current affairs SHOULD have been my forte, apparently I failed in that regard, but nonetheless I never heard of this treaty not in mainstream newspapers, nor in the news on the television, or even radio.
At least not until a month before the referendum itself. I had to actually look it up online. Before I go off on a tantrum regarding this, all you need to know what I discovered and the dots I connected relating to the politics of Ireland and the doubtlessly bribed parties, (When have you ever heard all the parties in ANY parliamentary system stand shoulder to shoulder so friggin unaminously? Bar Sinn Fein, but they aren't the target of my ire in this post) as well as the blindness of the people themselves regarding their 'superior' system of governance and unwillingness to challenge something that seems so inevitable is what finally caused me, in a fit of youthful rage, abandon my Republicanism, and embrace one of the few political ideologies I found not to be full of lies and self-delusions, Monarchism. Slowly I might add, but it happened.

Now on to the real issue. The second Lisbon Treaty Referendum. I knew it right from the moment it was announced that Ireland voted No in a landslide margin. I was so bloody happy to hear that and it slightly, Slightly, reaffirmed my faith in Republicanism. But I knew a second referendum was going to occur, this was only reinforced in later months as europhiles, (Pro-EU Europeans, not the continentals in general, most of whom probably hate this treaty as much as I do), began to throw fits when the topic of Ireland's No vote was brought up, I knew it when people started talking about how the Irish 'Voted Wrong' and I knew it, when EU big names started coming to Ireland and give our governmnet's leaders a good talking too, because they at least knew they weren't fooling people in open speeches. Except for Angela Merkel, but then again, its Angela Merkel....

Now the treaty's threat to my country's national identitity, sovereignty, control over its armed forces and such forth goes without saying because it affects every country in the Euro-zone, so I'd only be wasting ym breath doing so, (or rather, typing fingers), what should concern my readers most, who are mostly monarchist or monarchist-inclined, is that this treaty is NOT a friend of monarchists. This treaty further pushes the leftist egalitarian mindset, socialistic and cultural acid and overall Poison that is killing our Western civilisations, it will strip the Old World of its Princes and Regents, Kingdoms and Principalities just as certainly as it will eventually bring all the Old World under a new, centralised Empire, but not one that respects the identities of its component parts and uses them for its own goodness, one that crushes them and forms them into a cultural conformity we are not built to be used to, to bring us together to crush our diversity, in the name of equality. And more literally the lifestyle of the Modern European, that of servitude to state above all else and small families, (altough I would not be surprised if this Euro-state survives into the next century, families will be done away with, and with it, civilisation as a whole),
meaning more declining birthrates for us to replaced with foreigners who have no rights to our collective inheritence. No true Monarchist, wether you are merely a cultural Monarchist or an actively politcal one, Briton, Frenchman, or Belgian, should support this treaty, and as such, this is one reason why I do hope my kin in the Republic of Ireland do vote. And vote No.

I've stopped being angry, unfortuneately, I used to enjoy being angry, it was fun, now I've fallen partially into apathy, a place I don't want to be. But luckily we have this treaty to deal with, so expect your humble Servant of the Cheif to remain angry for at least the rest of the year. Maybe you'll get a laugh out of how pathetic that is, and slowly realise that you should be angry too, and then feel shame for not being so.

Pay attention Americans, this'll happen to you next.


  1. "cultural conformity" -hit the nail on the head with that one.

    I don't know which is worse; that Ireland is being treated that their "no" vote did not count or that Ireland is the only country that even got a chance to say no? I saw an interview with John Bruton talking about how wonderful and harmless the EU was because all decisions required the unanimous agreement of all member countries. Well that would be a heck of a check on power were it not for the obvious fact that most of those making the "unanimous" decisions are un-elected political appointees.

    I will never understand the appeal of the EU to so many people and I especially do not understand those Irish who support it. Did the nation really struggle for hundreds of years for independence from London only to hand that independence over to Brussells? I hope not and I will at least give De Valera credit for putting in the legal framework that forced the EU bulldozer to hold up and let the Irish vote on the matter (not that the will of people ever stands in the way of politicians in any country in the longrun).

  2. If the 2nd Lisbon Treaty is defeated it spells doom for the current unpopular Irish Coaltion Government.A General Election would for sure follow,I voted No the last time & may well do the same this time round !!

  3. Good man. But remember if this referendum DOES pass, then Ireland will soon be no more anyway.

  4. @MadMonarchist,

    those who are diehard for the treaty to pass in Ireland either are with Pro-European interest groups or are ideologically bankrupt. They are the ones who believe we live in a post national society, so the usual rhetoric of Patriotism and our long time under the control of a foreign country are useless against them. The majority of the voters for yes I believe are swing voters who could go either way as is the case in most votes where the public is uninformed or misinformed, both were the case in Ireland

  5. Indeed we have many of the same sort coming out from under their rocks in the place where I bide. It only surprised me that such likes in Ireland had forgotten so much so quickly. I thought the same about Croatia's thirst for EU membership -why any country that had to fight so long and hard to escape foreign domination would be so willing to submit to it in another form. Then, as you say, there are the victims of the process; which is why I could never put my faith in the principle of democracy -the split second decision of the uninformed, or, as Emperor Napoleon III (Claude Raines) described it in the film "Juarez", "...government of the cattle, by the cattle, for the cattle". Never fails to give me a chuckle.

  6. MadMonarchist & Servent of the Cheif

    Have either of you checked out,I've been a member of this new site & old one for past 4 yrs.We could do with some Grimaldi fans & some more Irish/European members

  7. I have it bookmarked and will check it out later. Thanks Regent.

  8. Monarchist - vote? I do not get the concept.

  9. Gentlemen. I applaud your noble intentions might I offer some gentle correction. Might I suggest that the Kingdom of Ireland (since it was designated as such by Henry VIII rather than the Lordship it arguably should be) has always had a much more complicated relationship with the English Crown than one of simple subjugation to London as some foreign power. I am always extremely suspicious of this notion of Ireland having been subjugated to a foreign power – what do you mean by this?

    We must be careful not transfer back into the past things done in Ireland following the reign of Henry VIII, the Cromwellian settlement and post Union. This view plays into the hands of those who advance the concept of Republican nationalism. A repugnant concept. Nationalism is largely the source of trouble I am afraid. The difference between a citizen and a subject.

    Nationalism as we know it now is a relatively modern concept (largely 18th to 19th century, originating in the period around the French Revolution) and ‘muddies the waters’ of true feudal, monarchical structure where loyalties and territory are defined in terms of person and not land/culture boundaries per se. Cultural identity was not a key part of this understanding. The philosophical concepts we have now, with regards to nations and government, are largely a product of the post-Reformation Protestant era, especially following the Treaty of Westphalia, were there was a major shift in understanding territory.

    I would suggest some critical reading of material relating to the Lordship of Ireland and medieval society, which I would happily recommend.

    Concepts of Gaelic Irish Kingship have been overly romanticized in the service of modern state creation. A similar process has occurred in modern states like Greece, where a created past has been used to justify a national identity. Historians and medieval archaeologists (I am one) debate the nature of actual Gaelic High Kingship and the extent of its actual existence. It is perhaps not quite the some would like to imagine.

    I would (and do) argue that monarchy connected to nationalism is as dangerous as republicanism. Nationalism (by its very definition) relies on an exclusion of ‘the other.’ I would also argue that it is also profoundly anti-Catholic.

    From a ‘Feudal Irish Monarchist’.

  10. A feudal Irish Monarchist then? Fair enough, then would you be a supporter of a Stuart king in Ireland as opposed to a native monarchy? Or reintegration into the British Commonwealth?

    If you are thinking I support an absolute return to the old Gealic Kingships you're mistaken. If you've noticed I have put an aritist's rendition of Brian Boru on my page as he was, in effect, the only High King of All Ireland in terms of power and effect, and if I support a native monarchy, then it will be just so, a High King of Ireland, not a return of the Tuathes which as history shown prior to the English conquest. (Or Norman, depending on wether you see Ireland being a Lordship under England going back to the first Invasion which petered out into ineffectuality.)

    We have, unfortuneately moved on from the Agrarial society and a feudal system is borderline impossible because of such, in fact, I have made an earlier post on this blog asking Counter-Revolutionists on how Nobility should not only be defined, but recognised, as any capitalist regardless of class can own land. I support using Nationalism as a means of installing a Monarchy in Ireland because, frankly, what other political means do I have? Ireland is seperated from Britain, this is a fact and cannot be undone as the bitterness has run far too deep into the mindset of the Irish and our memories are, as some say, too long. The people here would not accept a return to loyalty to thee British crown, this is simple fact, what I am left with is a Highly Nationalist Nation, with a keen sense of National Identity, (however misplaced this is), and as such the only serious way of creating a Monarchy in this Country is either digging up the old Gealic Noble Houses which are still active in European Monarchies, and gauging possible interests in a return here, or, as was fashion in the old world some time ago, inviting a Prince from a foreign House to become King.

    I am a Nationalist, but I am not blinded by Romanticism, I am a Monarchist but not dissauded from what seems to be impossible, because if I was either, this blog would be your piss-standard Nationalist blog found everywhere ont he Internet and spouting anti-Britain Nonsense and Pro-Sinn Fein IRA garbage without seeing what both have become and what Sinn Fein in Particular supports. I am a Nationalist because I recognise that the Irish People are just that, a people apart from the British, and a people apart from our European cousins. I call Britain a foreign Power because, through its governing of this Country, has destroyed the Gealic civilisation we had preserved since only Lord knows when, and as a consequence, the vast majority of our culture, yet we are still different and have not integrated, and most likely never will if we were to rejoin the commonwealth. I want not to restore based on Romantic Nationalist Ideals, I want to take what we do know of our culture, what is left of it, and develope it, in literature, in language, in the arts, and because it doesn't exist, develope it in architecture, in styles and suchforth. This is why I'm a nationalist, because of culture, and not politics.

    Now, judging by your Writing style, I could've sworn you were the user I know of from Theodore's monarchy forum, who, ironically, called me out on a similar matter to this. Now, sir, may I ask, what do you actually have to say on the matter at hand, that of the EU and the Lisbon Treaty? Because it does affect Monarchists and threatens us just as much as it does everyone else on this continent and this was the topic of this post. As such was the case, your question seemed random and out of place.

  11. My ‘tone’ should have made it clear; I do not believe in any form of the democratic process as we currently have it. The EU (and all it entails) is part of that charade. I would be extremely surprised if a ‘no vote’ substantially altered the status quo or the EU project. The heart of the problem lies with deep injustices created in a totally corrupt economic and political system that goes beyond the EU in extent and time. You are not being asked to choose on those issues.

    While democracy may work, I think it does so only on a small scale. In larger form it leads to the inevitable ‘tyranny of the masses’ we have now.

    When I say ‘feudal’, I should perhaps qualify it by saying people should have strong local, elected government within a larger system of regional ‘over-lordship’. This concept does not have to be limited to agrarian societies.

    One could see the concept of ‘subsidiarity’ as having its origins in this; it is supposed to be one of the fundamental principles in EU law taken from Catholic teaching (there are often some truths in a body of error!).

    I am not a pragmatist, realist or an idealist. I believe it is a mistake to be anyone of them alone. One should work from principles though. Just because something is the way it is, does not mean that I must work within that framework. I believe, right now, the only way to bring about the destruction of the EU (and modern states) is through non-participation. Once enough people actively voice opposition and do not engage in the process, the apparent legitimacy of the institutions will fail. It is simply a matter of time, education and vocal opposition.

    I do not think my question ‘was out of place’. It is based on a desire to clean-up terms. The birth of the EU lies within concepts of modern statehood and governance.

    I do not understand the arguments which are advanced linking the EU and the Lisbon Treaty to taking away sovereignty when perhaps that concept is not understood anyway. Whose/what sovereignty? I was interested to see where your ideas lay. Thank-you for explaining.

  12. As to the other matters:

    1. The question of an ‘invasion’ or ‘conquest’ of Ireland in 1169 is not quite clear cut. I would argue there were none; rather a series of settlements by groups of ‘Norman’ descent, along with on-going Welsh, English, French and Flemish settlement. This had followed centuries of Scandinavian/Saxon settlement, deeper and more extensive than perhaps is realized outside of some academic circles. Those settlements lead to integration, and it continues to this day. The question of failure depends on ones perspective of what was being attempted – if anything was at all in a systematic way. Indeed so many Irish people now have names descended from these and previous waves of settlers. Even the so called ‘Gaelic revival’ of the 14th century was lead in some instances by the descendants of these settlers. I would certainly agree that there was a Cromwellian invasion – it was a clear, centralized, political decision to subjugate (even perhaps eradicate) those in power. My point is exactly opposite to what you are saying – the memory is not to long; it is to short.

    2. The question of Irish identity should not be linked to a created Gaelic culture. Again – a principle. This concept needs to be critically evaluated. We actually ‘know’ less than we think and much has been misinterpreted. Ireland is (and always has been) a part of the British Isles and the European continent in terms of cultural and population exchange. We have become obsessed with difference as part of modern nationalism. There is a need for critical thinking when it comes to historical and cultural material. Education is the key; it is what I do. I totally reject the notion of a perpetuation of ‘culture restoration’. Whose idea? Adjudicated by whom? On what evidence? It lies at the heart of all the disasters of the last century. Why continue to build on sand?

  13. 3. Would I favour the current British monarchy? No. I believe it is fundamentally flawed and corrupt. I would (because of my background) lean towards being a Jacobite. The succession would make the ‘Duke of Bavaria’ the King of England, Ireland and France. No ‘Irishman’ has the right to this title. I do think there is an inherent contradiction in a ‘nation’ selecting or creating a monarch. It implies that ‘the people’ have a power they are giving to someone else. I reject this. Power comes from above. I reject the political philosophy of the likes of Pain (et al) which places power and sovereignty in the hands of ‘the people’; whoever they are. If I can make a King, what stops me from making any law I want? What stops me from removing the King when I change my mind?

    4. Nobility; yes I agree linking it to concepts of land ownership is unhelpful and unnecessary. It was not always so. There are instances of what we regard now as nobles or knights, who did not own land at all. The concepts of knighthood, chivalry and nobility all need a deeper study as they are all linked. The starting point was one of service; service not subjugation.

    5. I do not think what the Irish would, or would not, accept right now is an important point. It is all sometime in the future and we can but move towards concepts. Get the fundamentals right first. One can be patriotic without being nationalistic. The love of fatherland – patria, is a concept of localism, not nationalism. That should be taught. Pride of place with service for the greater good; for Christendom.

    6. As a Catholic I believe that the Church, while she does not exclusively favour any political system, does have a natural tendency towards monarchy. This is however carefully qualified and explained in her social teaching down through the ages. She has on many occasions condemned nationalism, including nascent Irish nationalism in the late 1800’s, and concepts of French monarchical nationalism in the 1920’s. Benedict XVI has recently condemned what he sees as ‘excessive nationalism’ with its links to the economic structures that have been created in recent times. They are the causes of grave injustice and social destruction. Any system which fails to acknowledge the rights of Our Lord and His Church is in grave error.

    Deus vult!

  14. I realise that this post concerned Lisbon,and it was some time ago, but I felt I simply had to post a response to the thoughtful contribution of AdV.
    I suspect that, were we to meet, AdV and I would soon discover we hold similar views on many matters. For instance, I too refuse to participate in elections. I too believe that, just because something is the way it is, it doesn’t mean one must work within that framework. And I sympathise with the little he has said concerning governance and local autonomy.

    But to use his own phrase, might I offer him some gentle correction?

    In general, AdV makes his stand against an indigenous Irish monarchy (rather than, say, a Jacobite restoration) on the grounds that it is nationalist and reliant upon an anachronistic understanding of Gaelic kingship. Unfortunately, and most regrettably for an archaeologist, he himself seems to fall prey to anachronism and partisanship.

    First, however, regarding the designation of our country as either a Lordship or Kingdom, be it by Henry VIII or any other King of England: for those proposing a restoration of an indigenous Irish monarchy, this is an irrelevance. Our country is Éire. She and her kings existed before the arrival of the English.

    AdV is ‘extremely suspicious of this notion of Ireland having been subjugated to a foreign power.’ You should not be suspicious. What we mean by this is that Ireland was violently subjugated to England: a country and nation foreign in law, language and custom. Our distinct and separate language, culture, legal system and social order was, from the 12th century onwards, marginalized, subverted and, ultimately, destroyed by repeated campaigns of conquest and colonization, originating in, and serving the interests of, the English Crown. This is not a matter of interpretation, however uncomfortable it may be to hear it.

    And in point of fact, the issue of invasion is very clear-cut. As one historian has put it, the invasion of 1169 was the single greatest watershed in Irish history after the conversion of Ireland to Christianity. What’s more, while we can toss about words like Anglo-Norman, Cambro-Norman and Anglo-French to afford some nuance to our discussions, these are themselves anachronistic readings. Contemporary accounts are as clear-cut as can be in their perception of it – this was the Adventus Anglorum: the Coming of the English.

    Now, I have to say, I find AdV’s own proposition that Ireland was settled (in an almost geologically sedimentary fashion) by waves of Scandinavians and Saxons, and Welsh, English and French so ahistorical as to be absurd.

    Additionally, it’s somewhat disingenuous to ask if ‘anything was at all in a systematic way’ being done. When a kingdom invades with its armies, seizes a territory, demands obedience and allegiance, and enforces its own legal, linguistic, economic, religious, and social attitudes and practices, it must needs be systematic. Perhaps not on a par with the systematizations we have become accustomed to in industrialized societies, but still - systematic.

    Now, I certainly agree that we must ‘be careful’ not to seek too easily a foreshadowing, at one point in time, of events that occur a good deal later. However, this is quite different to, in effect, suggesting that ‘twas only after good King Henry that things went downhill in the Land of Ire’. But it has been observed that in the medieval period, the most extreme form of legal discrimination in the colonized territories of Europe was to be found in Ireland, with the subjection of the Gael to legal disabilities, and attempts to enforce both racial and spatial segregation between the colonized and the colonizing. And then we have the wonderful poet Edmund Spenser and his views on extirpating the Irish language. So, given the Anglo-Norman and Elizabethan precedents, is it too much to suggest that the Cromwellian conquest may be understood as a continuation of the English imperial adventure in Ireland, albeit under conditions and circumstances of quite a different colour?

  15. To state this is in no way to ‘play into the hands’ of those who advance republican nationalism…and on that very matter…

    As AdV rightly observes, nationalism as we know it now is indeed a relatively modern concept. But the sense of national identity is by no means as novel as that might suggest. In the case of Ireland, for instance, a strong sense of national identity was already present in the first written records, was almost certainly inherited from the iron age, and was strengthened still further by conversion to Christianity. In the case of England, a far more recent entity, we find a precocious nationalism intimately bound up with the cultic figure of the king of the English. By the tenth century, it had forged its exclusionary ethnic identity, as the polity of the gens anglorum, with its law, the lex anglicana forming an essential ingredient in its personality as a state. And in fact, it’s with the English institution of kingship, that we find that first move away from AdV’s own definition of ‘true, feudal, monarchical structures’ defined in terms of person. Because the English model of a supreme unitary monarch was and is constituted on different assumptions than those which underpinned royalty in Ireland, western Scotland and Wales. Thus, despite his best intentions - and contrary to his assertion - cultural identity was a key part of this English monarchy. Worse still, it was a monarchy that from the very beginning was bound up with a precocious English nationalism.

    Now, of course, concepts of Gaelic Irish kingship have at times been romanticized…but what kingship hasn’t been? Certainly, that of England has – and benefited from it, too. And besides, it’s not just Greece and Ireland. ‘Britain’, Britishness, that ‘British nation’ we hear so much about from across the water: are not these also political phantasmagoria?

    And yes, the nature of Gaelic kingship is certainly not as some would like to imagine - but by the same token, why must it conform with AdV’s particular ideal of monarchy? For instance, the supposed ‘inherent contradiction’ of a ‘nation’ selecting a king only arises within a far more recent conception of monarchy; for those within Gaelic tradition, it is not a contradiction in the slightest. However exalted, a king is still of his people – he is father of his people, he is the bridge between the settled order of his land and the transcendent divine. Whilst primogeniture has been a primary way of allotting this role, it has not been the sole manner or means of constituting or establishing a king in his role.

    As for not linking Irish identity to Gaelic culture…sigh. It’s simply not worth my time and energy right now to rebut what is, simply, an absurd proposition. I would prefer if AdV were to make a critical evaluation of the cultural preconceptions and prejudices he may be holding onto regarding Gaelic civilization. Perhaps he might consider that all cultures – not just Gaelic – are created? And ponder what it means to “reject the notion of a perpetuation of ‘culture restoration’” whilst presumably at the same time seeking a restoration of the culture of monarchy?

    We have become obsessed with difference, not thanks to nationalism, but thanks to modernity. It has been modernity’s drive to homogenize, standardize and make uniform all that it can, under the misguided notion that uniformity is unity. Nationalism is a consequence of that. An early manifestation of that erroneous drive to establish unity through uniformity may itself be found in the history of the English in Ireland...a history which, I might add, also includes the use of education, and the rhetoric of improving the minds of others.

  16. Those of us who seek a restoration of Gaelic civilization and kingship do so because we know that it is the foundation of our being. And as language has been a preeminent marker of a shared, distinctive, and rooted Irish identity since at least the 8th century (see Auraicept n nÉces), giving form to both our minds and our island, to toss this aside would be utter, utter foolishness. What’s more, AdV himself offers a support to this revival in advocating a love of fatherland – as once propounded by members of our traditional intellectual caste, the filí.

    The restoration of the toppled arch of Gaelic language, law and culture in Ireland is a supreme act of patriotism; an assertion of the immediate and local over the remote and removed. And the keystone and foundation of that restored arch will be the High Kingship of Ireland.

  17. I congratulate you both, this is exactly something I want to see fellow Monarchists doing while in republics, and intellectual discussion on the matters raised will inevitably help greatly in the cause of the restoration of Gealic civilisation and Monarchy in Ireland, I must say that in the current arguements proposed I lean more in favour of Mac an Ri's position even if some of the points he raises seem to need to be expanded upon.