Happy Christmas!

Late, but I hope my readers had a Happy and Holy Christmas this year

The President's Christmas Address

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mc_-V9NWd94&feature=share

Forsaking the obvious political undertones in what he is saying, and forgiving the fact that he is also rather obviously reading off of cue cards, (Which I can forgive because his delivery, annunciation and pacing was spot on so he had obviously practised the speech before hand and he is talented enough a writer that I can very well imagine he wrote it himself anyway), that I have to say I approve of much of what he is saying in this address, especially as he appeals to the Nation's sense of identity and extending solidarity to Irishmen and our extended family in the diaspora who will be less then joyful this Christmas season. Something I very much appreciate as I myself know a few families who are not going to have a joyful Christmas with the loss of loved ones.

The tone of the message was positive and encouraging trying to reassure the population of the economy will recover safely while acknowledging it has fallen. This is good statesmanship and I am glad to see it in our President even if I firmly oppose him politically and socially, and I can well imagine Higgens being remarked upon fondly even if his presidency does end up reigning over a dark time of Ireland's existence, (its not like he'll be responsible for our Government's failings to begin with unless he makes some kind of diplomatic faux pas that damages our prestige, but his party is doing that already so we cant really blame him for such a thing), one of the benefits a Politician in Ireland enjoys in such a figurehead position.

I will judge him more viciously however, in the coming months. What with this abortion debate seemingly trying to crop up, such as that ludicrous claim made in newspapers recently that over 50% of Irish Gynaecologists supported Abortion, which was thoroughly and rightfully dashed by an outcry from the public and members of medical professions. The secularist push for acceptance of Abortion will be hard in Ireland, because while the Irish public is becoming increasingly apathetic when it comes to lifestyle choices, there is a stringent anti-abortion streak in the Irish consciousness that will be hard to crack, (doubly so in the North as it is one of the view topics that will unite the two traditions here so vigorously that any and every cultural, political, social and historical difference and grievances are completely pushed to the side so that unity in pro-life opinions will shine through). How higgens responds, or what his opinion will be on this matter if it does become a constitutional issue (the Europhiles want Ireland to legalize abortion and the secularists desperately want to oblige), will be key in determining my final opinion on the man, even a socialist can do the right thing every now and again, when the moon is blue and the goats walk the opposite direction around a mountainside, lets hope he is such a man.

Friday: Operation Unthinkable

I hate blathering on about the eurozone criss precisely because it is an incredibly depressing mess and it is literally only getting worse day to day. And nothing represents that more so then the panicked course of Action Nicholas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel are taking their countries: Into a new reform treaty that gives more direct control and stricter regulation of Eurozone nations' economic policies.

With, I might add, a stated goal of denying possible referendums against the new treaty, (and we all know they are talking about Ireland when they say this). They are openly flouting countless rules of the Union in order to save what is clearly a failed project in the single currency, and they're so desperate to do it that they do not care if this means they will effectively create a 'two-tiered' Europe. With stark differences between those in the Eurozone and those outside of it.

Also it should be noted that this panicked week leading up to the summit on friday was kick started by an American company warning that many countries in the Eurozone will lose their Triple A credit status if they do not take drastic measures to restore confidence in European Markets. Ireland wasn't in the list I believe, but then again Ireland's problem was its banks not its spending policies, we're the most stable of the 'danger countries' in the Eurozone and can't really be compared to Italy or Greece, or Spain for that matter but that wont stop German politicians from deciding our budget now will it?

Back to the topic at hand however, it should be stated that should a new treaty come to pass and in the 'best case scenario' as far as saving the eurozone goes, it'll mean a substantial submission of national sovereignty, again, to the EU with regards to econemy and finance. I have no doubt something like this would occur had things continued on honky-dory for a good while, with the obvious preference of europhiles being all the countries of the EU becoming Eurozone nations to make centralization much more effective. (It always got on my nerves how they railed against 'right-whingers' and 'cave dwelling nationalist throwback reactionaries' about complaining about sovereignty being lost and how this was a stupid concern and how they celebrate when the sovereignty is actually lost)

The wild card, now more than ever, is Britain, with Cameron facing a very real, and very threatening Tory rebellion in Parliament, who want a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU and demanding clawing back national sovereingty. Forcing the Premier to reiterate Britain's interest to Germany and France meaning that one of the most powerful econemies in Europe that is not in the Eurozone effectively won't 'play ball' according to the Franco-German rulebook. And of course there is of course the chance that Germany itself will rebel against its Chancellor and vote against her wishes at the summit. The German people long since becoming sick to death of being Europe's Paymaster, and God only knows what the other nations will pull.

The problem of course is the threat of a very real economic apocalypse. And the best case scenario, effective vassalization of the Eurozone, at most postpones this armeggedon. Lets put this in context, should the summit fail, the markets will panic, confidence will be shot, investments pulling out, companies winding up en masse, countries losing their Triple A status, Greece and Italy become unsalvageable messes, the Eurozone will literally fall apart and and the Eurobond becomes utterly utterly worthless, a collapse in the Eurozone will spread crisis and panic in the non-eurozone nations who may not be as economically devastated, but who will no longer seek to remain in the Eurozone to protect their own market interests and we will likely see the vigorous, and dangerous re-establishment of armed borders regardless of the schenglen agreement to prevent 'economic refugees' and God knows how that will spiral from there.

But wait there's more! America trades heavily with Europe and Obama made the mistake of reaffirming that 'If the eurozone fails, it will affect America' and because he said that, thanks to how markets actually work, it means it more then likely will and not in a small way. With the economic armeggedon in Europe potentially spreading to America and reaping a mighty toll upon the belagured superpower, we could see America falling to its own knees struglling to cope and should it collapse, so too will the north and potentially south American Markets, meaning China will be essentially left alone holding 'the happy fun ball' of an economic super-apocalypse. And we don't want to know what happens should China hit a speedbump while holding that thing.

Happy Christmas.

"Sort out your countries - Or else"

I could continue on about the backlash An Taoiseach is getting over An Tanaiste Eamon Gilmore's childish attempts at political snubbing when he announced the closure of the Vatican City embassy, (Speaking from a purely objective standpoint as a political animal myself, Eamon, if you wanted to give a subtle snub at the Church, there were much better ways, and less embarrassing ones to the country I might add, that you could've done it, AND done it without doing something that will damage Ireland politically for governments to come), but events are moving apace across the world and I am still playing the 'wait and see' game with Irish politics to see just how FUBAR this current government will become.

About a week late for this but its still relevant, namely the appointments of the new Prime Ministers for Greece and Italy.

Now, I am no friend to Burlesconi, I am glad that man is gone, he was an international disgrace for Italy, and the installation of a technocrat in Italy to sort out the econemy is not a completely retarded move. Its just a ludicrously hypocritical one.

Now, fair is fair, the EU is 'correct' in saying that an election for a new PM in either country would literally solve nothing and only foment chaos. This is correct, it would only hamper efforts to save both countries' econemies, especially in Greece which is seemingly constantly on the verge of Anarchic revolt. Its just the EU literally does not nor should have such power as to appoint, or more accurately for what happened, 'force' the appointments of new PMs.

Now this would seem hypocritical for me to point out, as a Monarchist and as an Absolutist I believe the Sovereign should dismiss and appoint their own heads of Government for the good of the country in such crises scenarios such as the one Europe is currently in. Except it is not hypocritical for me to point this fallacy out, because the European Cmmission is NOT the sovereign body of all of Europe, we are NOT a sovereign nation as a whole. The EU Commission is NOT the King of Italy or the King of Greece, it legally does NOT have the power to effect 'regime change' in subject nations should said nations act illegally under EU laws, it has the power to dismiss them from the Union, certainly and to impose fines, but to do so would be to admit they were wrong.

The appointments of new PMs more in line with the humble jumble of EU/IMF/China economic shenanigens may, MAY stabilize the econemies of both nations on a temporary basis I am humble enough to admit since I do not know enough about them to doubt them as yet. I dont know these new men as well as I probably should and I am not sure how they'll play the game since the legislative houses in both countries effectively capitulated to their appointments, Watch this Space indeed.

It IS however, a naked outreach of the power of EU meddling in subject nations, and more and more euroscepticism is not only becoming more commonplace, but more mainstream and justified, the EU membership referenda in Britain may actually become a real thing and set a devastating precedence for the EU as a whole, especially with the Tories over there rebelling against Cameron about the right to allow the referenda to occur. Not to mention tensions between the coalition parties as well as the reckoning that is looming between the British PM and the German Chancellor. The EU is becoming ever more desperate, now if I was charitible to the EU (and I am not) I would say that a slow steady dismantling of the 'Eurozone' and a return to multiple currencies would be the Union's best bet to slow painful economic recovery (it being merely one step of many of course) and stability across the Union, that way economic failure in, oh, let's say Greece, wouldn't destroy Italy or bring down Spain in a terrifying domino effect.

I have a foreboding feeling events are coming to a head and the predictions I made in one of two likely de-unionizing events, one violent, the other velvet, are becoming scarily relevant and I fear for Ireland's own future in whatever hell this will all lead to.

And who knows, maybe Europe will sort out its shenanigens.

Then we'd only need to wait till China falls, and calls in its debts. Hope you guys fancy a repeat of the 20th century only cranked up to eleven, because its looking like the 'Great Depression' will be to whats coming as the Black Plague was to the Spanish Flu. or WWI was to WWII.

God this is depressing, here, have a puppy.

This bespeaks crippling arrogance

When the Irish Public voted in Micheal D Higgens as our President, I did not make a post speculating on what this could mean for the country, I opted to stay silent and see what would happen. I had not expected the poet would win it, nor did I expect his party to do well in the By-Elections. (my money was on Gallagher winning it, but it just goes to show you the Irish can be strange voters, opting instead to vote for the quiet man).

However, of course, I did not have to wait long for something to happen that betrays the second largest party in government's true intentions.

The last government, Fianna Fail, and today's Government, Fianna Gael-Labour, have very little difference between them in terms of how they act in government, and I already moaned about what I saw as a betrayal of its electorate that Fianna Gael handed over 'desireable' ministries to Labour as part of the co-alition even if it had been something of a campaign promise to cut back on, (public sector anyone?), their casual breaking of campaign promises and, of Course, Eamon Gilmore and Shatter's treatment of people opposing the Referenda which would have given the Oireachtas much more power then it should rightfully have betrays a hellish sense of statist elitism which goes beyond the usual political class' disdain for virtually everyone in the country.

But oh of course they're not done yet, feeling foolishly secure after their candidate had won the presidential Election, Labour leader Eamon Gilmore goes right ahead and announces the Closure of the Irish Embassy at the Holy See, and that the Irish Ambassador, well there and Tehran, Eamon Gilmore is giving a not too subtle hint as to what he thinks about the Holy See by this move.

I could go into a list of the reasons why closing the embassy is a politically foolish thing to do, and a historical insult given how the Holy See was the first to establish full diplomatic relations with Ireland back when we were still a dominion of the Empire. But we all know that this move is not motivated by political expedience, as hateful a cause as that can be, but rather by the utterly worse cause of symbolism. Eamon Gilmore is trying to further foment hostility in the Irish government, and the Irish public if it can get away with it, against the Holy See, and I don't think I have to explain why, they are Socialists, they answer should come easily enough.

This bespeaks crippling arrogance, Labour's position is not so secure it can try to pull diplomatic coups like this, nor can it tirade against the public when they dont get their way all the time on referenda, and expect not to have consequences for it. Higgins didn't win the election so much as Gallagher lost it, and they didn't gain seats in the previous Dail elections so much as Fianna Fail lost them, Labour's position is not so secure that it can continue acting this way without facing nasty surprises in the future, I do not expect the publicity stunt of closing the Holy See embassy to be what ticks the Irish Public off, but it will certainly help compound the overall effect. The Socialists will be facing a nasty surprise come the next elections if they carry on this way, hopefully one that obliterates their party's political foothold.

Election Day down south

Despite being a Citizen I wont be able to vote, stuck at Campus here in Belfast all week. Even with that said I do not envy the Conscience voters down south, what a miserable crop of candidates we have. From a Moral standpoint none of the candidates stand up, from a political expedience standpoint, all of them are compromises in the worst sense of the word for damn near everyone, and from a purely superficial standpoint well...

Lets just say, at this point in time, the best we can all hope for is a mediocre president who won't be a total failure. None of these people have 'real' Leadership qualities, most of their promises are hollow, plithy and really really REALLY don't have anything to do with the mire the Irish State is stuck in. The worst thing that can come from this is an embarrassment of a president who runs his/her mouth and ruins the prestige of the office (heh, like there was much left since the start of the race, no real fault to McAleese although I am not fond of her, Ireland has somehow become even MORE of a no-name in international politics since the crash).

I really hate to be a pessimist, it is unhealthy for me, for anyone. But there is literally nothing I can see that offers me anything resembling a light of hope for this country and nothing short of a miracle worker can save Irish politics from itself. And the same miracle worker would need to instil badly needed principles in the Irish people themselves for it to have any lasting effects.

That is not even touching upon the referenda that may or may not give the Oireachtas Inquisitorial powers depending on how votes go. Who knows? Maybe they'll decide the people voted 'wrong' if they don't get a result they want.

Happy Presidential election 2011 everyone. God Help us all.

State of the Republic: The Race for the Aras

Well, no two ways about it, welcome to the all Irish make-a-damn-fool-of-yourself-a-thon. I can safely say none of the candidates rub me the right way. And even with the very limited powers of the Presidency, I still don't want any of these people representing my Country as its head, regardless of how popular. Well, lets have an overview of the candidates:

David Norris, Independent:

I am no friend of Norris, he is easily the most socially liberal of the entire lot, and thats saying something. While I despise republican politics for its focus on smear campaigns and scandal hunts, I am glad his entire campaign imploded over the legal advice issue. I honestly don't expect him to win and I am glad for it.

Mary Davis, Independent:

"inclusion, empowerment and respect" Well hot damn, that sure tells us alot about your intricate oscio-political views doesn't it? Not to diminish her work with the disadvanataged, but she is not political leader, she is at best a social organizer a leader in 'change'. Basically an Obama Wannabe, only more intelligent and MAYBE a little less ego-centric. Although you wouldn't know that from her campaign site.

Sean Gallagher, Independent:

I will admit, I am not familiar with this business man. How ever his catch phrase of "I believe three things are vital for our country: self-belief, self-confidence and self-determination." is something that appeals to me on the face but I know he doesn't mean it the way I'd like it to mean. Another proponent for the ever vague 'Inclusiveness' platform that really REALLY offers us nothing for Ireland's current predicament. I'll keep an eye on him and see where he goes.

Michael D. HIggins, Labour:

I am tempted to write this fellow off from the get go, but you never know these days. He's currently a Senator. He promises to be a neutral president, (What, like the past two we have? I am calling Bull. Wolf in sheep's clothing), and not be a handmaiden of the governemnt. Which he'll conveniently forget if Labour ever gets a majority I'd wager.

Martin McGuinness, Sinn Fein:

I must admit, I was REALLY surprised how well he is being taken down south. He wouldn't be the candidate I would put forward if I ran Sinn Fein, (and not for the reason you might suppose. Martin McGuinness is a famously bad speaker), I cant say much about his policies, but knowing sinn fein they'd at least keep up with the tradition of speaking gaelige as the traditional language of government. Hardly important in comparison to other nation threatening issues, but still a small mercy.

Gay Mitchell, Fine Gael:

Who? Yeah I don't think much about this guy.

Well thats the line up of prospective hopefuls. Although I won't hold my breath. This is the same nation who voted Bono as one of the top ten greatest Irishmen ever lived instead of small, insignificent people who contributed little to world cultural heritege like Yeats or something, so I would not hold my breath for them to pick any decent president to save their lives.

Now if you'll excuse me I have a few headache tablets to take.

Blogger tales

You can find some weird things in the Statistics section of one's blog, and when bored I often check on it to see what shenanigens has occured. No I am not ego-centric, why do you ask?

I kid of course, but it does lead to amusement.

Sometimes I find that most of my readers that week have dwell in Iran, other times I find myself being argued over on the Politics.ie board between feaces flinging wannabe political columnists. Truely the Internet is a strange place and i'd like to take an off-topic post exploring some of the more strange and wonderful places the statistics has lead me to:

1) A German Imageboard.

Don't know what imageboards are? No? Well, they are basically forum-like sites where one creates a thread with an image on the first post, and people respond, often with images, they are usually humorous or pornographic in nature, they are several famous ones on the internet, and almost all of them will give you Cancer. Trust me, i've been there. They're also commonly referred to as the gateway to internet hell and the name is deserved. (real internet hell is something much harder to get to and NOBODY goes there and comes back from it mentally unscathed. Those who know what I'm talking about can relate. Lets just say those black screens with green letters you see hackers in movies tap into to get under the radar of the CIA? That's real.) Anyway I found this strange purely out of novelty that a bunch of Germans on an imageboard had posted a link to this blog in one of their topics.

I cannot stress the strangeness of finding a link to one's blog in the same image thread that features various images of living dolls from some Japanese Anime doing silly things. And everything is written in a language you can't understand to boot.

2) A fascistic Polish Imageboard.

Same deal as above only more politically orientated, also Polish. Never did find which threads I was being linked to on these boards, but almost all of them that I did see dealt with History, militarism and politics. So its easy to reason some monarchist on those boards linked to one of my articles or something. I'm no fascist myself but I am flattered some people of a third-way persuasion had deigned to give my blog a once over. It makes a delightful change from rabid communists lamblasting me as a living anachronism. (Several of my readers have seen my thread on the internet game Nationstates where I went fishing for fellow monarchists, and have ended up taking part in the game itself with imaginary nations, and can share my pain with the over-presence of leftists there)

3) A Korean culinary forum

I have no words. There's just... what?

4) Gothise, risingtaste and other fashion or alternative fashion related sites and social networks.

I must have a few readers with considerably different dress sense then myself due to the amount of constant traffic I seem to be getting from these kinds of sites. Good to know I have such broad appeal, what with me being a Absolutist Nationalist Monarchist with just a tad bit of Papism on the side.

I joke of course. Its good to know I can tap into such a broad spectrum of people. Its just kind of surprising.

4) Multiple facebook and Deviantart comment threads I can never seem to find.

Seriously, there must be one hell of a debate over this blog on some facebook topic I cant get into due to facebook's back tracking system. There was a two month period where I got a metric tonne of traffic from the site. Hardly the strangest nor most amusing source of traffic, but one of the most mysterious.

5) Several Feminist blogs and forums.

Its good to know I can inspire rabid hatred in these sexists by my mere existence. Even though I have never actually made a post addressing feminism yet.

6) Numerous Monarchist links from various countries.

Check out Promonarchii sometime, they do a good coverage as a news source for most European Monarchies and Monarchy in general, just make sure google translate is on. That goes for the rest of my fellow Monarchosphere bloggers. Keep up the good fight!

7) A Neo-Druid forum.

Yeah they kinda sorta just linked to my blog out of the blue. I couldn't understand half of what was being said in the thread itself. And they were typing in English too so that was saying something.

8) A Russian porn site.

Yeah. I was completely unprepared for this. Sometimes its better not to click a link with a questionable name in your traffic sources. Who knew?

9) Software and Hardware enthusiasts

Apparently alot of people who like to tinker around with machinery and computers are very interested in Monarchism or something.

10) Equestriadaily

Well, I can honestly say this was a surprise. For those who dont know My Little Pony got an animated reboot and its kinda taken popular culture by storm. Being something of a connesuir for popular media I of course have my own opinions on the show, the franchise's legacy and the ABSURD popularity it has garnered among adults as a result of veteran cartoon creator Lauren Faust creative vision.

Apparently a few of the guys who frequent Equestriadaily, something like a news source for My Little Pony fans, (don't ask, it takes too long to explain and even longer to accept as real) also visit my blog straight afterwards, as is often the case with traffic sources. They'll be checking something of their interests then rewrite their URL bar to visit my blog straight afterwords.

And my little pony is the LEAST embarrassing things I find out about the interest of anonymous readers of my blog. Seriously fellas, just use a new tab or something.

Well there's a top ten list of the wierdest traffic sources I've garnered over the past two months. Seriously this is really entertaining sometimes. Has anyone else had some funny stories to share about their traffic sources?

Future monarchy, population control and a place in the sun

((Dont worry I'll comment on the presidential elections soon enough))

As I had pointed out in my previous blog post concerning intellectual posturing regarding the unknowable positions of alien lifeforms with regards to how humanity governs itself, I gave a few hints of some deeper thought I have given to the changes that inevitably come should humanity become an extra-planetary civilization and how the arrogant presumptions of many liberal minded academics and even entertainers in the realm of science fiction are woefully underappreciative of how the human mind works. Specifically with regards to government. Allow me to explain.

If you read my last post I point out how aliens will be expected (if the work in question spins an overall 'positive' view of the future, and provided they aren't being used as a heavy handed allegory to human movements or attitudes as they often almost always are) to have formed some kind of grand space federation of planets in one form or another, and it will mostly be some sort of democratic process analogous to the UN here on Earth. Inherent in this, is that whatever form human government will take, it will be more or less 'united' (but not always secularized to the point of human cultures ceasing to exist in terms of variety) and democratic to certain extents. If it is ever posited as anything opposed to democratic 'freedom' it will more often then not be portrayed as dystopic. "Democracy is the future, we know this because we told you so, and if it isn't, everyone is nazis, yay democracy!" The more nuanced works of course will try to avoid stale tropes and give more depths to all races involved but the common perceptions still reign.

The problem with this is no one really wants to admit that the only attempt at unitary governments of the world have become laughable failures at best and encrouching dictatorships at worst, (compare the EU, USA and the UN of today to the implications of their founding ideals to understand what I mean, criticising those alone would take a week), and that at levels higher then national levels, power plays and political football become so far removed from the People that the notion such organizations are inherently democratic is a laughable fallacy. So then, how in the name of all that is holy would an extra stellar Human Empire be democratic? As soon as humanity establishes its first colony on Mars or the moon or whichever rock we fancy sticking a flag onto we will be facing taxation and governing and policing problems that will make the age of exploration seem like a golden age of fast communication, and the likeihood of colony destruction or rebellion becomes astronomically higher the less we get things under control. The solution is of course to establish a local government loyal to the Federal government (can't use the word Imperial, that'd be too honest) and allow them democratic involvement in the big hippie space federation Humanity is forming, which still doesn't negate the fact that colony revolt is still likely once it becomes self sufficient, and that any peaceful acts of secession will be overruled by the majority of the federal government which of course will be doing so in the interests of humanity at large. Basically denying democracy in order to defend democracy. How democratic! Not to mention that any actual unitary world government would have the same democratic deficit problem of current supra-national states only cranked up to eleven. Democratic government will become an impossibility and a farce, we could call ourselves a democracy but we wouldn't be, any Imperial human government at levels above national will be de facto dictatorial in order to get anything done at all.

And it is this inevitability of democratic apathy and deficit that the future of Humanity will either be like its past and form some kind of Imperial monarchy, (dont ask me how, I honestly wouldnt know what form it would take) or a beuracratic dictatorship. Based on the service records of past versions of both forms of government, which do you think will be most likely in the long term to not slow to a cumbersome death? One thing is most certain, should humanity ever extend its reach beyond the shores of earth, the democratic farce will die.

Onto population control, for this is relevant on a likely incentive for expansion onto other worlds, the simple fact is the current liberal and secular ideals of population control and social formation are WOEFULLY under-suited both for the advancement of human exploration into space; as well as borderline stupidity in terms of raising the human population high enough in order to make such ambitions feasible. Again, allow me to explain. I do not believe in population control, by which I mean I do not believe in direct population control, the only real 'control' I recognise over the population's size is the four horsemen of disease, war, famine and death. These are what I call natural control over population size, none of them are desirable and when they occur they are nearly unavoidable by the majority of the populations affected. A such I hold an incredibly dim view of arguements for proponents of 'positive' or 'active' population control methods, primarily contraception, abortion and increasingly, euthanasia. As many of us in the west know, this has led to declining birthrates and 'population replacement' measures to bolster falling workforces or even just because of the now completely indefensible belief in europe that enforced multi-culturalism is healthy, and this is because the second portion of the demented social experiment by leftists has failed spectacularly. Leftists believe humanity's population needs to be controlled and lessened for x, y and z reasons, environment, resources, general asshatery, etc (I am being forgiving in that I am running this portion of the article ont he assumption that the majority of the proponents are genuinely deceived into thinking these are good arguments for the future of mankind), and then controlled to rise and fall depending on what the state needs and what it can handle. China is actually a poster boy for the most unashamed example of this mindset. The problem here in the west is that once the 'convenience' and 'contraceptive mentality' took hold of the majority or people and sex in the popular minset is about pleasure first and reproduction as an optional, expensive second, many people did not feel like having more children when the state finally wanted populations to increase, even with the carrot of incentives to reproduce more most European populations stubbornly refused to procreate to the desired level, this occurred in the nineties and we've all known the story since then. The values and mentalities populations relied on which maintained traditions and all sorts of things revolutionary types didn't like where largely destroyed or discredited and in so doing, could not enforce sufficient influence on popular mindsets to encourage procreation when it was convenient for the states. The liberals shot themselves in the foot. What this means is that the population cannot be subtly controlled by the state to rise and fall according to its whims and what this ultimately means is that the sheer manpower mankind as a species requires to make expansion across the stars neccessary or even feasible will be nothing short of impossible. How many times have you read a sci fi novel, watched a movie or played a game where mankind has formed a 'united government' and the population has increased to such a scale that the planet's landmasses are effectively giant cities? Did it never strike you as odd, when perusing these works that the implication being that the modern secular ideals prevail in those settings yet somehow mankind still became so overpopulated as to turn Africa into one huge New York metro line? How can that be, when the insurmountable contemporary evidence is that secularized populations engaging in population control actually fall dramatically?

Leaving aside that a world government formed prior to expansion beyond earth would ultimately hinder exploration efforts, because in case you haven't noticed, no one's really been keen on going farther then the moon despite the fact we are LITERALLY close to half a century from landing on the blasted rock. Half. A. Century. When the 'need' is outweighed by convenience mankind ultimately will choose what is convenient, or in less forgiving terms, we will won't be bothered to do something if others aren't bothered to do something. Europeans sailed west to search for a quick route to India because the silk road's position was inconvenient, America landed on the moon, because allowing the Russians to get there first would've been inconvenient (or worse), and now no one is really doing anything, because space exploration is inconvenient for the environment, or for world politics. For example, when the USSR fell, what did America do? did it continue moon landings? So long as convenience is favoured in the popular mindset over principles or needs advancement, real advancement of human society is farcical.

Getting to my main point on population control, overpopulation is killing our societies. And by that I mean the myth of overpopulation as it stands, as a planet we are NOT overpopulated, that is the most blatent of lies propagated in the popular consciousness. Countries are overpopulated individually certainly, Japan, for example has a REAL lebensraum problem, and Lord knows the large populations of China and India are going to lead to trouble, but as a world and as a species? No, we aren't overpopulated. However, say we did rid ourselves of the contraceptive mentality and reproduced to make up for lost time, sooner or later overpopulation WILL become a reality and a problem, in terms of living space alone if nothing else, and in actuality, in my opinion this will be a good thing. As mention prior, the convenience mentality is killing our God-given inquisitive drive to explore, so should all the world bicker and fuss over the environment and the ice caps and what have you, until humanity is on the brink of very real overpopulation, overpopulation will finally be used as the one real drive and push that will propel humanity to the stars and not the namby pamby liberal mentalities that encourage the idea that we will explore the stars 'in our own time' once we have terrestial concerns dealt with and not the tragically under utilised drive of wonderment, exploartion for exploration's sake, (AKA, the NASA mentality, no ideological pressure or politicising, going to space simply because in the long term, when you REALLY boil it all down, its just bloody awesome). Overpopulation will FORCE governments to do the only real thing they can to handle the overpopulation: Expand.

In the end ultimately, expansion is in my humble view the only truly moral solution to Humanity's population concerns. God willed us to be fruitful and multiply. Who here reading this article honestly thinks He intended us to disregard his command once our population got so large that there was not enough room for everyone in the world? Far more likely, when He made us stewards of His creation that once our population exploded, it is either in His will or more likely in His pleasure to allow, our species to expand to other worlds. Because why not? Earth of course will always be sacred to mankind, but that doesn't mean we cant live on Mars as well, as I had said previously, space is an ocean and other worlds are really just other lands. Of course our species' empire expanding beyond the solar system becomes laughably impossible until we find some legitimate workaround for Einstein's cage (Realtivity and faster then light travel), but I think the solar system alone is enough to keep us entertained for a few thousand years. Ultimately however, whatever excuse people have for not expanding and exploring, turns to ash in the face of the potential expansion gives us as a species.

But we need to sort out our resource problems!: There's plenty more resources in space

We have yet to fix global warming!: If we dont advance our technology to the point where we can leave the planet, we probably never will have the technology to fix global warming

But what about world hunger!?: Who says we cant turn the moon into one large farm colony?

Overpopulation!: Hurr durr...

This will probably be my last article on space exploration and monarchy when it pertains to the future of the human species (keep in mind what I have pointed out would still remain true even if world war III wipes out half the earth) but it should be noted that I am extremely pro-humanist (not exactly sure if that's the right term), as my opposition to antipathic movements such as nihilism and anti-natalism as well as more pressing troubles such as a secularization and population control informs my view of the future as well as the present. I may not be as eager as some of my more scientifically bent friends about the promises future tech will deliver us (actually on that matter I have gotten into numerous debates about transhumanism but that is a WHOLE other story), but I am very eager at the possibilities for the benefit of society. And as my views are quite honestly also influenced by my Religion, this has more often then not caught out and unnerved a few of my atheist friends when the discussion is brought up (the assumption that technological advancement and interest in space exploration is the purview of the irreligious never ceases to amuse me).

As I said my views can be summed up as 'A Cathedral on Mars', while it may not be time now for Humanity's expansion, one day it might very well be so, and I encourage ourselves as a species to seek out a place in the Sun.

CFTHF: Settling in

Well, my third year of University has just finished its first week and boy what a ride.

Anyone who's been to college or even just moving in general is well acquainted with the usual shenanigens such an operation involves, doubly so after having to rearrange some modules in order to qualify for practice. So far however, nothing in my current apartment is broken, flooded and/or on fire so I have to say moving has been a success.

The real prize is of course the classes, my legal studies have been about as thick and heavy as one might expect only doubly so this year but horrors of horrors my political minor this year happens to be politics of Identity and I am stuck with the same feminist teacher who took us for an ideology lecture some two years past and failed to impress anybody, the women of the class included, when explaining how modern feminism rejects scientific studies into the differences of the genders as 'sexist'.

Predictably with a class entitled 'Politics of Identity' its extremely contemporary focusing heavily on feminism and LGBT rights. It failed to impress me that our first lecture was specifically about questioning whether or not failing to question what we think as per what society informs us (about all things mind) means we dont count as human and more count as 'dancers (As per the Killers song which was an ironic joke in itself) I could write an essay on why her approach at getting us to question ourselves was wrong alone and briefly considered swapping out modules.

I think however I shall stay with this class and give my poor, unsuspecting lecturer some ever living hell with philosophical queries and identity speculation. I am myself of course, a living paradox (as my own studies advisor called me when he learned of my monarchism and my roots and wondering what the hell happened) so when she inevitably questions me directly about how I ''dont question'' society's standards I can pull out one hell of a wild card.

That annoyance aside I need to resolve myself to be more attentive to my religious duties and get myself to Mass more often since I live right beside a railway with a cheap ride straight to Belfast city, been a bit negligent as of late.

Oh dont worry I wont be spending too many other posts on my personal status, usually never do and will resume regular blogging once my head stops spinning.

Irish Voters need to Vote with their morality

I am well aware of the hypocracy of a Monarchist such as myself endorsing one or more potential candidates for the Aras, so this post will not contain such an endorsement, and I am well aware of the liberal infestation that is crippling the hierarchy of the Catholic Church in this Nation, so we cannot expect the Bishops to be too stringent on matters of faith and morals with regards to how their flock views Politics, even though they bloody well should be doing such. It is up to the Magisterium and His Holiness to decide what to do with the Irish Church.

Instead this post is an Appeal to any Clergy and Religious who happen across my blog, as well as Faithful Irish Catholics to encourage the one thing that will put the fear of God into our blighted political class, and no it is not fomenting an angry mob, it is encouraging the people to realise however ineffectual they may see their votes, those votes count as actions and God will view them as such.

I do not mean to preach to you, for that is arrogance, merely point out that encouraging Catholics in America to vote with their conscience caused a storm of controversy over the pond, but it also meant that it was not a total landslide of the Catholic vote that elected Obama into Office (even though it was still a shamefully high percentage), Ireland is full of Lapsed Catholics, many of whom may or may not be angry at the Church, but most of whom see faith as inconsequential to their societal actions. And as long as the Church does not stress how civic actions such as voting can affect their souls, why would they?

I know this is but one problem amongst MANY the Church is dealing with right now in terms to a weakening of the faith by sabotuers, both intentional and unintentional. But if we do not start campagining for conscience based voting now, someone like David Norris may very well be able to get into the Aras next year, or some much worse then him, and the entire political class of Ireland may increase in liberalization, further damaging the country and the Church. So as that I urge my fellow Irish Catholics to encourage the concept of conscience voting here. Before the next abortion referendum rolls around.

Don't pretend that you don't know about its inevitability.

National Shame

No no, not going to talk about Irish being ashamed of themselves in general, today its about contemporary politics.

It is no surprise that the shamed Senator David Norris is going to take a second shot at the Aras, it is shameful however, that Fine Fail is going to be supporting him. For those not in the know David Norris is potentially the most socially liberal candidate for the Presidency and was involved in a scandal where he gave legal aid to a friend convicted of peadophilia in Israel, something that destroyed his chances and seemed to have doomed him to the political wilderness, and I had previously commented that it was indictitive of a poor pocket of political acumen to not have seen the reaction coming.

However something extraordinary has occured since then. All manner of people not of the Political class have been approached (either by the parties or public speculation) with the interest of running for the presidency. This ranges from Uncle Gaybo (the affectionate nickname of the fatherfigure of Irish Radio, not someone I agree with but I can see the affection everyone else has for him) to the Tyrone County Football Club Manager. Most of these sorts have declined, either through lack of interest in obtaining power, or in the case of Gaybo, wishing to avoid the ludicrous media attention to his private life. In other words they were somewhat decent men, and probably would've made halfway decent presidents (even if I didn't particularly like a few of them). This searching of non-conventional candidates shouldn't come as a surprise, but it does, it displays a certain level of distrust in the political class and the 'old families' of Irish Politics. (I did touch upon the renaissance family structures of Irish politics didn't I? I am sure I have)

Now however, without strong contention for the Aras from outside sources (friends and enemies openly admitted that if Gaybo had of went for the presidency, he would have got it in a landslide), David Norris seeks to worm his way back into political favour and run for the Aras again. And people are taking him seriously.

Please, someone, anyone, run for the Aras, if only to deny this man the representative power it wields... Oh God... I sound like a Republican. Pretty soon I'll probably be rooting for some other candidate because he's 'the lesser evil' to boot. Thus is the corruption of Democracy I suppose.

The Standards of Space Aliens

It is a ludicrous, yet seemingly prevelant, modern notion that those who claim intellectual superiority often cite that space aliens would laugh at us primitive humans for our superstitious belief in hereditary birthright being integral in a functioning government (James Blair on that Republic UK site) as well as laughing at us for worshipping our primitive sky Gods (Dawkins and any number of 'New Athiests' which are really just ordinary atheist possessed with an evangelistic zeal). And as someone profoundly interested in space colonization and exploration I have alot to say about the second group, but let us deal with the first as that is a more pressing concern to Monarchists.

I bring this up because this is an apparent standard amongst revolutionaries, that we will be judged by egalitarian and democratic ideals because apparently they believe that if advanced civilizations in this galaxy visit our own, they too will hold these standards. If you pay attention to any media involving aliens, you will find that beyond usual 'humanization' of space aliens to make them relatable to audiences (you know, how 99% of species in star trek or star wars are all bipedal humanoids), aliens will often be used as metaphors for current events in our world. Such as the recent remake of the day the world stood still is about space aliens killing the entirety of humanity JUST to save our planet which we are polluting. No, really. As this is the case, aliens will often espouse 'democratic' tendencies, they will preach tolerence, will look down on humans who argue and fight amongst ourselves, reduce centuries of human struggle to 'pointlessness' and how we should all get along and eat ice cream... or else.

This trope is so pervasive that the commonly held belief is that real aliens will be a gentle 'elder' race that would seek to 'save humanity from ourselves' and they will 'come in peace' and wish to raise us up, probably so we can join the big hippie space federation in the sky, which will of course, be one collossal UN (Mass Effect, Star wars, Star Trek, Babylon 5, damn near any sci fi franchise you care to name) And these aliens will of course have gotten rid of 'petty distinctions amongst themselves such as race, class, gender and sexuality. See that recent comedy movie Paul? With the alien? The one that wasn't even that funny? The grey alien is the leftist ideal of the Human race, hyper intelligent, hedonistic, pan-sexual, androgynous, atheist and manipulates human popular culture from behind the scenes. If the movie was not funny it was at least educational. Almost all alien cultures presented in media are uniform, have one language, all look the same (to the point where even minor variations such as skin colour in humans, are unheard of), come from a jungle planet, or a desert planet, or an ice planet or a city planet. All these aliens represent the secular ideal, where the variations of culture language religion philosophy and genetics have been ironed out in a secularization of their species, which they always look down on humans for not doing similarly fast enough.

You are probably guessing I hold an alternate view of things, yes? Well yes I do, and here's why:

Humanity is violent and competitive because Nature is harsh, whatever your view on human nature is, throughout most of humanity's existence finding enough sustainence just to make sure everybody in the tribe doesn't die was always a challenge, finding fresh water and good hunting grounds often led to the first wars our ancestors had. As societies became large and more complicated wars were fought over trade routes, economics and ideals. A consequence of the impossibility of human civilizations being uniform due to distance and environment.

Any alien species anywhere, whatever form they take, unless they come from a barren rock of a world WILL have a diversity of environment on their homeworlds in some manner, they WILL have a harsh time surviving and advancing, and unless they are controlled by a hive mind like some hyper-evolved ant species, they will have had a competitive existence, wars would be fought between different cultures of the same alien species, just like us, it is an inevitability of nature presuming they're a fallen race like us.

So what am I getting at? I am saying that the likely 'default' model of any alien species you care to meet is also monarchical, or at least something similar. Consider what I have just said and consider the nature of many of the socially advanced animals on our world who live in groups, prides of lions and packs of wolves have alpha males, a hierarchy. Primates, with some of the most sophisticated social interactions beneath our own as a species, have a social order to them, often under one leader, the alpha. Animals bred in competitive environments that form groups in order to survive will often form around central figures as their intelligence and social sophistication advances. Therefore any advanced civilization that comes to earth actually has a significant chance of being under a hereditary system itself or some other form of autocracy (which is inevitable in any extra-steller society regardless of their pre-space age political arrangements, but thats for another post), much more likely then the secular democratic ideal. Oh, and most likely they'll find us by accident and seek to take advantage of us right away, likely claiming it was they who founded our first religions and pretended to be the gods of various human religions, (hey, remember the conquistadors and the Aztecs? Yeah, exact same situation, except in space). I have yet to hear any legitimately intelligent reason as to why they would not do so, other then the generic ''They would have advanced far beyond such pettiness'' no they would not have. No one would have, no amount of technology would be able to compensate for baser desires.

Even ignoring the fact that the standards of Space Aliens is utterly irrelevant to how our species governs itself as we would be, probably in the truest sense of the phrase, 'A nation apart' from any alien species, the possessiveness of liberals and revolutionaries over the 'intellectual high ground is so complete yet so unfounded, that many would sooner dismiss their claim that 'the space aliens will judge your primitive ways' rather then engage the argument and take it away from them like they rightfully, and easily should. They do this to limit us, saying democracy is 'progress', the space alien analogy is a shaming tactic used to reinforce their rhetoric, even though they know no more about any alien civilization and its intricacies then the rest of us do. It is exactly the same as athiests claiming the discovery of space aliens will 'destroy' human religions and beliefs. There is no substance to it, and they probably don't believe it themselves as anyone who has studied human religions, even as a passing interest, will know that they would be surprisingly rugged in the face of an alien race, and probably seek to convert them to boot, because why the hell not? They don't believe it, they want US to believe it, to scare us, to make us dig into our trenches and make us look backward by claiming they are looking forward. Personally my own view is that space is the ocean and that other worlds are just other lands, and really is quite literally, no different from the age of exploration. Mars is land, let us build our colonies there, and then build a cathedral and an observatory to complete the domination.

History is on the side of monarchism and tradition, and when our opponents cannot snatch history from us, they will seek to claim the future and bar us from it. I say we shalt take it from them as well.

''Rights''

I have a great deal to say about rights, but neither the energy nor the time to post a full and thorough post dealing with the nebulous concept, (And it is a nebulous one, let me tell you) but I can easily say this:

If I, for some reason, move to an Islamic Country, or a Buddhist one, and send my children to a School with a very specific religious ethos that I do not agree with, I logically forfeit my right to complain when my child in said country is exposed to Islamic religious culture or Buddhist spirituality, even if that exposure is nothing more then the odd pious image on the wall, or a prayer area.

So pray tell dear readers;

Why is it that a Couple (one of whom, the wife I think, is American) in the Republic of Ireland feel their rights are being trampled on when they send their child to a Catholic school and that child is *shock and horror of horrors* exposed to a Catholic Ethos? And that they believe this so fervently they're willing to fight the case all the way to the supreme court? Are we seriously entertaining this bloody nonsense!?

Their argument of course is that their isnt enough 'state schools' which are secular, in their area so they had to send their child to a religious school. I wont make an uneducated judgement on the family's financial circumstance but I'm pretty sure taking potential schools into consideration is an integral part of the process of where you decide to live. And is also often a reason many people pack their bags and move to another area of the country.

But fine lets say that was non-negotiable for them. For whatever reason, and lets get back to rights. What exactly makes this couple think that their rights are so sacrosanct that it is worth, oh, lets say, trampling the freedom and rights of non-state schools to decide their individual cultures, Identities and ethos? Do they think they are the only persons involved with this school that matter?

Really I don't want to come off as angry, but with current threats from outside education groups ''endorsed by celebrities'' no less attempting to pressure the Northern Irish government to encourage integration schools of mix religion, this sort of carry on really gets under my skin. Religious schools have achieved in Ireland a degree of academic excellence that puts us squarely on par with our neighbours and above in some cases, but thats a post for another time. I am just thoroughly against the rigid control of schools and I myself am in favour of academic competition and excellence and I will rage and rage hard against the egalitarian predilections taken towards education. So when 'rights' and 'fairness' and 'integration' are used in educational circles as buzz words for reform, my blood boils and I fear the continued destruction of education as a treasure which our children may inherit.

Why doesn't someone establish a specifically 'Athiest' school somewhere? I wouldn't mind that, it would at least shut up one part of the larger problem.

Nuetrality Part 3: A compendium of responses

Having posted my two previous blog posts with regards to Ireland's neutrality, I am pleased to have seen I have a fair number of people's interest with regards to the topic. And doubly pleased that not everyone agrees with me. (I have always been one for discourse and arguement, my blog posts have been deliberately aggressive in support of militarism precisely to tease out responses from those who disagree and those who agree so I could get a fair estimate of general moods on the matter.)

On the whole there is a general mood I have garnered from the responses to my nuetrality posts. In support of Militarisation, most of the supporters appeal to the the realistic notion of a nation being able to defend itself, and lament the restrictions Ireland places on its armed forces (in terms of quantity and in terms of restricting development of critical arms of the defensive forces such as the Navy and air force), while also appealing to the spiritual goodness of a nation that is willing to defend itself.

In defence of Nuetrality, the general mood is less against militarisation as a justification, and more a general anti-war feeling. Defenders of Irish Nuetrality as it stands, cite the current draining wars in the middle eastern nations, and fearing that a militarisation of the Defense forces would lead to deamnds by our fellow western powers to join one of the myriad alliances as an active particpating nation, and this would be immoral both in terms of the conflicts in question themselves and the consequences that may result such as attracting terrorism. (I say militarisation because as good as our army is, with current restrictions its little more then a highly trained police force on steroids)

Having a better understanding of the feeling stowards nuetrality I have garnered the issue is actually something of a hot button topic. Considering how quickly the previous posts garnered responses and the noticeable divide in opinion, feelings are still strong as ever with regards to nuetrality, even if there is actually no realistic threat to the nation at this time apart from inside forces.

As such I will offer a few more condensed arguements in fav our of militarisation that will hopefully appeal to a middle ground.

1) Militarisation will not result in Ireland becoming a war-mongering nation.
This is one of the primary fears of Nuetrality defenders. The fear that boosting our armed forces will equate us with becoming a war-mongering nation, eager to launch invasions on weaker countries to extend our interests globally and likely cite America's intimidating military tradition as proof of militarisation equating to such attitudes. To understand this one would need to understand the Irish Character, both modern and ancient. We have never been an imperialistic race. It is not nor ever has been in our character or inclinations to conquer a weaker nation just because we could. While we have definitely been an incredibly eager warrior nation, both in ancient times with our myriad clanish struggles right up to the modern era where Irish soldiers and regiments in armies the world over are renowned for their ferocity and valour and even now with thousands of young men eager still to serve but find their efforts frustrated, we have never nor ever shall seek to subjugate other nations for our own benefit. If this was in our character, it would not have been the Normans to have conquered the saxon kingdoms of Brittania, but Irish Clans. So to in the modern era, militarisation of Ireland's forces would not represent a willingness to intitiate in warfare but rather would represent a serious commitment to defending the nation. A neccessary investment if Ireland is to achieve a greater place in the economic ladder of the world for the good of the nation to maintain realistic economic independence with regards to its own destiny. Something that I have pointed out would upset the market status quo in western Europe considerably, a stronger armed forces would prevent either soft or hard coercian by our neighbours, particularly France, to cripple our own economy for the benefit of their markets.
This leads to my next arguement...

2) A willingness to defend one's own local markets by force of arms from co-ercian does not represent insecurity.
This is an arguement that I have come across several times on Irish political forum boards, not neccessarily from my readers, but it is a concern that needs to be addressed. The willingness to defends one's own nation not only from realistic strategic threats, but also as a form of intimidation to ward off political bullying is at times mocked as 'macho posturing' by some of the lesser defenders of nuetrality. (ok this requires a clarification, most of the persons who use this arguement are not so much defenders of Ireland's Nuetrality, but more commonly are 'nation-haters', usually socialists of one stripe or another but not always, who scoff at patriotic sentiments towards Ireland, looking down at rank and file nationalists as well as patriotic individuals or groups of differing political or philosophical outlooks) These people equate such 'macho posturing' as chuvanistic (in the original dictionary term of believing one's nation to be superior to another or all others as well as the sexist term) and akin to the schoolyard wannabe bully who is really too big for his britches. This is a shaming arguement with no substance in either real geopolitics or history. Nations, big or small, unwilling to defend themselves, have always falling prey to the predications to more oppurtunistic forces. Regardless of how benign either the opposing force appeared, or how benign the nation in question was. Remember how the Greeks and Romans treated the celtic peoples of the continent? Yeah. Not centralising and presenting an intimidating military front worked wonders for those nations. For a more modern example, look at how a lack of pro-active militarisation worked for the Georgians when the Russian Bear took a liking to the pipeline in its northern provinces. And as a counter to that, look to Finland, where the same Russian Bear well and truly learned its lesson when the smaller, poorer, weaker former duchy of Finland gave the then communists the bloodiest of noses. Since then Russia, and everyone else for the matter, treats Finland a great deal of unspoken respect. The willingness to defend one's nation, even at terrible cost, is not insecurity, it is security, the only real security a government can offer without taking away freedoms. It is the oldest and most masculine of National traditions in the bloodiest sense. When one has a big stick by his side as he walks amongst other men, one finds oneself will rarely ever have to use it.

3) Militarisation will not result in Ireland commiting to large alliances and fighting in Foreign wars.
Not neccessarily at any rate. Because as Nuetral as we are, Irish forces ARE fighting in foreign warzones from time to time, because even though we are nuetral, are irish troops not used African Nations as peacekeepers? Or Bosnia? And on these missions are Irish forces not hamstrung by foreign commanders and their politically interested decisions putting our soldiers at risk? In Congo, where fighting was particularly fierce, where not Irish peacekeepers iminently close to killing or capturing a central warlord and stablizing the region before the UN called a withdrawal and cease-fire? It is due to Ireland's good history of effective peace-keeping and soldiering, even when hamstrung by UN protocals (and excellently camoflagued helmets, bright blue helmets blend in so well in any enviroment, don't they?), that we have not suffered too many casualties in these warzones, but its also due to this history that I have an extremely dim view of concerns of being swept up in international Alliances should we cease to become nuetral. We are already apart of NATO to a degree and peacekeeping commitments ensure we will likely be part of some international strike force when the next global conflageration sparks up. Oh, and you know that EU recognition of our nuetrality? Don't expect that to last when the EU further centralizes and eventually becomes embroiled in some silly war or another. My defence against these concerns is that Ireland will not be commited to large alliances should we cease nuetrality precisely because we already are committed to large alliances to a degree, ceaseing nuetrality and gaining increased strategic independence actually gives us political currency and leverage to decide how much we will be involved in these alliances. Or whether we should remain committed to these alliances at all. Militarisation will not result in co-ercian by other nations to comply. In actual fact it is the opposite, militarisation gives Ireland more say in deciding how much we want to commit precisely because we have sufficient force to realistically say "No thanks" and have our decision respected.

4) Militarisation will be expensive, but not as expensive as not militarising will be in the long run.
Upgrading our military, commissioning battleships aircraft and helicoptors, funding maintainence, Research and Development and, yes, production will represent a significent investment on part of the Irish Government. You know what else? It will also create jobs and industry. The creation of factories and an attractive corporate tax rate will entice companies, and investors to come to Ireland for the burgoening military industries that will develope here, creating jobs and generating increased spending power in the Irish Markets, which would be expanding to begin with as we become more economically assertive which would neccesitate the modernization and expansion of the armed forces. If this still does not sit right with you, we can still commission foreign shipyards and companies for equipment like we currently do instead of setting up shop ourselves. (I have no real complaints about the gear our boys currently have, the standard rifle in particular is a favourite of mine) In the long run, militarization WILL be neccessary and it will cost us if we do not militarize. If we just focus on economics and trading we WILL upset the status quo of western Europe and our neighbours will start politically co-ercing us to back down. How do i know this? They're already trying with our corporate tax rate, which is deemed 'unfair' by our continental cousins 'because it makes us too competitive'. Especially with recent negotiations about the bail out debt An Taoiseach Enda Kenny had with Eurpe and the IMF, France was utterly gunning for the corporate tax. So if we decide we wanted a larger share of the cake, expanded our markets and trading power, how will our neighbours react? Will they be happy that alot of american trade flows through Irish Markets when heading into Europe instead of French or British ones? Will the EU be pleased we'll be making trade deals with South America and other regions without their oversight and approval when that is, according to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union it is their perogitive to do so? How long before they start coercing us to back down? What can we back up our claims with? Without our own expanded Armed forces we will be dependent on Europe for protection, so when they bring pressure to bare there is actually nothing we can do to refuse them. At all. And with Military dependcy comes economic depency, but thats another headache for another post.

And finally, if no other arguement will convince you, there's this:

5) Militarisation does not neccessarily compromise nuetrality
If no other concern pervades your opinion other then maintaining nuetrality for the sake of being nuetral, there is this compromise. We can still claim nuetrality and have an increased military tradition, we can have our cake and eat it too. Switzerland, Norway and Austria are all Nuetral nations with fine military traditions. What do all of them also have? A greater economic say in world affairs, or hell, even regional affairs. If you are so concerned that without the proclamation of Nuetrality we will be swept up in wars (which we inevitably will one way or another, World War III is kinda overdue), we can still maintain our nuetrality, we can still remain uncommitted to international alliances, we can still not become involved in foreign wars and STILL increase our military tradition. This is reality. This is literally something we can do, just like the other Nuetral nations of Europe. The only reason you can still deny the militarization of Ireland and the expansion of our markets is irrational fear of masculine projection. Only a fear of being seen as 'aggressive' can explain the refusal to recognise our inherent geopolitical potential. This fear has been indoctrinated through decades of democratic political socialization and I can only rationalize that Irishmen and Women must feel that ireland must be seen as 'peaceful' because Britain is 'warlike'. But this Island is not at peace, not really, as a people we are deluded, spiritually starving, consumeristic, and culturally dead. We are afraid to assert ourselves, we are afraid to be alive. If your definition of peace, however, is the absence of physical conflict then fine, here's is your peaceful Ireland, pretty, isn't it?

Neutrality part 2: The Eager young men of Eire

(normally I'd be wont to comment on the English Riots and speculate at their causes, but presently I am content to watch the liberal scum there blame the cuts, the right wingers talking up a game of clamping down, the tension in English society and the future of that nation be put to death by ignoring the deeper causes of these riots. Some of which are obvious. The political football match is in its second half and it is fascinating to watch. Like a speeding train hurtling towards a sharp corner near a cliff side.)

Earlier this year, one week in spring I was on a late night train to Belfast, heading to my student accommodations for the university week ahead. I was tired and had half dozed off on the train, putting down the gothic fantasy novel I had been reading for my amusement, (I am always one for a good blood and thunder story), and my head up against the vibrating window for comfort. Some lads from the Republic where in the same train compartment and a few seats ahead of me and they were discussing life and its miscellaneous shenanigans, joking and fooling around as young men do. It wasn't until one of the girls with them had been asking them where they were heading that I brought myself back to consciousness in fascination and had overheard what they were going to do once they got to Belfast.

And it was when I had heard their designs I took proper notice of the kit bags they had with them and the nature of the accutriments adorning them.

The young men where heading north to try their fortune in the British Army regiments. With jobs scarce and many of them, judging by their earlier inconsequential chatter, had an innate fascination with the military and military life and history, often throughout their conversation exchanging knowledge on weapons and historic generals and battles. Things I myself enjoy. They had no real love of Britain, but they weren't joining the British Army because they did, as the girl had suggested, and they protested to the girl, that many other young Irish lads before them didnt join the British army for their love of it either. They wanted adventure and the chance to were uniforms, to serve, to protect and if neccessary fight. They had possessed within them a warrior calling.

When questioned as to why they didn't just join the Irish Defense Forces, I was dismayed and had assumed prematurely that they did not do so because of poor pay or perhaps 'it wasnt exciting enough' or maybe they liked the idea of being in the military and didn't feel patriotic or didn't love their country enough and decided to go to the British Army because 'that's where the action is'. I was very cynical at the time. And to my delight and surprise, i found out that each of the young men and many of their friends had already tried ''but the defence forces didn't have enough room for that many applicants'' Scoffing the girl had joked ''What? not enough room for all 7 of you?" to which one of the young men replied "not enough room for all 4,000 of us"

Then I had really perked up. The defence forces needed forty new recruits for positions in the army had an overwhelmingly enthusiastic response for the positions, but because of some quota or some other bueracratic shenanigans, they could accept no more then forty.

Over 4,000 young men, eager and ready to join the Military at such a scant excuse, and here I was, on a train with 7 such fine young men, finding themselves frustrated at not being able to fulfil their callings and being forced to look elsewhere, even to Britain, for military employment.

And that, my friends, is a scandal.

I had in my previous post bemoaned the negative effects neutrality had on us as an economic power and now I present another effect. Here we are, crippling ourselves with our cowardly fear of brandishing a stick at our sides like all our brother nations do, even the other neutral ones, preferring to whimper and cower in a small corner and hope to God none of the bigger dogs in the pack take too much notice of us.

We have a rather large pool of eager young men wanting desperately to serve their country and here we are content to waste their callings on other nations, denounce them as bloodthirsty for even wanting to be part of a stronger national army for the good of the country, and cradle our precious, useless, false idol of neutrality as if it is doing us any favours. It failed during the second world war, it is failing us now by crippling our economic growth by making us to be dependent on other nations for security and it will damn sure fail us whent he next great global conflageration rolls around.

Or do you really think 5 patrol boats for a navy and desperate pleas of recognizing some by then useless neutrality proclamation will spare us the wrath of whatever new hitlerite monster the future will throw at us?

Odd rumblings

Enda Kenny denounced the Vatican directly after the Cloyne report and I already covered how this was little more then political scapegoating both to draw attention away from the Hospital scandal and the state's failures also mentioned in the report.

The Confessional Seal legislation which would be the most ineffectual law in Irish History in the pursuit of protecting children.

And of course, FG Cait Keane urging that the Eucharistic congress would be inappropriate to be held in phoenix park....despite the fact it is not planned for Phoenix Park but for the RDS and Croke Park.

And in all three cases the Association of Catholic Priests, a liberal group of clerics opposed to Orthodoxy and Sensible religion and moral character in general, has been cheering Fine Gael on.

Excuse me but what the hell is this utter horse dung?

While I am awaiting what is rumoured to be a strong Papal Nuncio response to the Cloyne Report and the fractious relationship between Dublin and Rome, can someone please give me one good reason why we haven't tossed this filth out of the sacristies?

I know I am for a proper Inquisition into the Affairs of the Irish Church for some time now and the results of an initial Apostolic Investigation, although the full report hasnt been disclosed, is that the Irish Church is ten years away from an irreversible disaster. And had been hoping with the Eucharistic Congress and the Pope's own schedualed visit to Ireland next year, something would at least be done. I had even mentioned my dismay at the emergence of religious rebellion earlier this year with regards to this same organization and I am only increasingly vindicated. And on top of this a leading Theologian has called for all Bishops of Ireland appointed before 2003 to be removed and replaced with a reshuffling of diocese. A move I fully support because Rome has neglected Ireland for the past century and the Bishops have grown lazy and indolent at best, and outright heretical at worst. And I see the worst elements of this heretical malaise at the heart of Irish Spirituality in the Association and its persistent political opportunism. I would bet money that if at all possible they would have Dublin break from Rome and create an established State Church. Remind you of Anyone?

I have never been one for anti-clericalism, a respect for the divine and a respect for the clergy is as old as the Irish character itself, stretching back even into our pagan days. But be that as it may I wish for more public denounciation of the Association from prominent Catholics and for the Bishops to submit to Rome. I have made it quite clear any lasting Irish Restoration cannot be built on a secular foundation, the wolves of revolution will just tear at it till it is nought but bone. I just wish for something drastic to be done. Very badly.

Slan go Phoile.

The paralysis of Neutrality

When the subject of militarism or war is brought up in Ireland you'll get a variety of opinions on various matters pertaining to just about everything besides the modern Irish Military. And even if you direct the conversation towards the topic you will find the majority of the people you meet will have not given it considerable thought, and if they do they will usually fall into rough groupings of liberals grumbling about Irish Neutrality to try to steer the conversation away fromt he topic and that'd be the end of it. Either that or you'll end up in the other secular camp that shout vehemently about the nature of chaplaincies in the Irish armed forces. In either case the result is the same.

For some bizarre reason the modern Irishman is hostile to any state run body of National pride and masculine projection made manifest in physical form.

I could go on with touching upon the hypocrisies of Irish Republicans on the matter but that would give the impression this problem is limited to them in some way.

In truth the modern Irish mind is so dedicated to Neutrality, long instituted since the founding of the Republic, that it forgets both the disservice it has done us in the past and lamenting the memory of why it was instituted in the first place.

When the Republic was young, the Irish army was not vast, we had virtually no navy or fighting aircraft, we were in every essence a fledgling state and proclaiming neutrality was a wise move to protect ourselves until we had the means with which to defend ourselves. Europe was a very dangerous place at the time. The problem with this policy happened early on, when the second world war rolled around our Neutrality cost us the favour of the Allied forces, with whom we were actively, if not admittedly, aiding in the war. Americans refuelled their plans here and their troops did exercises and did bunk here, but because we never actively taken part in the war effort when we were under the best protection to do so (what with England being a good buffer state between us and Hitler), we were penalised by our erstwhile allies with poor trade deals. And got bombed by the occassional Luftwaffe sortie for our troubles regardless. Now, nearly a century onwards pray tell why are we still neutral?

I ask that question earnestly, why are we still neutral? Look across Europe, to Switzerland and Austria, both neutral countries, both with fine military traditions and proud displays of patriotism (in comparison to the Irishman's own at any rate) It is all well and fine for them to remain neutral, being better equipped to fuel their own needs and sharing mostly land borders they need not worry for want of battleships. Neutrality does these countries well because they are fully prepared to go to war should that neutrality fail them. Has it been doing us well? we are on the corner of Europe, who is our enemy? England? They could care less for conquest these days, the Scots or the welsh? Their own grievances with the English they could care less about us, it is no secret the French are jealous of our corporate taxes making us more competitive economically, but they will never go to war with us for such a petty prize, who then? The Americans? Icelanders? Neutrality is doing us nothing but hampering us economically.

Upon talking with friends at University about the Ireland's economic nature and how we are perfectly poised on a trade route between the North Americas and Europe, and lamenting how no one seems to have the will to push us forward to be more prominent in markets we already excel in and to feed a burgeoning trading industry among our coastal cities. Lord knows the poorer regions of Ireland would be grateful for it and the entire nation would benefit from it. But even if in our discussions I find that my compatriots are in agreement with me in this issue, they will ask, 'But will that mean we will have to give up our neutrality?' and I am dumbstruck.

I have argued before that if Ireland did cease upon a greater economic destiny Europe would take note and our rise would upset the market balances in Western Europe and many a man would direct their Ire to Ireland. And yes, this would mean we would have to sacrifice our neutrality. For to become a player on the world stage, however small, we will have to show we are prepared for the consequences of winning over the pot at the poker table. But because of this bizarre and unnecessary neutral mentality we are paralysed with fear of success, for success brings antagonism. Who dares, wins, and it is the Pious, masculine nation who values its honour and integrity in all things, even its approach to material success, that will be smiled upon by God. For if we never play the game because of fear, then we will never win.

The Uselessness of Enda Kenny's Posturing

The Bishops of Ireland need to be rounded up, given the boot and Rome needs to appoint new bishops within the next ten years or this entire country will become a spiritual nightmare. Let me just get that out of the way before any of you think I am going to defend the Bishops guilty of this seemingly unending travesty.

Now with that said, can someone please go and shut Enda Kenny up before he embarrasses himself?

I am of course talking about his recent speech solidly aiming at 'the Vatican' and 'deploring' the lack of, or too much Vatican interference in Irish Affairs regarding the child abuse scandals (someone get a tick list this is the first embarassment) So which is it? Is the Vatican to blame for telling the Bishops to ignore and hide the scandals, thereby interloping in Irish affairs in this 'Republic of Laws' Enda Kenny seems proud about? Why how very peculier, is the Vatican also to blame for not doing enough to stop the abuses? One is claiming the Vatican, (read: The Pope, because honestly thats what everyone really is referring to when they say The Vatican) is deliberately misleading and ordering Bishops to cover up the abuses, note, these are the same Bishops who flaunt their disobedience to Rome to begin with, one even going so far as to claim proudly he dismissed documents from Rome, unread, into the wastebasket next to his desk. While the other claim is lamblasting the Church for not doing ENOUGH to keep an oversight on these very same Bishops which would require the Vatican to... Interfere in this Republic of Laws in order to do so. Enda, please speak sense.

I will currently ignore cries from media and other sources that Enda Kenny's criticisms weren't hostile Enough. Because frankly it is not An Taoiseach's fault that they want the Church to suffer more.

It is obvious this is political posturing and any number of rationalisations can be claimed to be the cause of An Taoiseach getting uppity like this. Deflection from the current economic crisis, trying to secure future votes by 'standing tough' in the face of 'The Roman Bully', (that'll definitely sway the votes of some atheists but I don't honestly think it'll guarantee a second term) probably use it as an excuse to ignore his party's promise to be pro life and side with their Labour bedfellows to legalize abortion in Ireland. I would not put it past them and I dare any man among you to challenge my cynicism in this regard.

I also find it mildly amusing that these criticisms are being lauded by the Association of Catholic Priests and their ilk here in Ireland,many of whom share much in common with the Bishops whose fault it is we are in such a state.

The next embarrassment is the proposed legislation to break the Confessional Seal. Now this scandal is covered extensively in any number of catholic Blogs, and the possibility it will actually pass is debatable but there is one solid, sincere and very logical reason why it should not pass and put into Law: It would be the most ineffectual law in Irish History. How many Catholics are there in Ireland? What percentage of them go to Mass every week in today's secular world? What percentage of that percentage actually goes to confession at least twice a year? Now that we've limited that number down to an embarrassingly small amount I ask you this. How many of those who do confess, would confess to knowledge of child abuse? Now to even further dwindle that number, how many of this paltry sum would actually even remotely consider confessing such crimes once this law comes into effect and the confessional is not safe for the confession of any crimes? None. At all. The State can arrest as many priests as they want but no results in the safety of Children will ever improve and will only result in anticlerical actions not seen in a Catholic Country since perhaps the cristero war in Mexico. Further wasting state resources and oh of course, would only target the Catholic Church, why, it would be UNTHINKABLE that lawyers would also be required to come forward under this law, POLITICIANS MAY BE IMPLICATED. And that would just be sacrilege.

But the biggest, possibly most damning embarrassment of this recent hostility towards Rome is thus: In the Cloyne report the failure of civil authorities on the child abuse scandal is also damned. In fact, the failure of secular institutions and their own abuses, here in Ireland and elsewhere is actually almost as bad if not worse then the abuses under Catholic oversight. I understand why the Church is picked on from an objective standpoint, it is a religious and moral authority where such failures and failure to expunge the corruption is beyond inexcusable and hence, its dirty laundry is hung from a higher line as it where. But even so the speech and, An Taoiseach Enda Kenny;

In this Republic of Laws where such attrocities have taken place, dear An Taoiseach, pray tell, where was the State when the people needed them?

Stop Labour subverting Fine Gael's pro-life commitments. Take a minute to send an online postcard

Dear Friend

Strong elements in Government, particularly in the Labour Party, are

pressing hard to have abortion legalised. They are doing everything

to create the impression that Ireland is obliged to legislate for

abortion following the recent European court ruling in A, B and C v.

Ireland. The judgment, however, in no way forces Ireland to legalise

abortion. In fact, it respects the entitlement of the Irish people to

determine legal policy on protecting the lives of unborn children.

Before the General Election, Fine Gael gave written commitments to

oppose abortion legislation and destructive research on living human

embryos. Labour, however, is pressuring them to renege on these

promises. To ensure Fine Gael holds steadfast to its commitments,

your FG Oireachtas representatives need to hear from you.

You can do this quickly and easily. Your online message will also

automatically go to An Taoiseach and the Minister for Health. Efforts

like this are vitally important from time to time and can make all the

difference. Please encourage all your family and friends to also

participate in this initiative.

Send your online postcard here

Thank you for your continued support.

Ruth Cullen

Pro Life Campaign

I cannot post a postcard as I reside north of the border and have no

representitive in the Oireachtas, therefore I urge any honest Irish

Man and woman, whether you voted or not in the past election to

engage in this campaign, we must stop this subversive movement

by the labour party to pressure Ireland into a Pro-Abortion state

based on a NON-BINDING COURT CASE IN THE EUROPEAN

COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. This same court declared it was a

violation of human rights to deny prisoners in the UK the vote, but

the United Kingdom Parliament was well within its rights to

disregard the ruling AND HAS NOT SUFFERED AS A RESULT OF

THEIR ACTIONS. Neither will we, this will not affect our relations

to Europe and will not effect us economically. You have NO EXCUSE

for ignoring this vile subversion on the part of labour to utilise this

non binding decision to push their anti-Life agenda, I urge each and

everyone of you, if you do value the continuation of Irish life on this

island, to do all in your power to oppose this. Send your online

postcard via the link provided in the letter to urge Fine Gael to be

mindful of their pro-life promises.

Once again I curse the day FG decided to take labour into power

instead of a co-coalition of indos, and now my cynicism and anger is

once again justified.

My thanks go out to Fr. Gabriel Burke and his blog for also sharing

this letter.

If any of you know of a way for me, a resident in the north of Ireland

to support the Pro-Life movement in the south (or even to help this particular campaign along) Mindful I AM a citizen of the Irish Republic,

my family just live north.