The Maternal death rate in the Republic of Ireland is 6 out of every 100,000 live births. We are among the lowest maternal deaths in the world, being edged out by Estonia at 3 per 100,000. Our next door Neighbour of Britain has 12 per 100,000.
Ireland kills women. Clearly.
Clearly we are murderous gogs and magogs whose backward, dark aged, neanderthals operating on theocratic dogma to enslave and destroy women through the most unholiest of weapons: childbirth.
Clearly we are every bit of the monsters the pro-abortion crowd calls us.
Even though we are not cynically using the tragic death of a talented young woman by septicemia to further our aggressive social engineering goals. Oh no, if we do that we wouldnt be monsters.
We'd be heroes. We'd be paragons of change. It doesn't matter that if abortion on demand where to be legalized the maternal death rate would almost certainly double. It doesn't matter that corrupted crisis pregnancy centers tell women not to inform their doctors that they had an abortion overseas and thus endanger them in future medical operations as their doctors are left ignorant of their full conditions. Why, it doesn't even matter, if women outright die from their abortions, so long as they can have them and less babies are brought into the world. Because that is freedom, we know what women's freedom is, we know what they want, of course we do, afterall we'd tell them what they want, we'd rail against any of them that espouse otherwise and silence their male allies as misogynistic, theocratic, would-be talibans. We'd know what a real woman wants, and those that don't want abortion further legalized, isn't really a woman, and it totally isn't objectifying for us to decide that. That totally wouldn't make us despicable, oppurtunistic, parasitic, misanthropes who would stoop so low to grasp upon the death of this woman with white knuckled fists and demand our agenda before we knew anything about the situation.
Before the inquiries investigate.
Before the Hospital releases a full statement regarding the matter and the doctors involved.
Before the president elect of India's Federation of Obsetetrics and Gyneacologist societies expressed his thoughts acting on the miscarrying baby would have caused Savita to die two days earlier.
Wait, no, that wouldnt matter, as the abortion would have been performed. Then the death of Savita wouldnt have mattered at all even if it did cause her to die earlier.
Fancy that.
I apologise for the poison in this post but the death of Savita and the controversy blown up around me has caused me some introspective pain, and especially in light of my last post had these doctors stated their reasons for refusing the abortion on grounds that Ireland was a Catholic Country, strictly legally, they would have been at fault. But I didn't know enough about the case, no one outside of the operating rooms and the hospital itself does, to give a firm opinion on the matter, legal or personal. So I am not directing this post at Savita's distraught family, or the doctors of Galway University Hospital. I am directing it at the Pro-Abortion, and that's what they really are in the end, savages who are using Savita as so much ammunition to push their despicable designs on Ireland and my previous warnings about the Labour party in the Republic have come to fruition, as they as using this to push their pro-abortion agenda and risking the death of the current coalition government to achieve it.
In the end, they don't really care about Savita, or women in general for that matter, they care about their own sick ideological goals above all else.
Friday, 16 November 2012
Tuesday, 30 October 2012
Red Handed
The Oireachtas has approved an independent review on the findings of the HSE over the scandal the previous weeks of crisis pregenancy centers giving women, who typically have gone abroad for abortions, highly illegal, unethical, unprofessional advice to hide the fact they had an abortion from their GPs because of the stigma of abortion in Irish society.
A couple of things and I hope you all can please forgive my own lapse of professionalism and eloquence but
FUCK those Crisis Pregnancy centers.
There, I can now keep my vitriol down to a simmer and get into the reasons why I just said what I said.
Now I am pro-life, almost ridiculously so. As such I will try to explain why, using my skills three years of legal education have thought me, that this independent review is both neccessary and correct, because I sure even some of my pro-life readers likely make exceptions for abortions in cases of rape and hence, will likely be appaled at my above outburst. So let me begin.
1) Firstly, the Irish Constitution makes allowances for abortion, on the advice of doctors who think it best, for the health and safety of the mother. Ireland's gynecological medical rating is literally one of the best if not the best in the world and our doctors are highly competent men and women who exercise deliberation, caution and professional medical practice. They do not usually think it in the best interests of the mother's health to have an abortion and with good reason, despite the general state of Irish healthcare, Ireland is literally the safest country in the world to have an abortion almost regardless of the woman's actual medical circumstances because of the quality of our medical professionals. Social abortions such as 'I am not ready/fit to raise this baby at my age/working situation' or 'I just do not want to have a baby' is unacceptable reasons for a termination. Why? Because the Irish constitution legally recognizes the right to life of the unborn, that the fetus is, essentially a person and thus, terminating it on grounds of social reasons is legally tantamount to killing a person for social reasons. It creates a cognitive dissonance within Irish Law. Whereas the health exception would be cases where having the child would greatly exacerbate a woman's medical condition to the point of life threatening. Quality of Life is not taken into account.
2) With regards to the above Law of the Irish constitution and the case of X, Y and Z vrs Ireland case before the European Court of Human Rights. Several facts need to be made clear. Firstly this court is not, in fact, and institution of the European Union of which Ireland is a member state of and is hence, subject to its directives. This gets confused as the EU has an ECHR which refers to the European Convention of Human Rights, which is something else. The rulings of the Court of Human Rights have no binding legal effect on European states, the worst that can come from deciding against the ruling of the court is likely political embarrassment or estrangement, which is unlikely to happen anyway since very few people take some of the more stringent rulings of this court seriously enough to enforce them in their own countries. Unless its ruling is strongly related to the ECHR, in which case the EU may take notice and force peoples' hands. This is why Britain could ignore the Court's ruling on giving prisoners the right to vote while in prison. Now, the case of X, Y and Z v Ireland invoked the ECHR, claiming Ireland's laws were contrary to several articles of the ECHR. The Court famously refuses to take a hardline stance either side of major social issues such as abortion and gay marriage, justifying that there is no majority opinion across the continent on which it can justify ruling one way or the other as evidence by previous abortion cases brought before it in the past. In the case, two of the women involved where struck down, as the court ruled that Irish doctor's refusal to perform abortions for them was not contrary to the specific articles they invoked of the ECHR, (they both effectively amounted to social reasons for abortion trying to justify it under right to privacy and another article) however in X's case was successful. But not for the reasons pro-abortion proponents in Ireland think it is. in X's particular case the woman had cancer, I believe it was in remission at the time, Doctors told her of her medical condition when she inquired about the abortion and told her that they would advise continuing the pregnancy. Everything was fine and legal up until the woman asked to see her medical information on which the doctors were basing their judgement as well as services in other countries that offer abortion, they refused to give it to her. THIS is what the X case was about. Under Irish law she DID in fact have a right to see her medical information, and the doctors withholding of it was wrong. (Granted, had they let her see the information their opinions and that of their colleagues would be no different and she could not force them to have an abortion if she disagreed with their opinions.) The X case was the court of Human Rights mandating that Ireland makes its own constitutional law clear, resulting in the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments, later included in the text of the eight amendment and amounted to essentially not refusing a citizen's freedom of movement from state to state (a right that existed in Irish law but was never condensed into a sentence as part of the constitution) as well as, and this is important; 'This subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state.' Effectively meaning it WAS legal for a woman in Ireland to move to another state to procure an abortion.* But the case was never, EVER about making the Irish state legalize abortion. This is a farce, a straight up lie. It was about forcing Ireland to enforce the laws it already had in place not forcing it to radically altar its constitution to make further allowances for abortion. Also of note in the wake of the case there were several referendums attempting to remove the threat of suicide as justifying procurement of abortion. These failed. The logic was that there were women who feigned suicidal tendencies over pregnancy in order to get an abortion, they were defeated because removing this justification would, logically, would result in genuinely psychologically troubled women from procuring an abortion and result in higher suicide rates among women. Ireland often looks at the result of abortion laws effects in England when trying to get examples. Also technically abortion isn't exactly legal per se in England either as much as it is allowed. Its complicated but one scandal at a time since it will be relevant to a future abortion post regarding Northern Ireland.
*This is relevant to my final points so remember this.
3) Rape pregnancies happen. They are an extremely minor cause of pregnancy to the point where, in my own legal opinion, legalizing abortion on a wider scale because of it is ethically and legally unsound but at the end of the day they happen and the cause a great deal of trauma to the women involved. This is where Crisis pregnancy centers enter the scene. Legally speaking, yes, they are allowed to give women advice on where they can go to procure abortions safely, legally, and discreetly in foreign countries. In fact crisis pregnancy centers offer this advice to a wider array of pregnant women other then those who conceived through rape and/or incest, this is obvious and I won't be going into the ethics of the centers in general in this post. I will say, however, that the professional councilors, (or I hope they are professional councilors, in most cases at the very least), are not, ARE NOT, permitted to advise women to withhold important medical information to their GPs. I cannot stress this enough. Medical confidentiality is a serious thing in common law jurisdictions, Ireland is not an exception, while a doctor, as in the UK, may, in some circumstances, share your medical information with other trusted professional colleagues in his field for second opinions and discussion, they are not permitted to talk about your particular information to anyone else under penalty of prosecution and lawsuit against, potentially not only him or her but also the medical institutions they are affiliated with and could end up with their medical licence revoked even under the relatively light gavel the courts use regarding medical professionals, (remember that bit about doctors being revered in Ireland? yeah it makes the courts lenient with them, the same is done to fire fighters and police officers in order not to deter or dis-incentiveise 'rescuers'. The same is practiced in UK common Law. But in serious breaches of duty of care the law can come down like an meteor and leave just as large a blast radius). So, considering this, and indeed, considering that going abroad to procure a discreet abortion is legal, you informing your GP that you had an abortion is INCREDIBLY important information for a woman's future health. Without going into detail of the medical dangers or realities of abortion (otherwise this post's comments will get ideological REAL quick) at the end of the day, an abortion could at the very least, perforate a woman's womb, causing internal bleeding or perhaps difficulties in future pregnancies. (I have seen people by this point argue that if Abortion were legal in Ireland this wouldn't happen which is logically farcical since these abortions are usually procured legally in say, the UK, France, the Netherlands or Belgium where abortion is widespread, legal (sortof in the UK's case) and "professionally done". Lets leave it at that for now.) Now, the crisis pregnancy centers in question have advised these women, USING THE FEAR OF SOCIAL STIGMA OF HAVING AN ABORTION AS THEIR JUSTIFICATION, to not inform their GPs of the operation.
Ok, so see where I am going with this?
You really should by this point.
In truth, a woman who procures an abortion abroad should have maybe a close knit group of maybe 5-10 people at the most who knows she has procured it. It is impossible for me to presuppose on their situations, about who knows what about their circumstances and I am not going to address the existence of the abortion stigma in Ireland because it is the obvious result of living in a highly pro-life society (if nothing else). I could go to America, get a job and make many friends, admit I had testicular cancer and have become totally impotent as a result of the operation. I would then have a stigma attached to me. Stigmas. Happen. They are unfair and they may result in you not telling even your closest friends about your circumstances.
They are not an excuse not to tell your doctor about your previous medical operations, whose very existence could pose complications of future medical procedures. And do. Woman have died from not telling medical professionals handling their data that they had procured an abortion abroad.
Perhaps now you are beginning to see.
These councilors have broken their duty of care to these women. Some probably did it out of genuine concern for the woman's social status, even though they should have rightly known doctors cannot discuss their patient's circumstances. A darker side of me, the cynic of old, believes that at least some of these councilors may have had a malicious motive but I am tossing that to the ditch to maintain professionalism in this post. Their motive, unless it genuinely was malicious, matters not.
Their advice to the women to procure foreign abortions was legal, their advice to withold important medical information was not. Anyone who argues otherwise is wrong, they do not care for these womens' wellbeing. These women, under the law, should not have been advised to withhold such crucial medical information (keep in mind the women may not have entirely been aware of the particulars of the law when receiving this advice), these councilors where in the wrong and have endangered these women.
Whatever your stance on the issue, (and you do have one, so there is no point in me arguing my stance in attempts to convert you), you are wrong to think that a review and investigation into these centers was not warranted.
The Oireachtas is correct in calling for the review of these findings, but the HSE cannot be trusted to review these crisis pregnancy centers. You do not ask a banker to review his own corrupt holdings.
A couple of things and I hope you all can please forgive my own lapse of professionalism and eloquence but
FUCK those Crisis Pregnancy centers.
There, I can now keep my vitriol down to a simmer and get into the reasons why I just said what I said.
Now I am pro-life, almost ridiculously so. As such I will try to explain why, using my skills three years of legal education have thought me, that this independent review is both neccessary and correct, because I sure even some of my pro-life readers likely make exceptions for abortions in cases of rape and hence, will likely be appaled at my above outburst. So let me begin.
1) Firstly, the Irish Constitution makes allowances for abortion, on the advice of doctors who think it best, for the health and safety of the mother. Ireland's gynecological medical rating is literally one of the best if not the best in the world and our doctors are highly competent men and women who exercise deliberation, caution and professional medical practice. They do not usually think it in the best interests of the mother's health to have an abortion and with good reason, despite the general state of Irish healthcare, Ireland is literally the safest country in the world to have an abortion almost regardless of the woman's actual medical circumstances because of the quality of our medical professionals. Social abortions such as 'I am not ready/fit to raise this baby at my age/working situation' or 'I just do not want to have a baby' is unacceptable reasons for a termination. Why? Because the Irish constitution legally recognizes the right to life of the unborn, that the fetus is, essentially a person and thus, terminating it on grounds of social reasons is legally tantamount to killing a person for social reasons. It creates a cognitive dissonance within Irish Law. Whereas the health exception would be cases where having the child would greatly exacerbate a woman's medical condition to the point of life threatening. Quality of Life is not taken into account.
2) With regards to the above Law of the Irish constitution and the case of X, Y and Z vrs Ireland case before the European Court of Human Rights. Several facts need to be made clear. Firstly this court is not, in fact, and institution of the European Union of which Ireland is a member state of and is hence, subject to its directives. This gets confused as the EU has an ECHR which refers to the European Convention of Human Rights, which is something else. The rulings of the Court of Human Rights have no binding legal effect on European states, the worst that can come from deciding against the ruling of the court is likely political embarrassment or estrangement, which is unlikely to happen anyway since very few people take some of the more stringent rulings of this court seriously enough to enforce them in their own countries. Unless its ruling is strongly related to the ECHR, in which case the EU may take notice and force peoples' hands. This is why Britain could ignore the Court's ruling on giving prisoners the right to vote while in prison. Now, the case of X, Y and Z v Ireland invoked the ECHR, claiming Ireland's laws were contrary to several articles of the ECHR. The Court famously refuses to take a hardline stance either side of major social issues such as abortion and gay marriage, justifying that there is no majority opinion across the continent on which it can justify ruling one way or the other as evidence by previous abortion cases brought before it in the past. In the case, two of the women involved where struck down, as the court ruled that Irish doctor's refusal to perform abortions for them was not contrary to the specific articles they invoked of the ECHR, (they both effectively amounted to social reasons for abortion trying to justify it under right to privacy and another article) however in X's case was successful. But not for the reasons pro-abortion proponents in Ireland think it is. in X's particular case the woman had cancer, I believe it was in remission at the time, Doctors told her of her medical condition when she inquired about the abortion and told her that they would advise continuing the pregnancy. Everything was fine and legal up until the woman asked to see her medical information on which the doctors were basing their judgement as well as services in other countries that offer abortion, they refused to give it to her. THIS is what the X case was about. Under Irish law she DID in fact have a right to see her medical information, and the doctors withholding of it was wrong. (Granted, had they let her see the information their opinions and that of their colleagues would be no different and she could not force them to have an abortion if she disagreed with their opinions.) The X case was the court of Human Rights mandating that Ireland makes its own constitutional law clear, resulting in the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments, later included in the text of the eight amendment and amounted to essentially not refusing a citizen's freedom of movement from state to state (a right that existed in Irish law but was never condensed into a sentence as part of the constitution) as well as, and this is important; 'This subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state.' Effectively meaning it WAS legal for a woman in Ireland to move to another state to procure an abortion.* But the case was never, EVER about making the Irish state legalize abortion. This is a farce, a straight up lie. It was about forcing Ireland to enforce the laws it already had in place not forcing it to radically altar its constitution to make further allowances for abortion. Also of note in the wake of the case there were several referendums attempting to remove the threat of suicide as justifying procurement of abortion. These failed. The logic was that there were women who feigned suicidal tendencies over pregnancy in order to get an abortion, they were defeated because removing this justification would, logically, would result in genuinely psychologically troubled women from procuring an abortion and result in higher suicide rates among women. Ireland often looks at the result of abortion laws effects in England when trying to get examples. Also technically abortion isn't exactly legal per se in England either as much as it is allowed. Its complicated but one scandal at a time since it will be relevant to a future abortion post regarding Northern Ireland.
*This is relevant to my final points so remember this.
3) Rape pregnancies happen. They are an extremely minor cause of pregnancy to the point where, in my own legal opinion, legalizing abortion on a wider scale because of it is ethically and legally unsound but at the end of the day they happen and the cause a great deal of trauma to the women involved. This is where Crisis pregnancy centers enter the scene. Legally speaking, yes, they are allowed to give women advice on where they can go to procure abortions safely, legally, and discreetly in foreign countries. In fact crisis pregnancy centers offer this advice to a wider array of pregnant women other then those who conceived through rape and/or incest, this is obvious and I won't be going into the ethics of the centers in general in this post. I will say, however, that the professional councilors, (or I hope they are professional councilors, in most cases at the very least), are not, ARE NOT, permitted to advise women to withhold important medical information to their GPs. I cannot stress this enough. Medical confidentiality is a serious thing in common law jurisdictions, Ireland is not an exception, while a doctor, as in the UK, may, in some circumstances, share your medical information with other trusted professional colleagues in his field for second opinions and discussion, they are not permitted to talk about your particular information to anyone else under penalty of prosecution and lawsuit against, potentially not only him or her but also the medical institutions they are affiliated with and could end up with their medical licence revoked even under the relatively light gavel the courts use regarding medical professionals, (remember that bit about doctors being revered in Ireland? yeah it makes the courts lenient with them, the same is done to fire fighters and police officers in order not to deter or dis-incentiveise 'rescuers'. The same is practiced in UK common Law. But in serious breaches of duty of care the law can come down like an meteor and leave just as large a blast radius). So, considering this, and indeed, considering that going abroad to procure a discreet abortion is legal, you informing your GP that you had an abortion is INCREDIBLY important information for a woman's future health. Without going into detail of the medical dangers or realities of abortion (otherwise this post's comments will get ideological REAL quick) at the end of the day, an abortion could at the very least, perforate a woman's womb, causing internal bleeding or perhaps difficulties in future pregnancies. (I have seen people by this point argue that if Abortion were legal in Ireland this wouldn't happen which is logically farcical since these abortions are usually procured legally in say, the UK, France, the Netherlands or Belgium where abortion is widespread, legal (sortof in the UK's case) and "professionally done". Lets leave it at that for now.) Now, the crisis pregnancy centers in question have advised these women, USING THE FEAR OF SOCIAL STIGMA OF HAVING AN ABORTION AS THEIR JUSTIFICATION, to not inform their GPs of the operation.
Ok, so see where I am going with this?
You really should by this point.
In truth, a woman who procures an abortion abroad should have maybe a close knit group of maybe 5-10 people at the most who knows she has procured it. It is impossible for me to presuppose on their situations, about who knows what about their circumstances and I am not going to address the existence of the abortion stigma in Ireland because it is the obvious result of living in a highly pro-life society (if nothing else). I could go to America, get a job and make many friends, admit I had testicular cancer and have become totally impotent as a result of the operation. I would then have a stigma attached to me. Stigmas. Happen. They are unfair and they may result in you not telling even your closest friends about your circumstances.
They are not an excuse not to tell your doctor about your previous medical operations, whose very existence could pose complications of future medical procedures. And do. Woman have died from not telling medical professionals handling their data that they had procured an abortion abroad.
Perhaps now you are beginning to see.
These councilors have broken their duty of care to these women. Some probably did it out of genuine concern for the woman's social status, even though they should have rightly known doctors cannot discuss their patient's circumstances. A darker side of me, the cynic of old, believes that at least some of these councilors may have had a malicious motive but I am tossing that to the ditch to maintain professionalism in this post. Their motive, unless it genuinely was malicious, matters not.
Their advice to the women to procure foreign abortions was legal, their advice to withold important medical information was not. Anyone who argues otherwise is wrong, they do not care for these womens' wellbeing. These women, under the law, should not have been advised to withhold such crucial medical information (keep in mind the women may not have entirely been aware of the particulars of the law when receiving this advice), these councilors where in the wrong and have endangered these women.
Whatever your stance on the issue, (and you do have one, so there is no point in me arguing my stance in attempts to convert you), you are wrong to think that a review and investigation into these centers was not warranted.
The Oireachtas is correct in calling for the review of these findings, but the HSE cannot be trusted to review these crisis pregnancy centers. You do not ask a banker to review his own corrupt holdings.
Thursday, 6 September 2012
That Insidious Apathy
I have remarked many a time on the apathy that defines the modern Irish polity. We can hardly get worked up about anything. We work hard, get taxed to death, but do not complain about it because we know our nation is in debt, not only national debt but debt irresponsible bankers burdened us with when our state bailed them out. National debt would have been worked off by now and the Internal Revenue service would have had no call to increase their vampiric stranglehold upon the common Irishman, hell not even them, it seems even our rich and successful aren't above it if the scandal of foreclosing on Target is anything to go buy. What's that? You have a company that can pay off its debts under a revised repayment scheme? Not anymore you don't!
The corruption of our officials and the almost supervillainous backroom scheming of the likes of our Health TD with regards to trying to revise a perfectly good constitution that not even subversive elements such as monarchists ever complain about, is enough to drive me back into one of my many introspective moments when I regard Ireland's history and place in the world.
And then I take a shot of Jamesons.
You know, when people refer to their 'Irishness' is what makes them depressed, they usually are referring to the strict social mores and religious conservatism that is depressing them and if we only removed that, our Irishness will be cured. I have a different Theory, the Irish are all natural poets. We see the truth of the situation as it is, but may have a skewed, idealistic or pessimistic view of how we got to where we are or where we are going. We see the world and we see Ireland for what it is right now, a third rate power that was lucky enough to be positioned in the first world. A nation with phenomenal potential for scientific, cultural, economic, religious and artistic expression and development. But it is a poisoned well, one where people see our potential but do not believe we are capable of it, worse, will never be capable of it. Its why we have so many West-Britons in the Irish Political and cultural establishment, its also why we have so many half hearted political support for, well, anything.
Take the gay marriage debate in Ireland for instance, you don't hear about it much. That's because either side, for one reason or another, can never seem to get worked up enough to actually fight for their own beliefs. Even so it is likely it may just be legalized by default. Its why the pro life movement in Ireland has to work extra hard, because even though the vast majority is actually warm to the idea of pro-life, almost no one is politically aware of attempts to legalize it and have Ireland fall into the dangerous social trap Britain fell into, and they didn't even fully legalize abortion!
We are a depressed nation, a dead thing floating down the river subject to its currents and motions and like a dead thing down the river, we will be washed ashore in the dark part of the forest like the rest of the detritus.
I really wish I did have something good to say or some insight in how to reverse this, into how to make people actually care about Ireland. or hell, about anything! I am a confessed cynic alot of the time but its a bad show if someone like me is actually more idealistic then the majority of my peers.
The corruption of our officials and the almost supervillainous backroom scheming of the likes of our Health TD with regards to trying to revise a perfectly good constitution that not even subversive elements such as monarchists ever complain about, is enough to drive me back into one of my many introspective moments when I regard Ireland's history and place in the world.
And then I take a shot of Jamesons.
You know, when people refer to their 'Irishness' is what makes them depressed, they usually are referring to the strict social mores and religious conservatism that is depressing them and if we only removed that, our Irishness will be cured. I have a different Theory, the Irish are all natural poets. We see the truth of the situation as it is, but may have a skewed, idealistic or pessimistic view of how we got to where we are or where we are going. We see the world and we see Ireland for what it is right now, a third rate power that was lucky enough to be positioned in the first world. A nation with phenomenal potential for scientific, cultural, economic, religious and artistic expression and development. But it is a poisoned well, one where people see our potential but do not believe we are capable of it, worse, will never be capable of it. Its why we have so many West-Britons in the Irish Political and cultural establishment, its also why we have so many half hearted political support for, well, anything.
Take the gay marriage debate in Ireland for instance, you don't hear about it much. That's because either side, for one reason or another, can never seem to get worked up enough to actually fight for their own beliefs. Even so it is likely it may just be legalized by default. Its why the pro life movement in Ireland has to work extra hard, because even though the vast majority is actually warm to the idea of pro-life, almost no one is politically aware of attempts to legalize it and have Ireland fall into the dangerous social trap Britain fell into, and they didn't even fully legalize abortion!
We are a depressed nation, a dead thing floating down the river subject to its currents and motions and like a dead thing down the river, we will be washed ashore in the dark part of the forest like the rest of the detritus.
I really wish I did have something good to say or some insight in how to reverse this, into how to make people actually care about Ireland. or hell, about anything! I am a confessed cynic alot of the time but its a bad show if someone like me is actually more idealistic then the majority of my peers.
Wednesday, 27 June 2012
The Queen's visit
I'll admit I have been sleeping on the job here because this crept up on me while I was dealing with unemployment woes, (yes that means I am out of university and not a law job in sight, ah well, maybe the meat packing plant needs another worker?), but the Queen's visit to Northern Ireland, in short, has been positively received. Mc Guinness being the Sinn Fein representitive that shakes Her Majesty's hands shouldn't surprise anyone, we all know what Gerry is like. However I am going to have to draw a different bead on the situation then the good fellow on MadMonarchist who is interpreting this as a 'victory' for United Kingdom Royalism. I normally don't disagree with the man but I honestly think he is horribly mistaken in his exuberence.
On the parts he is correct about is that yes this does represent that the anger and hatred of years passed has simmered down to the point where this is possible, but his appraisal of why even Roman Catholic Nationalists in the North are accepting the status quo is woefully misaimed.
In truth, it is no secret Dublin wants nothing to do with the North, everybody knows that, in fact that's one of the primary reasons I direct alot of bile towards the southern government, (oh yeah, and the confessional seal law, looking up to Uncle Mao are you an Tainiste?), but the reason northern nationalists arent keen on dissolving partition nowadays is because they do not want to be taxed into the ground like our southern Brothers and sisters are. My own mother, who's about as republican as you can get said she would vote against reintegration precisely along those economic lines. So in reference to the mad one's post, it is not so much that the Crown 'won' as much as Leinster House 'lost' because of economic realities, (well that and the NHS, mother is surprisingly keen on the institution despite its horrendous flaws). Its a sad state of affairs when economics override principles, but hey, that is literally the story of the 21st century so far, so we aren't too out of place.
Why I am so calm and couldn't give two rats behinds about the furore Anglophilic Royalists and Irish Republicans alike are throwing up over this whole ordeal is because I acknowledge the inevitable reality of Northern Ireland: Whether anyone likes it or not the North will be integrated into a United Ireland sooner or later. Its a demographic inevitability, as well as that, when it comes down to it, London wants the North even less then Dublin does and I don't believe for a moment, except for a few Imperial holdouts in the rest of the UK, that Britain wont have a referendum held for reintegration of Northern Ireland into the south as soon as it is demographically feasible, I dare you to look at the constitutional set up of Northern Ireland and tell me this is not the case. This is why in all my other posts dealing with speculation for a Irish High Kingdom pre-supposes unification and I allude to the 'unionist problem' which is something a future United Ireland will be left with in the wake of this, (Because the Unionists won't be going anywhere after all, their roots are already planted in the North).
Anyway, sorry for the lack of updates, now its back to figuring out how to be of use to society I go.
Slan go Phoile
On the parts he is correct about is that yes this does represent that the anger and hatred of years passed has simmered down to the point where this is possible, but his appraisal of why even Roman Catholic Nationalists in the North are accepting the status quo is woefully misaimed.
In truth, it is no secret Dublin wants nothing to do with the North, everybody knows that, in fact that's one of the primary reasons I direct alot of bile towards the southern government, (oh yeah, and the confessional seal law, looking up to Uncle Mao are you an Tainiste?), but the reason northern nationalists arent keen on dissolving partition nowadays is because they do not want to be taxed into the ground like our southern Brothers and sisters are. My own mother, who's about as republican as you can get said she would vote against reintegration precisely along those economic lines. So in reference to the mad one's post, it is not so much that the Crown 'won' as much as Leinster House 'lost' because of economic realities, (well that and the NHS, mother is surprisingly keen on the institution despite its horrendous flaws). Its a sad state of affairs when economics override principles, but hey, that is literally the story of the 21st century so far, so we aren't too out of place.
Why I am so calm and couldn't give two rats behinds about the furore Anglophilic Royalists and Irish Republicans alike are throwing up over this whole ordeal is because I acknowledge the inevitable reality of Northern Ireland: Whether anyone likes it or not the North will be integrated into a United Ireland sooner or later. Its a demographic inevitability, as well as that, when it comes down to it, London wants the North even less then Dublin does and I don't believe for a moment, except for a few Imperial holdouts in the rest of the UK, that Britain wont have a referendum held for reintegration of Northern Ireland into the south as soon as it is demographically feasible, I dare you to look at the constitutional set up of Northern Ireland and tell me this is not the case. This is why in all my other posts dealing with speculation for a Irish High Kingdom pre-supposes unification and I allude to the 'unionist problem' which is something a future United Ireland will be left with in the wake of this, (Because the Unionists won't be going anywhere after all, their roots are already planted in the North).
Anyway, sorry for the lack of updates, now its back to figuring out how to be of use to society I go.
Slan go Phoile
Tuesday, 5 June 2012
Dear American Observers
(Image taken from the Telegraph)
It has been some time since I last posted, I have been busy studying for my final exams of University and other assorted worries so my posting has been severely limited. That said I have been keeping up with blogs that I follow as well as looking further afield in the political and Catholic blogosphere and I have noticed something.
American bloggers are not only fascinated about the crisis in Europe, but are worried about it, and about how it will affect them, and even persons such as Bill Whittle from Pyjamas Media, (a New Media right wing news outlet), have been using the crisis in Europe as an allegory for how not to run a Union. Needless to say my reactions to these concerns from American observers have varied from incredulous to symnpathetic, so I felt the need to devote a post addressing some of the concerns Americans have with the crisis in Europe.
1, You cannot help us
While ordinary Americans are not guilty of it, they are unaware of the LUDICROUS political influence their government has had in Europe for most of the last century, the current political landscape in Europe is as much the result of American meddling as it is a reaction to it, (as well as giving account for European stupidity of course), we do not need American help. You wouldn't know how to help us anyway, we are not American, and cannot exist on an American mindset, however it is defined.
2, If the Euro is going down the drain, the Dollar is on fire
This is addressing primarily economic concerns of American observers. Yes, if the European markets crash it will be a disaster for the whole world, you are right to be concerned about that. Yes, Europe's fiscal irresponsibility is ultimately the cause of our economic downfall, the same as everywhere else. Yes the monetary Union and perhaps the entire European political experiment will fail before Christmas, and yes you can learn from Europe how NOT to run a multi-national Union. This is of no use because however boned the Euro is, the Dollar is worse off. The euro may die and the dollar may live for another few decades but it will never be worth what it once was and it will only continue to decrease in value, I draw my American readers' attention to their own deficit which has literally reached astronomical proportions. It will never get better, never. To believe it will get better is going beyond optimism or religious belief and straight into white knuckled, despair-fuelled denial.
3, If there is another continental war in Europe, American wont be able to intervene
Now we get into the meat of the worry for Americans. Many of whom are worried that if there is another conflagration in Europe in the wake of this crisis, and that is not an unlikely occurance when all is taken into account, Americans may once again be forced to intervene. This is an understandable and human worry but I am going to have to tell my American readers why they wont be able to intervene, the reasons are several-fold
- You won't know who to fight. If another war occurs it will definitely not be like WWI or WWII, it will not be a fluid battle between nations who are easily divided into two alliance blocs. A continental war in Europe at this stage will likely be a furious confusion of border skirmishes, civil unrest and various civil wars in places with no clear clue of who started what fight or which side being victorious would be in America's interests.
- You won't be able to fight a whole continent. With all due respect to America's phenomenal military might and force projection, you simply would not be able to go for broke and simply pacify the entire continent. Oh sure, you most definitely could do this if you were fighting the European Union as a unified entity, but that wouldn't be the case, you wouldn't be fighting the European Union, you'd be fighting Europe which is a different beast, in such a scenario as this, it would be as simple as driving a M1 Abrams tank through a thick, Jungle under-bush. It would be impractical in the extreme, not only would conquered territories not be willing to co-operate with you troops, but as soon as you find out intelligence about say, a French fortified position, it would not count for the sudden German incursion force which would totally blind-side your forces.
- You'll have your own problems to worry about. Putting Europe aside, America wouldn't intervene because in the wake of a European collapse would likely be an entire worldwide collapse. I would be very surprised in such a scenario that America would still be able to field and fortify its military positions all over the world. Indeed, it'd probably be forced to withdraw its worldwide forces not only because it would be nigh impossible to hold them where they are stationed, but because the disaster will likely result in civil unrest if not outright civil war in America itself.
All things considered, while the concern of our American friends is heartening, it is impractical and probably not in their best interests to be concerned. Europe's socio-political experiment will fail, and probably fail spectacularly, but America and Americans cannot do anything to help the situation.
Sunday, 8 April 2012
Happy Easter Sunday
I hope everyone is having a happy and Holy Easter, and sorry about the derth of blog posts recently.
Wednesday, 14 March 2012
Monarchism, the Nationalist's Guide part 2
((Before I start I must apologise for a contrivance in my previous Nationalist's guide post pointed out by Shane, regular commenter on my blog and a decent devil's advocate for my arguments. I had purposefully conflated two periods in Early Modern Irish history, that of the Repeal movement and the Home Rule movement, as one period for the sake of time and space. I shall now correct myself for the sake of clarity, especially with foreigners reading this article who may not be familiar with Irish History, the Repeal movement began as a response to the Act of Union in 1800 which united Ireland and Britain under one Parliament, whereas previously Ireland had a separate parliament, you can check the basic facts of this history with this article. The Repeal movement failed and later the Home Rule movement and the proper intellectual formations of Irish Nationalism occurred later that same century. My apologies for any misconceptions.))
What is Nationalism today?
Ever since the Easter Rising, the resulting war for Independence, the institution of the Irish Free State as a Dominion of the Empire, Partition and the declaration of the Republic of Ireland, Irish Republicanism slowly but surely, became the dominant mindset of the entirety of the Nationalist south. This really is due, in large part, to the natural inclination of the Irish people to Authority. Let us be honest, the Irish, while certainly with evidence throughout history, are possessed with an innate fighting spirit and sense of justice, are not, nor ever have been anti-authoritian. This is one of the reasons we made such fine peasantry other then our fine stock and dutiful work ethic of centuries past.
So it only makes sense that, the monarchist contingent of Irishmen, convinced of living under an 'Irish' Government, were satisfied and content and prepared to simply accept that their nation was a Republican nation and that was all there was to it. Afterall that had certainly been a mentality the leadership of Ireland had encouraged, intentionally or unintentionally with a passive aggressive relationship with Britain, the 'Old Enemy', especially with De Velera's 'economic war', if it could even be called such. Which just reaffirmed a growing association with monarchism with Britishness and British servitude imposed on Ireland. Is it any wonder why Irish Monarchism died a quiet death?
Afterall, while it certainly doesnt exist as such now, the political institution of Ireland in its inception had been virulently traditionalist, even if not monarchist, to the point where both parties, Fine Gael and Fine Fail at the time were technically 'conservatives' who just found themselves on opposing sides of the civil war (there really is no more vicious a conflict then between brothers). What had the conservative souls of Ireland to fear? As far as the conservatives, traditionalists and cultural revivalists were concerned they had effectively 'won', and the ressurrection of Gaelic Civilization was just on the horizon. Certainly the Catholic Church felt no need to meddle in affairs at the time. Why would it have need to? Ireland was THE quintessential Catholic nation with an effectively Catholic state and Constitution that was seen as a mighty fortress for the Church that it could feel it'll always rely on. A mistake all of them had made. If ever there was a case example of democratic republicanism instilling apathy in a nation, Ireland is that case example. The innate traditionalist nature of the people and organizations of Ireland should have guaranteed to coalesce and transform the Irish Nation into, if nothing else, a socio-political force to be reckoned with and a bastion of traditional thought, theory and practice which conservatives and traditionalists of Europe could seek to mimic proudly. It didnt. It all died. And the defining characteristic of Irish politics is apathy, not passion. And what's left in evidence of the passionate flame for Irish Identity is little more then youths 'wearing' the Irish flag at football games and seeing nothing symbolically wrong with effectively 'sitting' on theirs nation's flag on a dirty stadium chair. They dont do it maliciously, they do it ignorantly.
And in the North, we all know too well the story of the Troubles, Sinn Fein's rise in popularity. Ever since the end of the civil war, Sinn Fein and the IRA had been flirting with socialism and had been breaking apart as a result whenever situations called for distinction between social democratic politics and traditional nationalism. As was the cas eint he troubles where Loyalist paramilitary agitation in the North effectively caused a coup in the IRA's leadership with traditionalist splitting off and taking the bulk of the IRA to form the provisional IRA and, well, the rest is history and so forth. Northern Nationalism still exist, but its more of a cultural identity. One is a Nationalist if one views the Irish republic generally favourably, hates the British State, is catholic or from a catholic family or community etc etc etc. Southern Nationalism is a dormant thing that needs to be poked with a stick to see any activity as is the case with the Love Ulster parades, see my previous blog post for that.
In a word, modern Nationalism is 'nothing'. The Modern Irishman is defined by apathy and inactivity. The government in the south piles on another tax? Grumble over your pint then continue with your work day, what else is new? And to think, we are one of the 'better off' of the so called Pig nations of the EU, (Thanks for that moniker by the by, really endears us to you continentals in Brussels. Really.)
As bleak as this is, it actually presents an opportunity for Nationalist Monarchism. Asides from the obvious association with Britain, what can people fault Monarchist Nationalism on in Ireland? Is it a violent ideology that advocates agitation and revolution? No, quite the opposite really. Its obviously a tyrannical system that will make us all indentured servitudes to faraway masters right? You're already living in that kind of system, son. Clearly we will de-construct the dail Eireann and the people will have no representation at all, right? As repugnant as parliaments are, a Monarchy will hardly destroy the Parliament. Really the only roadblock Irish Monarchists have that is preventing them from establishing monarchy as an independent idea in the Irish Marketplace is the association with Britain, which we already have ample ammunition to de-construct. Th opportunity being a propagandic one, that a population who does not hold anything in great strength is unlikely to hold monarchism's ideological opponents in great strength and to whom monarchism will seem like a new idea.
How can we appeal to Nationalists to adopt Monarchism?
Speaking for myself, my interest in Monarchy came about as a result of my interest in history, which came about as a result of my interest in my Nationalism. Therefore the true disassociation of Nationalism from republicanism and Socialism is the study of History. As the old saw goes, 'The Study of History is the beginning of political wisdom', while obviously said for different reasons and for adifferent context, applies here as well. Considering everything in my Guide so far, a nationalist who studies not the beginning of Irish republicanism but the beginning of Irish Nationalism, is introduced to a variance of ideological thought at the birth of the modern Irish concept of 'Nationhood'. This variance will not in itself destroy a Nationalist's inherent republicanism that he has been thought to believe in since birth, but it will cause him to question the bias in the Republican narrative. The prevalence of monarchism in Ireland at the birth of the Republic will give some food for thought, the existence of the Irish Chiefs of the name will cause curiosity, the fact that every Irishman alive today is descended from old Irish kings will cause him to stall any bloodlust for blueblood he may possess..
The study of socialism in a wider context (all socialism, not just outdated Marxism) throughout history and in comparison to Irish Nationalism, will reveal quite alot of dissonance in values between the ideologies, and specifically the anti-nationalism inherent in socialism. The Study of History is the death of socialism and all other 'The End of History' ideologies such as modernism, post-modernism, social democracy and liberal democracy, to quote Fukuyama. The study of history reveals that there is no such thing as an end of history that does not include the end of civilization and even then, time marches on. There may be eras, epochs, but there really is no such thing as 'stages' of history, that could only be defined if we had something to compare history in its totality to, which we do not.
The real key of course, is appealing to the heart of the Irishman and the innate Monarchism in Irishness. The desire for community, family, the love of traditions however silly, all of which requires a sense of tradition basic politicking by blogs such as my own cannot foster, I can only work so much by appealing intellectually. A man, even if he intellectually acknowledges any value of Monarchism, will be unlikely to convert to monarchism, even monarchism infused with nationalism, if his heart is not in it: "Wow, Monarchism actually sounds sorta okay and I may like to live in one, but it is so unlikely to happen, we're all republics, I don't really see the point in advocating monarchy." Russians reading this blog in particular will be familiar with this line of reasoning. Polls done in Russia reveal a startlingly high percentage of Russians are in favour of a return to monarchy but simply do not see it as remotely possible. This is confirmed in my secret monarchist post where a shot in the dark question asking whether fellow monarchists existed on a internet game revealed a variety of responses to potential real life monarchism (with obvious virulence from socialist quarters)
If you wondered before this is why I promote the Catholic Church in Ireland so much and particularly Catholic traditionalism, apart from my own obvious Religious bias, being a Catholic myself, but because religion in general and Catholicism in particular are PHENOMENAL engines of traditionalism. In order to appeal to a man with traditionalism and traditionalist things, he must have a sense of tradition. The modern apathetic Irishman has little to no sense of traditionalism and that which he does possess is atrophying rapidly. In the wake of the celtic tiger collapse, social analysts determined that in the boom years of the Irish economy the average Irishman did not give one wit about culture and cared more about Housing prices, the Americanisation of our culture (after previous Anglicization) has proved disastrous and now our culture, while not happy, WILL comply to European pressures of integration. You know the possibility of an Irish referendum on the financial agreement people are talking about now? Even if it does come to pass, don't expect Irishmen to vote against it and even if they do, don't expect them to vote no twice. There is little spirit to work with in Ireland and we really DO need the Church to revitalize it. And, well, furthermore, the Bishops Ireland has right now are decidedly much more liberal, (or more accurately, they are desirous of autonomy from Rome) then Conservative Rome would like, and even if all other things being equal and a Monarchist movement does come into force, one can expect the current Bishops at best murmur and groan against us, sadly, or worse, vote from the pulpit against monarchism, which would sadden me as a Catholic and a Monarchist that of all things in Irish politics, the Bishops would oppose us actively. It is this outcome I dread and it is why I hope His Holiness Pope Benedict and the Magisterium installs more traditionalist or traditional friendly Bishops in the future, this is the great gamble of Irish Monarchism because it is something we have no control over.
In practical terms, Irish Monarchists can at the moment only work at creating a safe area in the intellectual marketplace in Ireland for Monarchist thoughts. Blogs, including this blog are a start, Scotic Monarchy is another, and the admittance or discussion of monarchism on other Irish blogs can only help bringing monarchism into the national conversation, discussion, debate, arguments, anything short of outright fighting aids the monarchist cause and awareness of monarchist ideas. Monarchism is only irrelevant as long as its not being discussed, hence why it is shunned actively by revolutionaries. Eventually this will require books, dissertations, sociological studies and other things to seriously discuss monarchism. Only then will its enemies either seriously respond to it as an idea or reveal themselves by continuing to fling defecation at the very notion. For my part, my blog occassionally gets mentioned on forums and other places and, most of the time, I am held for ridicule. Places such as Politics.ie and a large Irish Republican forum have created a thread or two about this blog, and it went about as well as you'd think. Ironically enough, the patrons of politics.ie acted more like monkies in a zoo and I no longer take that site seriously, whereas the Republican site, while not taking me seriously either, at least responded largely rationally, give or take an anarchist denouncing me for advocating a monopoly of violence in my monarchism and some fellow calling me a 'Basement dwelling, Anorak wearing Virgin'. But then again if advocating Monarchy was easy I wouldn't need this blog as much.
What is Nationalism today?
Ever since the Easter Rising, the resulting war for Independence, the institution of the Irish Free State as a Dominion of the Empire, Partition and the declaration of the Republic of Ireland, Irish Republicanism slowly but surely, became the dominant mindset of the entirety of the Nationalist south. This really is due, in large part, to the natural inclination of the Irish people to Authority. Let us be honest, the Irish, while certainly with evidence throughout history, are possessed with an innate fighting spirit and sense of justice, are not, nor ever have been anti-authoritian. This is one of the reasons we made such fine peasantry other then our fine stock and dutiful work ethic of centuries past.
So it only makes sense that, the monarchist contingent of Irishmen, convinced of living under an 'Irish' Government, were satisfied and content and prepared to simply accept that their nation was a Republican nation and that was all there was to it. Afterall that had certainly been a mentality the leadership of Ireland had encouraged, intentionally or unintentionally with a passive aggressive relationship with Britain, the 'Old Enemy', especially with De Velera's 'economic war', if it could even be called such. Which just reaffirmed a growing association with monarchism with Britishness and British servitude imposed on Ireland. Is it any wonder why Irish Monarchism died a quiet death?
Afterall, while it certainly doesnt exist as such now, the political institution of Ireland in its inception had been virulently traditionalist, even if not monarchist, to the point where both parties, Fine Gael and Fine Fail at the time were technically 'conservatives' who just found themselves on opposing sides of the civil war (there really is no more vicious a conflict then between brothers). What had the conservative souls of Ireland to fear? As far as the conservatives, traditionalists and cultural revivalists were concerned they had effectively 'won', and the ressurrection of Gaelic Civilization was just on the horizon. Certainly the Catholic Church felt no need to meddle in affairs at the time. Why would it have need to? Ireland was THE quintessential Catholic nation with an effectively Catholic state and Constitution that was seen as a mighty fortress for the Church that it could feel it'll always rely on. A mistake all of them had made. If ever there was a case example of democratic republicanism instilling apathy in a nation, Ireland is that case example. The innate traditionalist nature of the people and organizations of Ireland should have guaranteed to coalesce and transform the Irish Nation into, if nothing else, a socio-political force to be reckoned with and a bastion of traditional thought, theory and practice which conservatives and traditionalists of Europe could seek to mimic proudly. It didnt. It all died. And the defining characteristic of Irish politics is apathy, not passion. And what's left in evidence of the passionate flame for Irish Identity is little more then youths 'wearing' the Irish flag at football games and seeing nothing symbolically wrong with effectively 'sitting' on theirs nation's flag on a dirty stadium chair. They dont do it maliciously, they do it ignorantly.
And in the North, we all know too well the story of the Troubles, Sinn Fein's rise in popularity. Ever since the end of the civil war, Sinn Fein and the IRA had been flirting with socialism and had been breaking apart as a result whenever situations called for distinction between social democratic politics and traditional nationalism. As was the cas eint he troubles where Loyalist paramilitary agitation in the North effectively caused a coup in the IRA's leadership with traditionalist splitting off and taking the bulk of the IRA to form the provisional IRA and, well, the rest is history and so forth. Northern Nationalism still exist, but its more of a cultural identity. One is a Nationalist if one views the Irish republic generally favourably, hates the British State, is catholic or from a catholic family or community etc etc etc. Southern Nationalism is a dormant thing that needs to be poked with a stick to see any activity as is the case with the Love Ulster parades, see my previous blog post for that.
In a word, modern Nationalism is 'nothing'. The Modern Irishman is defined by apathy and inactivity. The government in the south piles on another tax? Grumble over your pint then continue with your work day, what else is new? And to think, we are one of the 'better off' of the so called Pig nations of the EU, (Thanks for that moniker by the by, really endears us to you continentals in Brussels. Really.)
As bleak as this is, it actually presents an opportunity for Nationalist Monarchism. Asides from the obvious association with Britain, what can people fault Monarchist Nationalism on in Ireland? Is it a violent ideology that advocates agitation and revolution? No, quite the opposite really. Its obviously a tyrannical system that will make us all indentured servitudes to faraway masters right? You're already living in that kind of system, son. Clearly we will de-construct the dail Eireann and the people will have no representation at all, right? As repugnant as parliaments are, a Monarchy will hardly destroy the Parliament. Really the only roadblock Irish Monarchists have that is preventing them from establishing monarchy as an independent idea in the Irish Marketplace is the association with Britain, which we already have ample ammunition to de-construct. Th opportunity being a propagandic one, that a population who does not hold anything in great strength is unlikely to hold monarchism's ideological opponents in great strength and to whom monarchism will seem like a new idea.
How can we appeal to Nationalists to adopt Monarchism?
Speaking for myself, my interest in Monarchy came about as a result of my interest in history, which came about as a result of my interest in my Nationalism. Therefore the true disassociation of Nationalism from republicanism and Socialism is the study of History. As the old saw goes, 'The Study of History is the beginning of political wisdom', while obviously said for different reasons and for adifferent context, applies here as well. Considering everything in my Guide so far, a nationalist who studies not the beginning of Irish republicanism but the beginning of Irish Nationalism, is introduced to a variance of ideological thought at the birth of the modern Irish concept of 'Nationhood'. This variance will not in itself destroy a Nationalist's inherent republicanism that he has been thought to believe in since birth, but it will cause him to question the bias in the Republican narrative. The prevalence of monarchism in Ireland at the birth of the Republic will give some food for thought, the existence of the Irish Chiefs of the name will cause curiosity, the fact that every Irishman alive today is descended from old Irish kings will cause him to stall any bloodlust for blueblood he may possess..
The study of socialism in a wider context (all socialism, not just outdated Marxism) throughout history and in comparison to Irish Nationalism, will reveal quite alot of dissonance in values between the ideologies, and specifically the anti-nationalism inherent in socialism. The Study of History is the death of socialism and all other 'The End of History' ideologies such as modernism, post-modernism, social democracy and liberal democracy, to quote Fukuyama. The study of history reveals that there is no such thing as an end of history that does not include the end of civilization and even then, time marches on. There may be eras, epochs, but there really is no such thing as 'stages' of history, that could only be defined if we had something to compare history in its totality to, which we do not.
The real key of course, is appealing to the heart of the Irishman and the innate Monarchism in Irishness. The desire for community, family, the love of traditions however silly, all of which requires a sense of tradition basic politicking by blogs such as my own cannot foster, I can only work so much by appealing intellectually. A man, even if he intellectually acknowledges any value of Monarchism, will be unlikely to convert to monarchism, even monarchism infused with nationalism, if his heart is not in it: "Wow, Monarchism actually sounds sorta okay and I may like to live in one, but it is so unlikely to happen, we're all republics, I don't really see the point in advocating monarchy." Russians reading this blog in particular will be familiar with this line of reasoning. Polls done in Russia reveal a startlingly high percentage of Russians are in favour of a return to monarchy but simply do not see it as remotely possible. This is confirmed in my secret monarchist post where a shot in the dark question asking whether fellow monarchists existed on a internet game revealed a variety of responses to potential real life monarchism (with obvious virulence from socialist quarters)
If you wondered before this is why I promote the Catholic Church in Ireland so much and particularly Catholic traditionalism, apart from my own obvious Religious bias, being a Catholic myself, but because religion in general and Catholicism in particular are PHENOMENAL engines of traditionalism. In order to appeal to a man with traditionalism and traditionalist things, he must have a sense of tradition. The modern apathetic Irishman has little to no sense of traditionalism and that which he does possess is atrophying rapidly. In the wake of the celtic tiger collapse, social analysts determined that in the boom years of the Irish economy the average Irishman did not give one wit about culture and cared more about Housing prices, the Americanisation of our culture (after previous Anglicization) has proved disastrous and now our culture, while not happy, WILL comply to European pressures of integration. You know the possibility of an Irish referendum on the financial agreement people are talking about now? Even if it does come to pass, don't expect Irishmen to vote against it and even if they do, don't expect them to vote no twice. There is little spirit to work with in Ireland and we really DO need the Church to revitalize it. And, well, furthermore, the Bishops Ireland has right now are decidedly much more liberal, (or more accurately, they are desirous of autonomy from Rome) then Conservative Rome would like, and even if all other things being equal and a Monarchist movement does come into force, one can expect the current Bishops at best murmur and groan against us, sadly, or worse, vote from the pulpit against monarchism, which would sadden me as a Catholic and a Monarchist that of all things in Irish politics, the Bishops would oppose us actively. It is this outcome I dread and it is why I hope His Holiness Pope Benedict and the Magisterium installs more traditionalist or traditional friendly Bishops in the future, this is the great gamble of Irish Monarchism because it is something we have no control over.
In practical terms, Irish Monarchists can at the moment only work at creating a safe area in the intellectual marketplace in Ireland for Monarchist thoughts. Blogs, including this blog are a start, Scotic Monarchy is another, and the admittance or discussion of monarchism on other Irish blogs can only help bringing monarchism into the national conversation, discussion, debate, arguments, anything short of outright fighting aids the monarchist cause and awareness of monarchist ideas. Monarchism is only irrelevant as long as its not being discussed, hence why it is shunned actively by revolutionaries. Eventually this will require books, dissertations, sociological studies and other things to seriously discuss monarchism. Only then will its enemies either seriously respond to it as an idea or reveal themselves by continuing to fling defecation at the very notion. For my part, my blog occassionally gets mentioned on forums and other places and, most of the time, I am held for ridicule. Places such as Politics.ie and a large Irish Republican forum have created a thread or two about this blog, and it went about as well as you'd think. Ironically enough, the patrons of politics.ie acted more like monkies in a zoo and I no longer take that site seriously, whereas the Republican site, while not taking me seriously either, at least responded largely rationally, give or take an anarchist denouncing me for advocating a monopoly of violence in my monarchism and some fellow calling me a 'Basement dwelling, Anorak wearing Virgin'. But then again if advocating Monarchy was easy I wouldn't need this blog as much.
Sunday, 5 February 2012
Love Ulster day to return to Dublin
Oh hey, what a great idea, this worked so well last time, right lads?
Forgive me for the brief post, but I cannot express my pre-emptive rage at what is going to happen once the 'Love Ulster' Parade goes through Dublin again.
Do not get me wrong, I want to build bridges with the Protestant and Unionist community in the North as well, hopefully in a way that does not insult or demean either their traditions or our own, (which really can only be achieved under loyalty to a Monarch but thats for a longer, better post), but this enrages me first of all because last time it was endorsed by the Unionist parties up here precisely because they knew what it would result in, anger and indignation.
And that was not the worst of it, when the inevitable riot broke out (which everyone in the North had expected to occur on either side of the divide), the media down south scrambled to explain it away, even going so far as to insist it was a conspiracy by Northern Republicans who shipped hundreds of nationalists down from the North and organised the Riot in an astroturf incident to show that objection to a Unionist March through Dublin was stronger then it really was.
Oh you think I am exaggerating? That has literally been the establishment story for the past 5 years for those riots. And it will be again.
In a sense, I suppose I should be grateful for the Unionists for provoking the riots, it did give me some faith in latent patriotism of my southern Brothers and Sisters, and further ingrained my indignation against the 'west briton' media, because no man of reason nor faith will accept the given story of a republican conspiracy to explain the riots at face value.
Sadly the establishment will know what the next parade will provoke in the Average Irishman of Dublin City, and will take steps to quarantine it. A prediction: The parade will go off roughly without a hitch and the media will report something not unlike these words; "Wow, look how accepting us southerners are of the Unionists, unlike those rotten northerners who infiltrated the city in 2006 to start those awful riots" while conveniently panning the camera over conspicuously empty city plazas as the Police holds back anyone coming near the parade.
Unless they are stupid in which case they wont take the propaganda oppurtunity and allow the people to view the parade unrestricted, in which case a riot will break out. Especially since the parade will be passing in front of the General Post Office, you know, that symbol of the Irish Republic, the site of the Easter Rising, that little old thing? You don't think southern Nationalists will take objection to it? No? Oh ok then, go ahead. Let's see how that works out for you.
Forgive me for the brief post, but I cannot express my pre-emptive rage at what is going to happen once the 'Love Ulster' Parade goes through Dublin again.
Do not get me wrong, I want to build bridges with the Protestant and Unionist community in the North as well, hopefully in a way that does not insult or demean either their traditions or our own, (which really can only be achieved under loyalty to a Monarch but thats for a longer, better post), but this enrages me first of all because last time it was endorsed by the Unionist parties up here precisely because they knew what it would result in, anger and indignation.
And that was not the worst of it, when the inevitable riot broke out (which everyone in the North had expected to occur on either side of the divide), the media down south scrambled to explain it away, even going so far as to insist it was a conspiracy by Northern Republicans who shipped hundreds of nationalists down from the North and organised the Riot in an astroturf incident to show that objection to a Unionist March through Dublin was stronger then it really was.
Oh you think I am exaggerating? That has literally been the establishment story for the past 5 years for those riots. And it will be again.
In a sense, I suppose I should be grateful for the Unionists for provoking the riots, it did give me some faith in latent patriotism of my southern Brothers and Sisters, and further ingrained my indignation against the 'west briton' media, because no man of reason nor faith will accept the given story of a republican conspiracy to explain the riots at face value.
Sadly the establishment will know what the next parade will provoke in the Average Irishman of Dublin City, and will take steps to quarantine it. A prediction: The parade will go off roughly without a hitch and the media will report something not unlike these words; "Wow, look how accepting us southerners are of the Unionists, unlike those rotten northerners who infiltrated the city in 2006 to start those awful riots" while conveniently panning the camera over conspicuously empty city plazas as the Police holds back anyone coming near the parade.
Unless they are stupid in which case they wont take the propaganda oppurtunity and allow the people to view the parade unrestricted, in which case a riot will break out. Especially since the parade will be passing in front of the General Post Office, you know, that symbol of the Irish Republic, the site of the Easter Rising, that little old thing? You don't think southern Nationalists will take objection to it? No? Oh ok then, go ahead. Let's see how that works out for you.
Saturday, 21 January 2012
Monarchism, the Nationalist's Guide part 1
It has already been put forward on this blog many times that in order to successfully propagate monarchism as an ideology to my fellow Irishmen several things need to made clear. (This is only terms of propagation of Monarchy as an idea, not touching upon the other myriad cultural factors that need to change in order for a successful restoration)
1) The distinction between Irish Nationalism as a sociopolitical force and the Republican Ideology. Defining what Irish Nationalism actually pertains to since its inception, its modern permutations and driving a wedge between this understanding and the Republican ideology.
And
2) The disassociation of the idea of Monarchy and Monarchism from Britain. This will be done by emphasising the long tradition of Irish Kingsmen both at home and abroad and Ireland's relations with other monarchies, particularly those of France and Spain, throughout the centuries.
We shall deal with the first factor for now.
What was Irish Nationalism and what is it now?:
Nationalism in Ireland did not actually exist until the late 19th century. Prior to this, the Irish people had always possessed a fierce sense of identity, culture and a sort of National pride. However the War of the three kingdoms, Cromwell's effective destruction of Gaelic Civilization, the flight of the earls and the penal laws had essentially dismantled Irish culture to the point almost nothing remained and the Irish themselves, almost wholly, existed as a race made up entirely of peasants, prisoners in their own land. Oh surely we Irish made fine peasantry, in fact we were once described as the finest peasantry in the world for a time. But for too long that had defined the Irish character, and the English notion that the Irish were 'unfit' to govern ourselves.
However stirrings began in the 19th century when largely protestant intellectuals began flirting with the ideas of 'Irishness' and appeals for greater legislative autonomy for Ireland in the form of a parliament in Dublin. During this period three forms of Irish 'Nationalism' emerged which were distinct both from eachother and, on a whole, largely distinct from other forms of nationalism found in Europe. These three strands of Nationalism were Cultural, Political and Intellectual. The movement grew to become something of a force in Imperial politics when the Home Rule question and the growing Catholic Middle class in Ireland putting their own weight behind the push for legislative independence (as well as further associating Nationalism with Catholicism which alienated many protestants) led to increasingly strengthened Home Rule bills which had almost resulted in a separate Parliament for Dublin had it not been for the outbreak of World War One.
What is casually looked over quite often when studying this period of History, (late 19th-early 20th century Ireland), is the lack of violent revolution in Ireland despite the tremendous popular support the home rule movement enjoyed. More specifically why there was a lack of violent Revolution. This is because Irish Nationalism, from its inception right up to the Easter Rising, had been a prominently monarchist affair, and the vast majority of Irish 'Nationalists' were in fact Irish 'Monarchists'.
This is particularly evident when looking both at the nature of the Home Rule bills themselves, what they sough to achieve and looking at the revolutionary elements of Irish Nationalism that did exist and why they failed to achieve dominance in the Nationalist movement.
The Home Rules bills were and always have been, about the formation of a Parliament in Dublin to deal with Irish Affairs separately from Imperial affairs. Nowhere in these bills did the Irish Nationalists seek outright independence from the Empire in fact, despite the horrible treatment and misgoverning of Ireland by England, the vast majority of Irish where loyalists to the King and the Empire. The Home Rule bills at most sought an effective end to the lie of the United Kingdom. That being, it cannot be the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland when the territories are only treated as one kingdom with one parliament when there is obvious difference in culture, identity and needs between the two kingdoms. Home Rulers sought, at times, the creation of a Personal Union, a Parliament in Dublin and London with the King being the Head of state for both, the sovereign being the 'King of Ireland' in an official context. In fact even one of the leaders of Sinn Fein, the then 'dual-monarchist' party, envisioned a union along Austro-Hungarian lines.
The British of course, would never have it, and it was more blind pride and prejudice then practicality that fueled Tory resistance to the Home Rule movement. That a nation of 'peasents', Catholic ones at that, being the equal to the English was unthinkable for many in britain. In fact, the prejudice was so strong that a comment by an Irish priest stating that, truthfully, the incompetence and cruelty of English governance was such that the English were unfit to rule Ireland, had caused a furious uproar and shock amongst the upper classes there.
Furthermore, under the New Departure initiatives, the attempts to find common ground between Irish Nationalists and Irish Republicans is proof that in the beginnings, there really was little common ground between Nationalists and Republicans in Ireland.
In fact, such was the profound monarchism of the Irish Nationalist movement in the early 20th century that DeVelera himself had to promise the electorate that he would allow a referendum for the formation of an Irish Kingdom should such a thing come to pass.
How quickly we forget history.
In the modern Context, Irish Nationalism, especially here in the North has been so intertwined with Irish Republicanism that it seems to be an impossible knot to untangle. I will attempt to explain the ways in which Irish Nationalists, through the education of history, can untangle the snarl of republicanism, and return to the true implications of their own social identity in my next part.
1) The distinction between Irish Nationalism as a sociopolitical force and the Republican Ideology. Defining what Irish Nationalism actually pertains to since its inception, its modern permutations and driving a wedge between this understanding and the Republican ideology.
And
2) The disassociation of the idea of Monarchy and Monarchism from Britain. This will be done by emphasising the long tradition of Irish Kingsmen both at home and abroad and Ireland's relations with other monarchies, particularly those of France and Spain, throughout the centuries.
We shall deal with the first factor for now.
What was Irish Nationalism and what is it now?:
Nationalism in Ireland did not actually exist until the late 19th century. Prior to this, the Irish people had always possessed a fierce sense of identity, culture and a sort of National pride. However the War of the three kingdoms, Cromwell's effective destruction of Gaelic Civilization, the flight of the earls and the penal laws had essentially dismantled Irish culture to the point almost nothing remained and the Irish themselves, almost wholly, existed as a race made up entirely of peasants, prisoners in their own land. Oh surely we Irish made fine peasantry, in fact we were once described as the finest peasantry in the world for a time. But for too long that had defined the Irish character, and the English notion that the Irish were 'unfit' to govern ourselves.
However stirrings began in the 19th century when largely protestant intellectuals began flirting with the ideas of 'Irishness' and appeals for greater legislative autonomy for Ireland in the form of a parliament in Dublin. During this period three forms of Irish 'Nationalism' emerged which were distinct both from eachother and, on a whole, largely distinct from other forms of nationalism found in Europe. These three strands of Nationalism were Cultural, Political and Intellectual. The movement grew to become something of a force in Imperial politics when the Home Rule question and the growing Catholic Middle class in Ireland putting their own weight behind the push for legislative independence (as well as further associating Nationalism with Catholicism which alienated many protestants) led to increasingly strengthened Home Rule bills which had almost resulted in a separate Parliament for Dublin had it not been for the outbreak of World War One.
What is casually looked over quite often when studying this period of History, (late 19th-early 20th century Ireland), is the lack of violent revolution in Ireland despite the tremendous popular support the home rule movement enjoyed. More specifically why there was a lack of violent Revolution. This is because Irish Nationalism, from its inception right up to the Easter Rising, had been a prominently monarchist affair, and the vast majority of Irish 'Nationalists' were in fact Irish 'Monarchists'.
This is particularly evident when looking both at the nature of the Home Rule bills themselves, what they sough to achieve and looking at the revolutionary elements of Irish Nationalism that did exist and why they failed to achieve dominance in the Nationalist movement.
The Home Rules bills were and always have been, about the formation of a Parliament in Dublin to deal with Irish Affairs separately from Imperial affairs. Nowhere in these bills did the Irish Nationalists seek outright independence from the Empire in fact, despite the horrible treatment and misgoverning of Ireland by England, the vast majority of Irish where loyalists to the King and the Empire. The Home Rule bills at most sought an effective end to the lie of the United Kingdom. That being, it cannot be the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland when the territories are only treated as one kingdom with one parliament when there is obvious difference in culture, identity and needs between the two kingdoms. Home Rulers sought, at times, the creation of a Personal Union, a Parliament in Dublin and London with the King being the Head of state for both, the sovereign being the 'King of Ireland' in an official context. In fact even one of the leaders of Sinn Fein, the then 'dual-monarchist' party, envisioned a union along Austro-Hungarian lines.
The British of course, would never have it, and it was more blind pride and prejudice then practicality that fueled Tory resistance to the Home Rule movement. That a nation of 'peasents', Catholic ones at that, being the equal to the English was unthinkable for many in britain. In fact, the prejudice was so strong that a comment by an Irish priest stating that, truthfully, the incompetence and cruelty of English governance was such that the English were unfit to rule Ireland, had caused a furious uproar and shock amongst the upper classes there.
Furthermore, under the New Departure initiatives, the attempts to find common ground between Irish Nationalists and Irish Republicans is proof that in the beginnings, there really was little common ground between Nationalists and Republicans in Ireland.
In fact, such was the profound monarchism of the Irish Nationalist movement in the early 20th century that DeVelera himself had to promise the electorate that he would allow a referendum for the formation of an Irish Kingdom should such a thing come to pass.
How quickly we forget history.
In the modern Context, Irish Nationalism, especially here in the North has been so intertwined with Irish Republicanism that it seems to be an impossible knot to untangle. I will attempt to explain the ways in which Irish Nationalists, through the education of history, can untangle the snarl of republicanism, and return to the true implications of their own social identity in my next part.
Thursday, 19 January 2012
Interesting times
Well this has been a busy start to the new year. Some of you may remember my fear mongering over a summit to solve the EU debt crisis last year and how, if the leaders of the European nations did not come to an agreement to restore confidence in the euro it would spell a disaster that would domino around the world.
Now of course any reasonable person would have and should have, slapped me about the head for thinking that the European powers WOULDN'T submit to whatever deal was required to restore confidence, and indeed, that seems to have been the case, with the only surprise being Mr.Cameron conceding to his Tory backbenchers and keeping Britain out of the deal. Which Sarkozy was all to happy to allow in all honesty.
Now lets look at the state of affairs, there is a new tax being imposed regarding Financial transactions by Sarkozy and Merkel over the member states has caused some amount of alarm, with even Ireland's own government making overtures to align with Britain in opposing the tax, citing it is oppressive to their businesses. Now, I wont be expressing the alarmism in the stalwart anti-EU newspaper the Daily Express in citing it would bankrupt Britain, but it is a threat to their businesses nonetheless. All is not well in Europe.
As well as that we have the puppet technocratic governments of Greece and Italy trying their damnedest to restore viability in their own markets and implement austerity measures to no noticeable effect so far. It really does not look well when your own puppet government cannot do what you want for a country.
And not only that, there are tremors working along the foetid underbelly of the economic class that confidence in the euro's viability is still shaky despite the austerity measures put in place, now with rumours that it may not even last till the summer before the euro collapses. I doubt that, learning from my previous alarmism, and fully expect further committees and conferences and summits of all sorts to try to restore confidence and cut spending. Which will again, only prolong the inevitable.
Here in Ireland meanwhile, our government is entertaining thoughts of cowtowing to the European Court of Human Right's ruling in favour of liberalizing abortion laws in the Republic. This is a preposterous turn of events. First of all, there can be no altering of the Irish constitution without a referendum or, as is the case with the Lisbon treaty, direct pressure from the EU institutions. The European court of Human Rights, despite its name, is NOT an institution of the overall European Union and is seperate and distinct from the Union, its rulings have no actual authority over nation states, even member states of the Union such as Ireland. This is not to say that many nations, including the EU itself, takes rulings of the court into consideration when making legislations, but its power is limited to solely that. Irish pro-life groups are correct in opposing this movement and in laying siege to the government proclaiming that the Republic does not have to obey the commands of the court. Doubtless the secularists in power will do everything in their abilities to avoid allowing this matter to go to referendum, which will surely sound a death knell to bringing abortion to greater availability in Ireland.
But apparently, the demise of the European dream of a US style economic union of states seems to be the least troubling thing on our overlord's minds right now.
By now word has reached the ears of practically everybody of the bold steps taken by Hungary in rejecting the secularism of our age.
Admittedly, the first inklings I had heard of the changes occurring in Hungary where, in all honesty, a thread on a forum board in the back of beyond on the internet, where some left leaning poster had linked to some article or other, (the article was probably in Hungarian, I wasn't in the mood for hitting Google translate at the time and reading through it), and proclaiming some alarmist concerns that Hungary was turning into a fascist state. Now at the time I just passed it off, so a European country elected a conservative government and left wingnuts were proclaiming it as fascist. What else is new? I went on with my business.
Turns out now I should have paid closer intention, the events in Hungary are startling and unprecedented since the inception of the European Union. In fact, it is borderline counter-revolutionary and I for one sure as hell never saw this coming.
The Hungarians radically conservative alterations of the Constitution, effectively declaring Hungary a 'Catholic' State, rejecting secularism and rabidly condemning communism and socialism, as well as forbidding non-Hungarians from high positions in Hungary's media as well as, horrors of horrors, joy of joys, removing the word Republic from Hungary's official name, has absolutely terrified the elites in not only Brussels, but also, apparently, scared the hell out of the Obama Administration in the United States. This is easily deduced from both administrations denouncing Hungary's moves as dangerous and even badnying about the word 'fascist' themselves with regards to Hungary's change of status.
Now I will admit, they are right to be afraid, Hungary, along with some eastern European members of the EU, are very conservative countries, and the precedence set by Hungary, which mind, technically does not breach any major EU directives - yet anyway, could start a stronger habit of member states asserting their right to self-determination, a cardinal sin in the growing centralization of the EU. Would anyone really be surprised if this brave direction inspired, say, the conservatives in Poland to redouble their efforts and continue along a similar line? And if another country follows and thereby legitimizing the self determination of Hungary, others may follow. And the EU establishment can't have that now, can it?
Now my fellow monarchists may be hoping for a restoration with the removal of the word 'Republic' from Hungary's official name, but I again urge caution. Counter-revolutionary many of the changes in Hungary's constitution may be, it does not neccessarily foreshadow a monarchical restoration in that nation, though it seems the local Archduke would be ready if they restoration movement there pulls through. THEN we'll see the EU's true colours when it reacts to such scandalous insubordination from a 'mere' member state.
These are, indeed, interesting times we are living in, slan go phoile.
Wednesday, 11 January 2012
Culturalism: A distinction
(Hope everyone has had a good Christmas and New Year, I'm currently mired in January Examinations for my part, sorry for the lack of activity)
I speak a great deal on this blog about the need for a solid and assertive national identity, however at times I find myself restraining from going overboard, from being too nationalistic and descending into the dangerous pit of nationalistic chuvanism. This is not to say I view all cultures as equal and that I should watch my words lest I offend my fellows. Certainly not, I describe myself as a Nationalist Monarchist for good reason, after all. What I mean is that we should neither seek to overly accomodate the cultures of minorities in our nation to the point of self-defeating sycophancy, for we have seen the failures of multi-culturalism in the practices of our neighbours' governments and the long, shameful displays of newstime entertainment they have provided on the airways trying to contain their race riots. However, I do not want to foster a form of nationalism on par with that of the rabid nationalism of certain groups in Europe and elsewhere that thrive on hatred and persecution of minorities, and, more to the point, driving out such groups from the nation. Because fundamentally, such hatred is un-Irish. Let me elucidate.
I am a Culturalist. Meaning I see the collective cultures, civilizations and histories of the human species as a grand, interwoven tapestry of colour that we can never fully see from a God's eye view. No culture is truly equal to another, just as some coloured thread is used more often then others in the tapestry's patterns. It is this inequity that tells the story of human existence and truly expresses the beauty and tragedy of the human experience. But while certain all cultures are not equal, cultures, like human life, have value. I enjoy spending my free time looking into a country from a certain time period and finding out their cultural mores and ways of doing things. Naturally of course there is values dissonance, as beautiful and elegent as Chinese culture could be towards the end of the Qing dynasty, I found the practice of binding womens' feet to be unconscionable and barbaric. But I have learned that while a true understanding of another's culture can breed respect for it, it can, when truly studied, breed a further respect for your own and a desire to make your own culture great. Let me give you the example of Tsar Peter the Great, in his travels of Europe he returned to Russia to seek to modernize it, while of course this meant the visible destruction of some ancient Rus traditions, he sought to use his understanding not to Change Russia into something it was not meant to be, but to change Russia into something it could be, the great Empire it was when he left it. Shining, terrifying, powerful and yet distinctly Russian, despite the innovations and influence of Europe. It is for this reason I would call Tsar Peter a culturalist.
I think its safe for you to assume where I am going with this, even if my words are not the best at articulating this concept. Compare this understanding of the inter-relationships of culture in the past to the modern socio-philosophical heresy of Multi-culturalism, where all cultures are equal and should be expected to co-exist side by side, whether they like it or not, and whether one culture is in the majority or not. This barbaric understanding of culture devalues all cultures, they are treated as commodities, a curio in the numbers book as the political class ticks off its checklist as to which bloc they can manipulate into class warfare so they can win the next election. Is it any wonder why this understanding has led to an insane paradox, where in places like Britain and France where minorities, whose youths feel entitled by their protected class status as minorities, abuse their fellow countrymen, usually natives or smaller minorities, while simultaneously losing sense of their old national identity and replacing it with one that porports a vapid "us vrs them" mentality. One in which they no longer care what their differences are and couldn't articulate it if they did they just know they hate eachother? This is the twisted genius of multi-culturalism and it is why it will always lead to national suicide, by forcing cultures to be treated equally socially, (nevermind legally), it has inadvertedly made the cultural differences mean less while at the same time emphasising the differences to further propagate the multi-cultural ideals, leaving a population divided by racial and ethnic hatred with nobody truly understanding why they hate the man down the street. This is not counting religious clashes of course, but here in the west religion isn't controlled or forcibly restricted by the state (yet).
Getting two groups of people in a city with differing cultures to co-operate at the least has, throughout the history of humanity, always been difficult, and multi-culturalism has utterly failed in this respect, and has justified things like nationalism in their assertion of national identities. Multi-culturalist point to examples such as the Austro-Hungarian Empire of the past as examples of functional mullti-cultural societies, or even the Ottoman Empire, pointing to things such as tolerance of other cultures within the city of Constantinople, or the Roman Empires of the Past. This is a failed interpretation of history, all of these examples have been examples of culturalist societies, not multi-cultural ones. In all of these examples, there is a clear dominant culture represented in the state and often a clear dominant national religion, and often all of the minorities take on characteristics of the dominant culture along with the remnants of their own minority identities. Nowhere in the past is there seen the destruction of national culture in the favour of a constructed non-culture that has resulted in the social confusion and chaos seen in the social democracies of Modern Europe.
Monarchists, especially European ones, will most likely identify with the culturalist model, especially after studying history of monarchies in Europe (which has never been perfect and there have been examples of social persecution of minority cultures), but it has always been hard to articulate this understanding without sounding like a proponent of secular multi-culturalism, or perhaps that may just be me.
So how does this relate to Ireland?
Throughout Ireland's own history we have been an example of a culturalist society, and a remarkably strong one at that, to the point where even those who conquered us were assimilated into our native culture, as was the case with the Normans who were so thoroughly assimilated into Irish culture that Surnames such as Fitzgerald are now indistinguishable in terms of Irishness to surnames such as O'Brien. They only thing that has ever proven effective at halting our ability of assimilating minority cultures peacefully has been religious differences. In modern Day Ireland, in true Irish Fashion, we have arrived late to the local meta-cultural storm that is Multi-culturalism, (This is actually something of a historical Anomaly, Ireland has always seemed to 'arrive late' to the dinner table of whatever fashion happens to be on offer, we 'arrived late' to the 60s to the point where the full force of the cultural upheaval was not as pronounced in Ireland as it was elsewhere), and despite trying its damnedest, the Irish state could not engender anything more then mild apathy to Irish national Identity when trying to promote multi-culturalism. Indeed I remember during my college days my geography teacher, while we were discussing a poster on the wall depicting Ireland as an amalgamation of hundreds of differing foreign flags representing the 'spoken languages in Ireland' (and before you ask, no, the Irish tricolour was not present), my teacher was trying to impress upon me Ireland was a multicultural society, at which point I recall myself posing the question; "How can we be a multicultural society if nearly all of those languages are being spoken by less then 8% of the Island?" Certainly I was not impressed at the time by the notion that Ireland was 'multicultural' and I didn't meet anyone who really was, except for later when the Lisbon treaty made the European Union an issue among students. However this remains a concern, Ireland still hasn't technically put a stop to its multicultural policies even after public announcements by the leaders of our neighbours about how such policies have failed their nations. And, in my rage against secularism and multi-culturalism I try to engender a deep abiding love of Irishness and a sense of national Identity I often have to stop myself.
Am I reacting in a fashion of a culturalist? Am I promoting Irishness and the need for public recognition of Irishness (Gaelige being spoken in the Dail, Gealige promotion in schools and Irish Media, an appreciation for ancestry and history and masculine patriotism, etc, etc) for the good it will bring? Or am I simply reacting in blind anger and engendering in my readers a fear or loathing of minorities in Ireland and potentially putting the blame of the destruction of Irish culture partially on them? I live in Northern Ireland, and people here know the dangers of tribal mentalities of two cultures that have existed for centuries in the same area, let alone foreigners.
Certainly I am in favour of a robust and assertive native culture and I'll break the jaw of the first man who claims I do not. But I do not want to create an oppressive Ireland where our minorities will live in fear of an assertive majority, instead I want to create an Ireland whose distinct Irishness is attractive enough to allow assimilation. That when people emigrate to Ireland, they do not tribalise but seek to integrate into Irish society and Irish culture, whatever their origins, not simply out of sheer economic attractiveness which many people seem to think is the only thing that matters these days. Even on top of all the other needs of Irish society these days, like being able to have University students honestly put forward 10 things they associate with Irishness, (our politics tutor gave us that challenge to prove a point in a seminar one day, sadly he proved his point well), and I feel we will need to articulate this difference better if we are to defeat the prevailing cultural attitudes.
Slan go Phoile
I speak a great deal on this blog about the need for a solid and assertive national identity, however at times I find myself restraining from going overboard, from being too nationalistic and descending into the dangerous pit of nationalistic chuvanism. This is not to say I view all cultures as equal and that I should watch my words lest I offend my fellows. Certainly not, I describe myself as a Nationalist Monarchist for good reason, after all. What I mean is that we should neither seek to overly accomodate the cultures of minorities in our nation to the point of self-defeating sycophancy, for we have seen the failures of multi-culturalism in the practices of our neighbours' governments and the long, shameful displays of newstime entertainment they have provided on the airways trying to contain their race riots. However, I do not want to foster a form of nationalism on par with that of the rabid nationalism of certain groups in Europe and elsewhere that thrive on hatred and persecution of minorities, and, more to the point, driving out such groups from the nation. Because fundamentally, such hatred is un-Irish. Let me elucidate.
I am a Culturalist. Meaning I see the collective cultures, civilizations and histories of the human species as a grand, interwoven tapestry of colour that we can never fully see from a God's eye view. No culture is truly equal to another, just as some coloured thread is used more often then others in the tapestry's patterns. It is this inequity that tells the story of human existence and truly expresses the beauty and tragedy of the human experience. But while certain all cultures are not equal, cultures, like human life, have value. I enjoy spending my free time looking into a country from a certain time period and finding out their cultural mores and ways of doing things. Naturally of course there is values dissonance, as beautiful and elegent as Chinese culture could be towards the end of the Qing dynasty, I found the practice of binding womens' feet to be unconscionable and barbaric. But I have learned that while a true understanding of another's culture can breed respect for it, it can, when truly studied, breed a further respect for your own and a desire to make your own culture great. Let me give you the example of Tsar Peter the Great, in his travels of Europe he returned to Russia to seek to modernize it, while of course this meant the visible destruction of some ancient Rus traditions, he sought to use his understanding not to Change Russia into something it was not meant to be, but to change Russia into something it could be, the great Empire it was when he left it. Shining, terrifying, powerful and yet distinctly Russian, despite the innovations and influence of Europe. It is for this reason I would call Tsar Peter a culturalist.
I think its safe for you to assume where I am going with this, even if my words are not the best at articulating this concept. Compare this understanding of the inter-relationships of culture in the past to the modern socio-philosophical heresy of Multi-culturalism, where all cultures are equal and should be expected to co-exist side by side, whether they like it or not, and whether one culture is in the majority or not. This barbaric understanding of culture devalues all cultures, they are treated as commodities, a curio in the numbers book as the political class ticks off its checklist as to which bloc they can manipulate into class warfare so they can win the next election. Is it any wonder why this understanding has led to an insane paradox, where in places like Britain and France where minorities, whose youths feel entitled by their protected class status as minorities, abuse their fellow countrymen, usually natives or smaller minorities, while simultaneously losing sense of their old national identity and replacing it with one that porports a vapid "us vrs them" mentality. One in which they no longer care what their differences are and couldn't articulate it if they did they just know they hate eachother? This is the twisted genius of multi-culturalism and it is why it will always lead to national suicide, by forcing cultures to be treated equally socially, (nevermind legally), it has inadvertedly made the cultural differences mean less while at the same time emphasising the differences to further propagate the multi-cultural ideals, leaving a population divided by racial and ethnic hatred with nobody truly understanding why they hate the man down the street. This is not counting religious clashes of course, but here in the west religion isn't controlled or forcibly restricted by the state (yet).
Getting two groups of people in a city with differing cultures to co-operate at the least has, throughout the history of humanity, always been difficult, and multi-culturalism has utterly failed in this respect, and has justified things like nationalism in their assertion of national identities. Multi-culturalist point to examples such as the Austro-Hungarian Empire of the past as examples of functional mullti-cultural societies, or even the Ottoman Empire, pointing to things such as tolerance of other cultures within the city of Constantinople, or the Roman Empires of the Past. This is a failed interpretation of history, all of these examples have been examples of culturalist societies, not multi-cultural ones. In all of these examples, there is a clear dominant culture represented in the state and often a clear dominant national religion, and often all of the minorities take on characteristics of the dominant culture along with the remnants of their own minority identities. Nowhere in the past is there seen the destruction of national culture in the favour of a constructed non-culture that has resulted in the social confusion and chaos seen in the social democracies of Modern Europe.
Monarchists, especially European ones, will most likely identify with the culturalist model, especially after studying history of monarchies in Europe (which has never been perfect and there have been examples of social persecution of minority cultures), but it has always been hard to articulate this understanding without sounding like a proponent of secular multi-culturalism, or perhaps that may just be me.
So how does this relate to Ireland?
Throughout Ireland's own history we have been an example of a culturalist society, and a remarkably strong one at that, to the point where even those who conquered us were assimilated into our native culture, as was the case with the Normans who were so thoroughly assimilated into Irish culture that Surnames such as Fitzgerald are now indistinguishable in terms of Irishness to surnames such as O'Brien. They only thing that has ever proven effective at halting our ability of assimilating minority cultures peacefully has been religious differences. In modern Day Ireland, in true Irish Fashion, we have arrived late to the local meta-cultural storm that is Multi-culturalism, (This is actually something of a historical Anomaly, Ireland has always seemed to 'arrive late' to the dinner table of whatever fashion happens to be on offer, we 'arrived late' to the 60s to the point where the full force of the cultural upheaval was not as pronounced in Ireland as it was elsewhere), and despite trying its damnedest, the Irish state could not engender anything more then mild apathy to Irish national Identity when trying to promote multi-culturalism. Indeed I remember during my college days my geography teacher, while we were discussing a poster on the wall depicting Ireland as an amalgamation of hundreds of differing foreign flags representing the 'spoken languages in Ireland' (and before you ask, no, the Irish tricolour was not present), my teacher was trying to impress upon me Ireland was a multicultural society, at which point I recall myself posing the question; "How can we be a multicultural society if nearly all of those languages are being spoken by less then 8% of the Island?" Certainly I was not impressed at the time by the notion that Ireland was 'multicultural' and I didn't meet anyone who really was, except for later when the Lisbon treaty made the European Union an issue among students. However this remains a concern, Ireland still hasn't technically put a stop to its multicultural policies even after public announcements by the leaders of our neighbours about how such policies have failed their nations. And, in my rage against secularism and multi-culturalism I try to engender a deep abiding love of Irishness and a sense of national Identity I often have to stop myself.
Am I reacting in a fashion of a culturalist? Am I promoting Irishness and the need for public recognition of Irishness (Gaelige being spoken in the Dail, Gealige promotion in schools and Irish Media, an appreciation for ancestry and history and masculine patriotism, etc, etc) for the good it will bring? Or am I simply reacting in blind anger and engendering in my readers a fear or loathing of minorities in Ireland and potentially putting the blame of the destruction of Irish culture partially on them? I live in Northern Ireland, and people here know the dangers of tribal mentalities of two cultures that have existed for centuries in the same area, let alone foreigners.
Certainly I am in favour of a robust and assertive native culture and I'll break the jaw of the first man who claims I do not. But I do not want to create an oppressive Ireland where our minorities will live in fear of an assertive majority, instead I want to create an Ireland whose distinct Irishness is attractive enough to allow assimilation. That when people emigrate to Ireland, they do not tribalise but seek to integrate into Irish society and Irish culture, whatever their origins, not simply out of sheer economic attractiveness which many people seem to think is the only thing that matters these days. Even on top of all the other needs of Irish society these days, like being able to have University students honestly put forward 10 things they associate with Irishness, (our politics tutor gave us that challenge to prove a point in a seminar one day, sadly he proved his point well), and I feel we will need to articulate this difference better if we are to defeat the prevailing cultural attitudes.
Slan go Phoile
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
