Search This Blog

Loading...

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.

21 comments:

  1. The anti-traditionalism of Sinn Féin is hard to believe. They seem opposed to every single traditional institution except the nation. I wonder what makes them think the idea of nationhood would survive the destruction of every other traditional loyalty?

    Good on you for fighting a lonely cause, sir.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An astute observation. They seem incapable of recognising that the leftist, progressivist principles that have been wielded so effectively by Irish republicans in order to delegitimise the UK state, can very easily be turned against our own nation. And indeed, have been in the 26-counties since the 1970s.

      Delete
  2. I meant to check this blog out sooner. Chalk another 1 up for the number of Irish Monarchists.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I love having my name mentioned in a post! Thanks! (And sorry if some of my previous comments were overly antagonistic...university studies have really been draining me.)

    That's very interesting about Russia..but would they revert back to the Romanovs, or select a new dynasty? I hope they would do the former, if only for the sake of tradition.

    From what I know about them (which isn't much at all) the Orthodox churches in eastern Europe are strongly associated with monarchism - like traditionalist Catholicism in France.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is definitely the case with Orthodox countries, even moreso since they directly suffered the worst of revolutionary governments in the form of various flavours of totalitarian communism.

      In Russia's case in particular its looking most definitely like a Romanov restoration should they ever get their act together, given that the Romanovs themselves have a reasonably strong support base and the current uncrowned 'Tasrina' of the senior branch of the Dynasty (I am not sure on the particulars actually, not familiar with the Romanov genealogy) is active both in trying to get former Romanov personal property (IE, what property wasn't destroyed by the Soviets, such as houses and family heirlooms) returned as well as returning to Russia to begin with, something that endears Russian Nationalists, who are a VERY diverse group. Peronally I am not too fond of the current Tsarina but I cant fault her for being active, just like I can't fault the German Prince for pressing his family's advantage witht eh stepping down of the German President.

      Delete
  4. Another fine article, Servent. And you're too kind to mention my own blog which, due to the recent arrival of a newborn, has been left relatively moribund of late.

    I think an interesting approach to adopt with self-avowed Irish republicans would be to emphasise the distinction that can be made between a republic and a democracy. We assume these days that they are largely synonymous and interchangeable. But Aristotle, for one, would argue otherwise. Aquinas' argument in favour of kingship is also interesting.

    But ultimately, we need to start getting to grips with the reality of the innate differences between men, and between men and women. And, relatedly, a non-materialist understanding of existence.

    Until then, no matter how advanced the intellectual debate in the public arena, no real change will happen. But perhaps that's all that's required of us at this moment in Irish history: to speak intelligently, humanely, and with humility about those hard to hear realities, and then offer what we firmly believe to be a better, more realistic way to order our affairs, and those of our nation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are correct in stating a de-materialisation of the modern mindset and a shattering of modern understanding of the relationship between men and women, and other forms of 'equality', would be fundamental in de-constructing the republican narrative. Men and women are complementary, the same but different. Hell, I'd go one step further and tear apart Descarts separation of the body and soul, which he defined as the mind. Descartian thinking forms the basis of much of the materialist thinking of the modern age in one way or another.

      Delete
    2. Also, I forgot to say. Congratulations on your new child!

      Delete
    3. Many thanks! Having a child certainly reminds one of the truly important things in life.

      And yes, Descartes certainly lit the fuse on the philosophical IED that dismembered Western civilisation. Catholic metaphysician Wolfgang Smith critically examines Descartes' approach in his work Cosmos and Transcendence. If you get the chance, you should give it a read.

      Delete
  5. Excellent post.

    Servant of the Cheif, I have a question regarding the subject of Irish Monarchy that I hope you can assist me with.

    I started a group called "Restore the High Kingship of Ireland" on a certain social networking site. One of the applicants who requested to join posted this comment on the group page (based on his comments he doesn't appear to be Catholic or fond of Christianity in general):

    <<<"What measures could be taken, symbolic "political" expressions of any kind that could make such a state [an independent Irish monarchy] truly either occur in the first place, or be a legitimate threat to the statehood of Northern Ireland. What act of any kind could be compelling enough, even supposing a military takeover of Northern Ireland to make its citizens subjects to the new King? Or Southern Ireland for that matter.

    The effects of secularization have removed many Irish people's faith in the Catholic Church ... who did nothing for Eire when she was gradually taken over, made a target of the potato genocide, fought a civil war, got invaded by Protestant soldiers serving a Masonic regime etc., etc.

    Christianity is a religious tradition based very much in submission, nonviolence and devotion rather than in either the fulfillment of a particular "fate" which is effectively pre-determined anyway or in the harnessing of virile strength and ascetic achievement etc. Most western people adopting it are unable to overcome this pre-occupation with non-violence, democracy, idealizing the meek, or even the working class, thanks largely to the past few hundred years of propagandizing and integrating the human populace to withstand the industrial revolution and the population booms.">>>

    How would you answer and respond to these claims?

    Thanks in advance.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Just as a follow up, it seems like he's just trying to demonize the Catholic Church. It sounds like he's implying that because the Catholic Church supported different Crusades against heretics, pagans, and non-Christians and had a Papal Army and different military orders, they could have liberated Ireland from Protestant Britain or could have aided the starving Irish during the famine but, didn't because (according to him) "they didn't even really care about the plight of the Irish Catholics because the Church is greedy and corrupt." That seems to be his argument.

    How would you respond to these allegations as well as the other quoted above?

    Thanks in advance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will respond in detail to the above post in a moment because it requires some work. However it is best to NOT assume that your commenter is either a) trolling or b) antagonizing, this is because of the way he has laid out his question is mostly civil so it deserves a civil response regardless of his overtures, otherwise you will undermine yourself. However I would start counter arguing you with the great deal of excellent information Shane provides over at Lxoa Occulta blog here http://lxoa.wordpress.com/ with regards to the Spanish monarchy the Church and 'the plight of the Irish', use the tags to search, for solid information on the relation between all three. It really isnt a matter of the Church 'not doing enough' to aid the plight of the Irish Catholics for we must remember it still had the rest of protestant europe to worry about, but that all serious attempts and overtures to aid had been frustrated by Britain, plus such allegations make no sense as the time of the crusades was back in the time when western Christendom was still more or less united under the Catholic Church (if the Great schism of the 1000s had been successfully and permenantly healed by the time of the Crusades we'd be seeing our Orthodox brothers engaging in a larger role in the Crusades themselves and they'd probably be alot more successful)

      Britain's serious abuses of the Irish didn't truely start until after the Reformation came to Britain, (there was abuse under the Normans but that is literally forgettable in terms of scale and things didnt really get hard on the Irish comparatively until protestantism was the official state religion of Britain, at which time the Church wasnt nearly powerful enough to do what it wanted, and even THEN it supported the Spanish attempt to dethrone Queen Victoria and restore Britain to Catholicism, which would have delighted the Irish at the time immensely as the relationship between the Irish nobility and Spain was very strong and King Phillip was very popular in Ireland, even to the point of entertaining ideas of being subject to the Crown of Spain rather then Britain, to bask in the glory of the Spanish empire of the time and to be ruled by a co-religionist king.

      "Christianity is a religious tradition based very much in submission, nonviolence and devotion rather than in either the fulfillment of a particular "fate" which is effectively pre-determined anyway or in the harnessing of virile strength and ascetic achievement etc. Most western people adopting it are unable to overcome this pre-occupation with non-violence, democracy, idealizing the meek, or even the working class, thanks largely to the past few hundred years of propagandizing and integrating the human populace to withstand the industrial revolution and the population booms."
      ^ This paragraph here is an ideological farce however. Christianity is a very masculine religion and one need go no further then literally the 19th century to see many aspects of this. Christianity is only based on non-violence insofar as unjust violence. There are a few doctors and Church Fathers who comment on this aspect of life with regards to Faith, Thomas Acquinas reflects on the morality of such things as amubshes in wartime (and makes the distinguishment between deception in terms of lieing to the enemy and deception in terms of withholding information, the former being immoral and the latter totally moral. And St. Augustine once said that 'when a Christian does not become irate when he has cause to be Irate, sins' A religion that is submissive and weak does not give time to consider the morality of war, merely because Christianity is a civilizing religion that cares about wrongfulness, rightfulness, law and morality does not make it a weak institution, no matter how flanderized liberal Christianity has become in the modern world.

      I'll give a more cohesive response at a later date I am tied up for this weekend.

      Delete
  7. A note from across the pond.

    If you succeed in establishing a true monarchy of the Catholic tradition, I'll pack my bags to immigrate.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It would be very kind if you could add a link to a blog I contribute to on your links/blogroll: www.catholicheritage.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  9. "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," that in a nutshel is why irish monarchists should support a british republic (for realipolitik reasons), it will destroy that association in a hurry to have britian as a republic, i know that it may sound unconventional but it is true,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When I reject the support for a British Republic it is indeed for RealPolitek reasons. A republican Britain is an ideological Britain, a Britain of Revolution one that will not tolerate a smaller, economically weaker neighbour who it will view as 'reactionary, backwards and dangerous'. Even if the British Monarchy is overthrown that will not severe the Irish association of Monarchy with Britain but rather give bouyance to the Republican movement here in Ireland who will tout the Republic of Britain as 'Britain finally becoming enlightened and throwing off the shackles of tyranny, allowing both nations to heal' Realpolitek is all well and good but not if we act only for perceived temporary gains that in fact result in long term handicaps. No, if Britain is to have a Republic, it will only hurt us.

      Delete
    2. i see your views on this topic are diferent from mine. i accept that we do not all have to agree on everything do we? i did think that what i said might have been a controversial statement.

      Delete
  10. i know for a fact that irish monarchism is not completly dead, if it was you would not have written this blog,and the rest of us would not be reading it (as it would never have been written) servent of the chief

    ReplyDelete
  11. i would not say irish monarchism died so much as went into indefinate hibernation (there is a complex multi lingaul pun in there if you can find it)

    ReplyDelete