Irish Monarchist

Love Ulster day to return to Dublin

2012-02-05T12:36:00.000-08:00

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.

Monarchism, the Nationalist's Guide part 1

2012-01-21T04:36:00.000-08:00

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.

Interesting times

2012-01-19T03:17:00.000-08:00

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.

Culturalism: A distinction

2012-01-11T09:07:00.000-08:00

(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

Happy Christmas!

2011-12-25T20:14:00.000-08:00

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

The President's Christmas Address

2011-12-21T08:49:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

Friday: Operation Unthinkable

2011-12-07T02:36:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy Christmas.

"Sort out your countries - Or else"

2011-11-16T03:35:00.001-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God this is depressing, here, have a puppy.

This bespeaks crippling arrogance

2011-11-06T04:13:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Election Day down south

2011-10-27T04:52:00.001-07:00

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

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

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

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

Happy Presidential election 2011 everyone. God Help us all.

State of the Republic: The Race for the Aras

2011-10-17T08:05:00.000-07:00

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

David Norris, Independent:

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

Mary Davis, Independent:

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

Sean Gallagher, Independent:

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

Michael D. HIggins, Labour:

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

Martin McGuinness, Sinn Fein:

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

Gay Mitchell, Fine Gael:

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

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

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

Blogger tales

2011-10-13T04:02:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

1) A German Imageboard.

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

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

2) A fascistic Polish Imageboard.

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

3) A Korean culinary forum

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

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

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

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

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

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

5) Several Feminist blogs and forums.

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

6) Numerous Monarchist links from various countries.

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

7) A Neo-Druid forum.

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

8) A Russian porn site.

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

9) Software and Hardware enthusiasts

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

10) Equestriadaily

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

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

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

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

Future monarchy, population control and a place in the sun

2011-10-04T17:40:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overpopulation!: Hurr durr...

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

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

CFTHF: Settling in

2011-09-29T05:29:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Irish Voters need to Vote with their morality

2011-09-22T07:58:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

National Shame

2011-09-16T09:05:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

The Standards of Space Aliens

2011-09-10T06:37:00.001-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

''Rights''

2011-09-07T16:59:00.001-07:00

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

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

So pray tell dear readers;

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

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

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

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

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

Nuetrality Part 3: A compendium of responses

2011-08-22T03:07:00.001-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neutrality part 2: The Eager young men of Eire

2011-08-15T11:12:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that, my friends, is a scandal.

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

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

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

Odd rumblings

2011-08-03T09:34:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slan go Phoile.

The paralysis of Neutrality

2011-07-30T06:09:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Uselessness of Enda Kenny's Posturing

2011-07-21T11:23:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2011-07-05T12:10:00.000-07:00

Dear Friend

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

pressing hard to have abortion legalised. They are doing everything

to create the impression that Ireland is obliged to legislate for

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

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

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

determine legal policy on protecting the lives of unborn children.

Before the General Election, Fine Gael gave written commitments to

oppose abortion legislation and destructive research on living human

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

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

your FG Oireachtas representatives need to hear from you.

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

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

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

difference. Please encourage all your family and friends to also

participate in this initiative.

Send your online postcard here

Thank you for your continued support.

Ruth Cullen

Pro Life Campaign

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

representitive in the Oireachtas, therefore I urge any honest Irish

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

engage in this campaign, we must stop this subversive movement

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

based on a NON-BINDING COURT CASE IN THE EUROPEAN

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

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

the United Kingdom Parliament was well within its rights to

disregard the ruling AND HAS NOT SUFFERED AS A RESULT OF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mindful of their pro-life promises.

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

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

once again justified.

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

this letter.

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

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

my family just live north.

A Shattered Union Cometh

2011-07-04T03:31:00.000-07:00

Europe is on the verge of collapse, whether violently or just in a disinterested and bitter, but altogether peaceful, breakup of the eurozone and several european institutions, remains to be seen.

Everyone has different opinions on why the European project is failing at heart, even those for whom, the breakup of the EU is unthinkable. Yet this is what happens, poor fiscal policies in member nations and a one continent wide currency that treats its constituent economies unfairly, coupled with unsustainable government entitlement systems as well as the Joe ignorent public, lulled into reliance on the state transfiguring into the much feared unthinking 'mob' pulled straight from the tales of the great ancient republics of Greece and Rome once the state fails to meet unreasonable demands in the face of crippling past failures of the state. The Greek crisis and its second bailout is, in the eyes of nearly every onlooker, delaying the inevitable. Greece will fall and fall hard, and the European Union, utterly unwilling to admit any of its policies or decisions were in err, has not let the Hellenic Republic go to save itself. If it had, it would have been called selfish and cruel, but the European farce would have at least been preserved for longer. As it stands, Greece will fall, as will other struggling states, including, likely, the Irish Republic (give or take our own fiscal and governmental shenanigans with a different party in nearly two decades finally being in power)

The immoral decadence and refusal of self responsibility of the western Liberal dream will be the death knell of Western Europe as a whole as our eastern European cousins will look on as we commit self destruction. They themselves will likely work with Russia, as the west becomes more akin to a horde of roving barbarians then a civilization to be envied in the coming century.

No one can say with certainly when exactly the fall will happen, or what will occur when it does. But I feel it will have these notable characteristics; There will be a great sense of urgency and crisis in Brussels and the overall European Government which the average man and woman will only vaguely take notice of, crisis policies will be enacted calling for harsher taxes and more centralisation, peacekeeping forces will be deployed to various parts of Europe to prevent anarchy and to bolster failing institutions, likely resulting in inflaming the local populace even further by the unexpected, and in many eyes, unjustified deployments, far right and far left political elements will start gaining voice in the public arena across the continent, at least one or two European governments, most likely centre right governments, or centre left ones with a strong patriotic voter base, will voice dissent publicly and rumours of secession will become increasingly common, and pretty soon in either a velvet revolution of otherwise peaceful but bitter acknowledgement the EU will collapse, or frustrated nation states will start removing themselves from the Union by force, and this will all happen within the space of a year or two and nobody will have any clue what has just occurred or why everything is on fire. Behold the fruits of Revolution!

In either case, God help us all for what will occur after the break up will be beyond prediction.

Our Lady, Queen of Ireland, pray for us.

Do your country a favor, Protest INTO

2011-06-23T14:47:00.000-07:00

The Irish National Teacher's Organization is stirring up some rather foul smelling broth with regards to Irish Private education.

This will come as no surprise to others who pay more attention to the Education shenanigens in Ireland, but I'll keep this brief. INTO is currently protesting a law that gives Schools some leeway to choose the teachers they employ based on religious beliefs and sexual orientation (particularly Religious Private Schools, you know, those silly little Catholic Grammar schools that nobody cares about? Silly mediaevalist institutions that they are, I mean really.). Citing the law as discriminatory, and denouncing the concept of schools being informed by a religious ethos to be unacceptable and also citing that a fair percentage of Irish Principals supporting a revamping of The Irish Private school system to remove it from its Catholic Roots. (If some reader could be kind enough to find me a an appropriate link of exactly what law they are talking about I would be most grateful, I wish to look it over myself out of curiosity, or part of the law, this sounds like one of those subsection clauses in legislation that deal with particularities)

Why yes, how utterly unacceptable it is to find that a private educational institution has the capacity to discriminate prospective employees before hiring them. Why, letting Religious Private Schools at that being able to hire teachers that reinforce their socio-ethical, moral and religious values, that is even more preposterous! Shocking even! Loathe the day when such a thing should come to pass! Why, its almost as if there is an incredibly ancient history and tradition spanning centuries upon centuries of Religiously informed Academia driving forth intellectual, technological, philosophical progress and refinement across the entire breadth of human civilizations. But that is silly, fantasy talk, this is the 21st century! We are so much more enlightened and cultured then those brutish, ancient rubes on whose shoulders we stand! Truly we are a society to be envied were tolerance and acceptance is paramount at the expense of the virtues that got us to where we are!

Ok, yes, I am bitter about this. Very bitter. I love education, and have strong opinions on it, its role in society and whatnot but they are apparently as irrelevant in the south as they are in the North. This kind of thing really boils my blood, the deconstruction of the education system, in favor of modernist nonsense thinking, on the basis that religious education is 'discriminatory'.

Really? Thats what they're going with? HEAVEN FORBID! Heaven forbid that an extremely successful system be allowed to continue because they have bloody standards! Next you will be telling me that University level education will become a 'right'!

Sorry for the delay in updates, and the shameful expression of invective that greets you in your blog updates with this post, but this thing is just a right thorn in my side, especially after the debacle here int he north with the 11+ and Catrina Ruan the hypocritical Sinn Fein Education minister who tried to deconstruct our segregated system (in fact the current Sinn fein minister is trying to go further with it), as imperfect as it is, by uh, forcing the communities together into schools. Yes, I'm sure that will heal all wounds, by crushing the offending parties together. I cant see anything negative resulting from this. At all.

A successful visit

2011-05-20T10:50:00.001-07:00

Her Majesty the Queen of England's visit to Ireland has concluded and deemed a diplomatic triumph.

And so far I am inclined to agree, but at the same time breath a sigh of relief that she is gone back to England.

I will not focus too much on the particulars of her visit, but I will comment that small touches such as wearing green upon leaving the plane as well as starting off her key speech with a greeting spoken in Gaelige went a LONG way to endearing the Irish population to her. Her visits were cordial, projected disturbances and protests minimal and non violent (mostly), and hopefully Sinn Fein's misjudging of the public mood over this will upset any progress they make down south.

Now with that said, lets get the elephant out of the room. That elephant being the painfully obvious west-briton sentiment in the Irish media, to which Her Majesty was the darling of the hour.

Do not misunderstand me, I am greatful the visit went so well AND that the media tried pushing the positive effects of the visit (the resulting boom in tourism that this will likely cause plus finally having good stories about Ireland being told in foreign media outlets, confirmed by reports from irish Embassies worldwide. Thank God, nothing good about Ireland being said by foreign newsgroups for near 3 years now), but what disgusted me was their attitude towards their urging, and how aggressive it was. They kept pushing the angle that this was a historic visit (it was), but their slavish devotion to this as well as pushing the 'cultural links with Great Britain' (of which there are innumerable, but not something you want to remind the public about if you plan to make us keen on the British monarchy as the same historical poison taints our view of it and pushing the link of monarchy with Britain wont make the modern Irishman more keen on it) reeked of west-britonism, and it did nothing to convince Irishmen that royalism and monarchism really isn't a 'British' thing. Which does not help the Irish Monarchist cause in any light.

Good relations with Britain is necessary economically and perhaps socially (a great many Irish families have members working across the Irish sea) but the west britonism in the media would have us stop speaking Irish for economic integration and 'cultural exchange' by destroying whats left of Irish culture to improve those relations. Which I will never stand for.

One historian brought before the newscaster at the beginning of the visit commentated on how 'there has always been an undercurrent of royalism in Ireland' of which that is 100% true, but then went on to immediately associate that royalism with britain by using the last visit of a British Monarch to Ireland as her one and only example. Really!? Then what of the jacobites? the war of the three kingdoms? the flight of the earls? The blatant monarchism in Irish Catholicism, the actions of Irish Monarchists on the continent both before and after the flight, THE FACT THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE NATIONALIST MOVEMENT IN IRELAND BEFORE THE FIRST WORLD WAR WAS DOMINATED BY IRISH DUAL MONARCHISTS AND NOT BY BLOODY REPUBLICANS!?

Oh and never mind the brief reinstatement of the Council of the Chiefs of the Name officially recognised by the Republican Government before a Scandal forced their dissolution, or how every Irishman is descended from ancient Kings, why those crest must be mere decoration, right? No, sure, it only is relevant if we link royalism with the British Royal family and nothing else.

Its not as if any other royal family has links to Ire-oh wait, there was that one Sovereign Prince fellow wasn't there?

To hell with it, I will do it if they would not. I will start digging up resources and Focus on Irish men, both Nationalists and before the rise of Irish nationalism, who were monarchist, royalists or otherwise disassociated with Britain and associated with Monarchism. If only to, if futilely, dispel the myth of Monarchism being a 'British' thing.

Restoration III: The Church and the Role of Religion in an Irish Monarchy

2011-05-04T10:40:00.000-07:00

If there is one aspect of a potential Irish restoration I constantly harp on about as being vital, it is the role of a religious revival in Irish society. And one of the key reasons i've been putting this is off is how incredibly difficult it will be to approach this without coming across as akin to one of those anemic liberals or even some of the more schismatic Catholic elements who say the Church should do this sort or that sort to suit my own interests and sensibilities. That and a fear that my own shambles of a catechizes will discredit whatever I do say.

On top of this is the concern that detractors will point to the heights of Catholicism in Ireland's past and the government cover-ups and the wonton sexual abuses and psychological damage to Irish folk back then crippled us as a society and damaged us to the point of being fascistic automotons. After all, all those famous books written about Irish life back then from liberal leaning authors were completely accurate despite the fact that most of them were absolute fiction bar a few memoirs?

Oh wait terribly sorry, it turns out most of those works have been deeply challenged as inaccurate many times over and are inherently biased. Moving right along then.

It is impossible for me to say exactly why the Catholic Church specifically is necessary for the task of restoration until the role of religion is clarified. In the past Ireland was, ok admittedly, still is a religious country even though it is rapidly becoming secularized. Religiosity defines the Irish character, the Irish Character is, in turn, mocked for its religiosity... and drunkenness, and wife beating, and our odd way of thinking and turn of speech. Whoever said the Irish stopped being acceptable targets in media for comedy? A fool most likely.

Religious revival is neccessary in turning over the dominant Anglo-Americanised culture that has stamped itself across the english speaking world. It is neccessary because with religiosity comes morals and character, inconvenience for politicians and societal rules that are contrary to what has become the norm. The average Irishman and Irishwoman, when they hold deep moral convictions, are going to feel very alien in the dominant, and foreign, culture that surrounds them. And such unifying moral convictions can only come from an organised Religion to inform, preach and uphold them. Should a Religious revival occur across the country, and God willing it does, the dominant anglo-americanised culture will no longer satisfy the Irishman. The west britons calling for a downgrading of the status of Gaelige in Irish institutions and education will sound more and more like the bleating goats they are, an identity crisis will have emerged. We are no longer in the De Valera era and aggressive nationalism is no longer widespread in Ireland but passive nationalistic pride still remains. Well thats what liberals call it, I'd call it cultural pride. As you know, having celtic styled artwork decorating Churches is so 20th century...

The end goal of such a religious revival is of course, if I am forgiven, for thinking of it in politically manipulative terms, is to create real politics, (not to be confused with Real Politik), and by that I mean politicians with backbone, audacity and character. I was extremely mad at Fine Gael handing over the public sector to their Irish labour bedfellows after the general election because it is the perfect example of shameless politics that boils my blood so. If ever I needed reaffirmation of being a Monarchist I need only look south of the Border... or North to Storment. What this achieves is genuine intellectual political conflict to shake the passive Irish mind from its stupor and it is then monarchism can really be spread as an actual alternative amid such a furious storm of political thought brought on by the spread of solid moral values.

The Catholic Church is the perfect institution to achieve this end precisely because it is not an Irish specific institution. A revival of the Catholic Church, (once His Holiness is done with his Reform of the Reform and a couple hundred dozen Inquisitions are completed), will be explosive in Ireland, for one thing most Catholics in Ireland are Lukewarm, on the fence as it were between being a genuinely religious nation or something akin to the average religiosity of Scandinavia. It also helps the Catholic Church still enjoys a predominant position and favoritism of the Irish Government, even if it is unstated. It also helps that Roman Catholicism has a long history of complementing native cultures once conversion has been achieved, (Ireland entered a golden age of intellectual advancement after it converted) although this is not universally true for the cultural identities of some nations who had violent conversions (Lithuania), so the Catholic Church as a worldwide institution not subject to Irish petty politics and governmental chest pounding can wreck merry havoc on the current poisonous cultural attitude in Ireland and set the stage for real challenge and change in Irish politics.

Again, as stated before, for the case of Irish Monarchism, the Catholic Church's position is an immense gamble precisely because it cannot be controlled. If she does not clean house to wipe away the filth of modernist heresies and liberal poisoning of the clerical mind in this country, all it would take would be for a few liberal bishops to condemn the Irish Monarchist movement as 'un-Catholic' to set back the Restoration for 5 decades if we are fortunate. (Then again mind you, there are plenty of faithful clergy in the Catholic Church who are committed republicans even if they are not overtly political, thus increasing the risk of the gamble) The Church need not actively support the movement, all monarchists need for the Church to do is not to oppose us, that leaves one less moral backing for our republican opponents. (and yes as a Roman Catholic I am inherently biased in favor of the Church, but what I say still remains true)

Now with that said and a best case scenario is achieved and a Native Irish Monarchy is restored, it is in my opinion that religion should remain an overt an active part of the Irish lifestyle. Naturally in such a best case scenario the Church itself would handle these matters, so that leaves the public sphere to deal with.

It is the opinion of this monarchist that the Irish Monarchy would recognize religion's role in the public sphere, this will of course mean that non Catholic religions would also be allowed to be active in the public sphere (more on this in subsequent posts on divine supremacy and the toleration of heretics). The Irish Monarchy would by necessity, much like the republican government beforehand, recognize the special role of the Catholic Church as the religion of the overwhelming majority and take account of that. Even going so far as to make it the state religion precisely to emphasis religion's role in monarchy and in the nation as a whole (more on this in the coronation post), the alliance of alter and throne is as old as monarchy itself and even religion, and I see no reason why the Irish Monarchy should be different in this regard. In fact with the added effect of having a strong monarchy with a leashed Dail giving Ireland the benefit of notoriety and prestige int he great family of nations, the establishment of a State religion in today's world would be a flippant and welcome middle finger to the current republican world view and a direct challenge to the republican ideal.

Again, there is no set guarantee that the revival of religion will make Irish minds more susceptible to our many mysterious monarchical machinations, but at the very least it will provide a forum to dispel myths of monarchy being a decidedly 'protestant thing' precisely because any monarchist movement in Ireland as a whole would be overwhelmingly Catholic to begin with.

I) Rex Hibernie. Imperator Scotturum.
II) Clans and the Role of the Church
III) -
- Supplementary post: Divine Supremecy and Tolerance: The Neccessity of State Religion and toleration of Heretics
IV) The Legislative Process in an Irish Monarchy
- Supplementary Post: Monarchist Economics and Dynamic Politics
- The Role of Chieftans and other Lords
V) The High Coronation, the true All Ireland Final
- The Role of the Council of Chieftans, Dynastic succession issues and legitimacy
- The Role of the Church
- The Role of the Monarch and the Royal Family
- Lords, Statesman and Farmers
- Final comments on the Coronation
VI) And all the world is a stage... Foreign Relations and the Role of a Monarchical Ireland in Europe and Elsewhere.

Open Letter to my fellow Irishmen

2011-04-22T05:44:00.000-07:00

My fellow Gaels, be you Republican, Nationalist or otherwise count yourself as an Irish Patriot, I feel the need to address this letter to you with regards to upcoming events involving the British Royal Family. It is a plea, rather then a demand, for civility and good character.

As you all know, I am no advocate for the rejoining of Ireland into Great Britain. Far from it, my Monarchist sentiments are separatist and nativist as should be clear to all who read my blog. So I am not going to talk about such an issue.

Rather this is a plea, with regards to agitation amongst Irish Republicans in the Republic of Ireland, towards the Queen of England's state visit, and an encouragement of Irish Nationalists and Patriots to not fall into the pitfall of old hatreds.

To this I will seek to convince you how Her Majesty's visit to Ireland, benefits Ireland as its status as a Sovereign nation rather then a subject one. And to do that I must point out the difference between a visit by the British Monarch to Ireland 100 years ago, and the visit this year.

The difference is simple yet incredibly important. 100 years ago, the British Sovereign visited Ireland as its King and Head of State. Its ruler. At such a time we were very much subject nation. The visit was, in that sense, a personal one of a ruler to his subjects. This Year's visit is one of a stately nature.

By engaging in a State visit, Her Majesty the Queen does not wipe away or invalidate the grievances of the past and that we should all forget the bad stuff ever happened on either side, such as the rather rude telling off those West Britons in the Irish Media has been keen to pile on the already miffed Irish Republican community, rather, the State visit does something much more important for the Republic and one Irish Patriots should be more then happy with.

It is official, symbolic recognition by Britain of the status of Ireland as a Separate entity and Sovereign State. It is, while not written and certainly unspoken, the admittance by the British Government of the loss of Ireland as a territorial claim in any event, which coincides nicely with the past admission of the 'no selfish or strategic interest' we have heard with regards to the Northern Territory.

The visit of a reigning sovereign to Ireland is not an infraction upon the nation's sovereignty or a bold claim by said sovereign to Ireland. This is foolish thinking, one need not only look at the recent visit by the Sovereign prince of Monaco and his fiancée to Ireland, or the visit of His Holiness the 14th Dalai Llama. Both of whom are in fact Sovereigns, one Ruling and one in Exile. Instead, I would advise my fellow Irishmen to capitalize on this visit to show to the World the worth of Ireland. I beg of you to not engage in any plans by organisations to disrupt the visit, cause damage of a physical or proprietary nature to your fellow Irishmen wherever the Queen visits with her Husband, as this will hurt our nation's prestige by engaging in selfish activities that will no sooner help you reclaim the North of Ireland then help Cain finish his wanderings.

As an added plea, to Irish Republicans in particular, with regards to the upcoming Royal wedding. I will not argue you should care for the Joy of England, because that would be inane and irrelevant to you, in fact, I fully believe the wedding should not matter to you by principle. What instead I am asking you to do, is to refuse to attend the rival street parties being organised by British Republicans to protest the Royal Wedding celebrations, they have invited republicans from across Europe to join them.

I will not speak much about them, or their plans for they also have little to do with you or your goals with regards to Ireland. So you may wonder, what then, was the reason why I beg of you to refuse to join these Republicans in their activities? Surely they are as republican as you are? And this is where I am going to have to say no. They are not the same as you, at the very least, not the same as you from where you consider yourselves. For while Irish Republicans consider themselves the spiritual successors of Wolfe tones and the Irish Volunteers of the Easter Rising, the British Republicans are descendants of a much darker, deadlier beast. A shadow daemon who's name is still anathema to any sensible Irishman.

The British Republicans are the spiritual successors of the Arch Heretic, Oliver Cromwell and his Despoiler New Model Army which ravaged Ireland during the Jacobite Wars, banished our nobility and started the centuries of woe we romanticize in earnest.

If you care nothing of the British Monarchy, you certainly care for Ireland at the least. And I beg of you, not as a monarchist, but as an Irishman, for civility and principle. Do not lend credence to the British Republican movement, for by extension you put your lot in with Cromwell. And truly believe the ends of Revolution justify the means of Revolution. Which in this context I truly, in my heart, do not hold that most of you really believe such.

Happy Good Friday,

Servant of the Chief

Dia agus a choimeádann tú, slan go phoile

Princely Visit to Ireland

2011-04-11T04:46:00.000-07:00

(Apologies for my absence, University work is piling on and I had some personal issues to get over before I returned to regular blog updates. I have several pieces I wish to discuss backlogged on top of my already backlogged issues that I probably won't get to discuss in detail before the next interruption to regular blog business. I beg your forgiveness and thank you for your patience) I was of course, more then a little delighted when I was made aware of the Princely House of Grimaldi's visit to Ireland. However, sadly mostly to do with issues I have already mentioned, I could not indulge my innate monarchist urge to glue myself to the news of the event and follow it as enthusiastically as I would have loved to do. The Visit had the usual formalities one would expect of state visits, guards of honour, exchanges of gifts, meeting the public, etc. And frankly most news reports I've seen over the matter have been resounding positive... if somewhat muted. This of course bothers me because it is nowhere nearly as big an issue as I would have liked it to be. ''Oh its just an official state visit by a reigning crowned Head of Europe, its not as if we need to publicise this all that much, why its not as if the Irish public are deeply unhappy and depressed during this recession, our economic enslavement to Europe and the slovening cynicism of our crapsack of a political governing system and desperately need something positive to keep their minds off of it all.'' You can see why I am displeased by the lack of exposure in practical terms. Britain has the Royal wedding to look forward to, we had a Royal visit, why couldn't that have been a scene of goodwill and wholesomeness in the Irish view? Because the media didn't want it to be too exposed.

Actually, I'd like to take this time to mention how much I actually like the design of the Irish Defence Forces Officer Uniforms. Reserved but dignified, if a little utilitarian. Makes for a nice contrast with the uniform of the Monegasque officer as the Sovereign prince is welcomed at McKee Barracks to a 21 gun salute and inspects the Irish Guard of Honour respectively. Although in my humble opinion things could've been better if the Republic hadn't of disbanded the Blue Hussars.

However, catching up, I am delighted to report the state visit was a resounding success, and the Irish public were introduced to reigning monarchism that could not be simply be campaigned against or capitalised by Irish Republicans. After all as I often point out in Ireland, however erroneously, monarchism is associated with Britishness, Britishness is un-Irish, therefore monarchism is un-Irish, or stupid, or just evil to those who don't care about patritoism enough to worry about their own damn culture. This cannot be done against His Serene Highness Prince Albert II, nor the Princess-to-be.

Pictured left-to-right: Mr. McAleese, Mrs. McAleese President of Ireland, His Serene Highness Prince Albert II and Charlene

Afterall, the House of Grimaldi is Roman Catholic isn't it? Suddenly the religious issue the more sectarian of Irish Nationalists have against the House of Windsor and their perception of Monarchism is thrown aschew. For most Nationalist this doesn't prove that monarchism isn't un-Irish, but it goes a long way to shake a rather ugly, unspoken, underlying belief that being a monarchist is 'un-catholic'. (This is an ugly disease of a belief that isn't pushed too strongly by the Republican movement in Ireland but it is pushed nonetheless, however covertly), Now there was the real kicker, the Sovereign Prince is, afterall, the son of an American woman of Irish and German descent, Princess Grace. Now the republicans are presented with a real problem when it comes to His Seren Highness, they cannot say he is un-Catholic, and given the Irish Attitude to welcoming even the most distant of Irish descendents, could they really say that the Prince is not Irish?

Not after attending a traditional music session in County Mayo, his ancestral home through his mother they can't.

Now, the more machievelian side of me plans to exploit this wholesale in my dealings with Irish Nationalists not convinced of the Monarchist Cause, the sort who equate monarchism with Britishness. And yes, I am sad to say, no matter how unjust people think it is, it is a given fact, there is a resounding unbelievable resentment towards 'west britonism' in Ireland, and this is the result of History, and while I'm pretty sure most Irishmen don't resent the English or Britain in general nearly as much as past chuvanism would imply. They still absolutely resent being even remotely considered 'British', which is highly ironic given the current prevalent Anglo-American culture in Ireland that is slowly poisoning us. Also you may think it unseemly of me to use the nature of the Sovereign Prince's ancestry via the good Princess Grace as political ammunition against republican nationalists here, and you'd be right, but I have to do it anyway. Irishmen respect family a tremendous deal even if it isnt overtly admitted in public *cough*political-families*cough*, and sometimes the only way you can get through to them is with a living example of how its possible to be a good catholic, of Irish descent AND a Monarchist to break through the revolutionary twattle that has brainwashed the majority of the world as well as the Irish. Sides, I need something to counter the blather over the American President's Irish Descent which the news machine in Ireland is already warming up for his potential visit.

In my next few posts I plan to deal with a few nagging issues, firstly the Issue of Jacobitism in Irish Monarchism, which I have recieved interest from a number of readers for my views on the Irish Jacobite Cause. As well as that a study on the origins of Irish Nationalism, and how my study of it has actually help foster my dissent from the 'traditional' republican view of Irish Nationalism. (Ironically enough this was also the subject of my more academic concerns in University recently) As well as my other project studies such as my Restoration series, which looking back on, needs some re-working.

Slan Go Phoile

The State of the Republic and is St.Patrick's Day worth it?

2011-03-16T17:48:00.001-07:00

This has been a long time coming, but it doesn't matter now, for I should've seen it coming. But count me for a fool for believing Fine Gael would keep some of its integrity and not coalition with Labour for the Dail.

Now before I go off on a tangent, let me make a few points clear:

- No. I fully expected Fine Gael to break most of its promises when it got into power. I expect

all parties to do this by default, its up to them to prove me wrong. We are in a Republic afterall, why do we lie to ourselves when we think our parties will be truthful with us? Or honest with themselves?

-Yes. I am well aware that Fine Gael went into coalition with Labour many times in the past, but thats why its so outrageous now.

Want to know why? Because in all of those time Fine Gael went into coalition with Labour, they were not the second largest single unified party in the Republic.

When you look at it that way, suddenly Labour being in coalition doesn't seem so samey now does it?

It was obvious from the start they were going to have to toe the EU/IMF line economically, but the biggest betrayal of this coalition is giving Labour control fo the Public Sector.

Thanks for standing up to the bullying Public Unions and unrealistic expectations in a time of global economic downturn.

I am no fool, I know politics involves a shameful amount of compromise, but when compromise is the expected rather evil rather then the necessary evil, your system is dead. I am fully prepared as to right now, declare that the Republic of Ireland is dead on its feet as a Sovereign power and as a viable model of government for anyone with a conscience, for within twenty years we will be little more then a back water province full of dependent unless something miraculous, or disastrous, occurs.

While we're on the Republic, good news is Her Majesty the Queen will make

a State visit to Ireland soon. No I am not an advocate of Ireland rejoining the commonwealth, that is ABUNDENTLY clear to anyone. What I am in favour of is treating our closest neighbour's Sovereign with the respect a foreign Head of State deserves, despite the grovelling of traitorous knaves who consider themselves 'west Britons' and moaning of Republicans who could not give a damn about the North of Ireland most days but suddenly do when the Queen shows up.

As Well as this, joyously, His Holiness Pope Benedict

XVI is expected to visit Ireland in June, it is not sure if this visit will be Formal or ecclesiastical, either way by that point, Motu Proprio, (and whatever document he is currently writing, according to Roman whispers, that reinforces Motu Proprio and forbids Bishops from interfering with

traditional Latin masses and their practice), will have been in effect since Advent 2011, and will be a delightful display of traditionalism. As you know I have been concerned over the loyalty of Irish Bishops to his Holiness and the rebellion of Liberal clergy against Motu Proprio, I am of the opinion this

visit will be an attempt by His Holiness to not only repair the damage done to the Church of Ireland and the Irish people by clerical abuse scandals, but also to reinforce His Authority in the Church to quash rebellion by his Holiness' presence.

The News of His Holiness, the Dali Llama's abdication is, to this Monarchist's ears, unwelcome and saddening and unexpected, you can read more here at the Mad One's Blog. Equally unexpected, but definitely welcome, is the announcement of a visit visit by His Holiness planned for April Next year. The small Buddhist community in Ireland will doubtlessly be overjoyed.

Speaking of Joy, now onto my distinct lack of it this day.

St.Patrick's Day is not a Holy Day of Obligation, but it is a first class Feast day allowing people to abstain from their, er, abstaining or fasting during the Lenten Period.

Nobody knows this. Most do not even care.

Nothing gets my goat more then my countrymen actively promoting the horrible stereotypes about themselves as something positive (and most of them do this) and reveling in the mediocrity that defines this island with its pre-industrial level population (a meagre 8 million if you include the North, most CITIES have more people then us. I do not care what anyone's arguments are, Ireland is not a modern first world nation by objective standards) There are scoundrels decrying the Irish Language as a dead thing and wishing for its removal fromt he curriculum, all the while certain backtrackers int he Irish times openly argue for Ireland's rejoining of the Commonwealth.

Doubtless some of you think thats a good idea, but most of you arent an Irishman, this is symbolic suicide for us and our culture, given the anglo-american culture Ireland has been suffering under in the modern age, how would rejoining the commonwealth benefit us beyond materialism? We'd only become slightly less indebted servants then we are to Europe.

But this is getting off track, this St.Patrick's day, I will not go out to the parades, for there is nothing Irish about them any more, nor will become a drunken wreck, for not only do I not drink but it would be adverse to the spirit of the celebration to begin with. St.Patrick's day is now an 'International' celebration where everyone is 'a little Irish'.

Oh alright then, so Thanksgiving is an International holiday, where we all gourge ourselves on food and are all 'a little American' and giving thanks to... God only knows who. Ironically enough some scoundrels in the Irish Times actively suggest we take on a thanksgiving-esque holiday as a 'meaningless' holiday as if it was a good thing.

I am not adverse to St.Patrick's day being celebrated outside Ireland, there are MILLIONS of people with Irish Descent, with full right to feel Irish on this day. What I am adverse to is the downplaying of Irishness to being little more then plastic bloody shamrocks blue-tacked everywhere and nothing else while the carnival dancers go about their merry way. Why the hell do we have to borrow cultural staples from Latin American countries? Are we that bankrupt? Yes or no doesn't matter, we just can't be Irish.

I am not about to Argue against Drinking, for I see nothing intrinsically wrong with it, or the practise of drinking during celebrations, its a practice older then recorded history, nor will I deny drinking is not part of our Culture, because for better or for worse it definitely is. But By God in Heaven and all of the Saints and Angels! If the Bavarians can control themselves during Octoberfest and still keep it recognisably Bavarian and German why can we not!?

Also it doesn't help that Raidió Teilifís Éireann has gone out of its way to cartoonise this Holiday http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HDSEqlw5sw&feature=featured

Is St.Patrick's Day even worth it anymore? I am so utterly disheartened that this day has been so actively maligned and parodied and cartoonised by the culture often associated with, that my very blood boils every time I turn on the news and see the intensely pathetic false patriotism and pride on display around this country, all the while the ignorent go about in their alcohol induced, vomit ridden hangovers and the evil who know exactly what they are doing, deconstructing the very meaning of being Irish with this holiday, smiling from behind their keyboards.

For what its worth, I am of course your very unhappy Servant of the Chief, and I wish you all a Happy and Holy St.Patrick's Day. Slan go Phoile

Ash Wednesday

2011-03-09T14:02:00.000-08:00

Have a good Lent! I would be happy to pray for those who request it.

Rebellion in the Irish Church

2011-03-06T08:25:00.000-08:00

Just when you think you've hit rock bottom...

The New translation of the Roman Missal is set to hit Ireland From Advent onwards, this missal, to sum it up simply if somewhat inaccurately, would enforce a stricter interpretation of the Second Vatican Council, slight reforms in the procedures and layouts in Novus Ordo Mass, and a greater liberalization of the Latin Extraordinary form (or so I'm led to believe, I welcome people to correct me in the comments if they feel I am in err).

This new Missal has got alot of liberal Catholics everywhere worried, which is what originally made me so interested in it, and I am rather shocked to learn that organizations of priests in America are advocating outright rebellion against Rome should this be implemented. The sad thing is there is an element of this rebellious spirit in the Irish Church too but I am ignorant as to its full extent, as I am fairly certain my own parish priests would submit to Rome is push comes to shove. But this element of rebellion is troublesome.

Outside of the obvious religious and social concerns I have over these developments, regular readers will recall I have previously stressed a renewal and strengthening of the Catholic Church in Ireland is needed to institute traditional conservative mentalities among the Irish from which any movement to re-establish a Gaelic monarchy can possibly be facilitated, and my own support of what I viewed as an Inquisition into the Irish clergy in the Apostolic Visitation, (again inaccurate but I liked viewing it as such), from which we have learned one of the Bishops say the Irish Church has less then ten years to avert disaster. Which when you think about it is a generous portion of time compared to the rest of Europe. Without a Strong degree of Religious Unity Ireland will sink that much faster into the pit of secularism and I do not need to point out the intrepid dangers of such a path.

Keep in mind, it was Ireland's conversion to Christianity that gave Gaelic civilization a desperate revival it needed when the rest of Europe was in its dark age, it didn't fix the problem of Irish Society being so stagnantly conservative that we were using armour and weapons designs in the 1400s that dated back to La Tene Celtic culture. If the Church can revitalize and consolidate itself, we will have a real chance to start the counter revolution properly in Ireland. Otherwise Apathy and death await the country.

I am under no illusion about these schismatics, should they as a group split from communion with Rome and go full liberal backwater, they will die out incredibly faster then the Protestant movements are. I honestly believe these to be hollow threats to scare Rome from putting its foot down as it inevitably will, sooner or later.

God, I hate Hollywood

2011-03-03T10:31:00.000-08:00

Note: The reason why I have not updated about the State of the Republic is because I needed some time after the election to calm down lest I write naught but insane drivel and make a damn fool of myself. In the meantime, lets talk about what seems to be big on the Monarchist Blogosphere right now, Monarchy in the Movies. Lets have a rant about that first.

I went to see the King's Speech last week, and if nothing else about it, it made me laugh with the interactions between His Majesty and his speech therapist. But you can read other blogs about in depth reviews of movies and the subtle untruths and liberal whitewashing strewn throughout it, I wont waste my time reviewing it in depth here. Not this is about how monarchy and anything traditional is represented in movies these days. BraveHeart, Robin Hood, Kingdom of Heaven and now an upcoming movie entitled Ironclad.

In these movies, even the romantically entertaining ones such as Braveheart and Elizabeth: The Golden Age which usually portray ONE of the monarchs as the good guy, (except in Braveheart where the portrayed Robert the Bruce as a cowardly slave to his ailing father's will who betrayed William Wallace at the crucial moment and reaped the crown anyway), The same God damn annoying tropes are seen again and again and again and again. The kings are useless, evil, or nothing without a crass, classless friend to poke them along (did I mention Braveheart made it seem as if William Wallace started off the rebellion as a Peasant?), the Heroes are cynical sceptics of the contemporary government system and, (if it has a religious bent such as in the Season of the Witch) They are also sceptics religiously by default BECAUSE GOD FORBID WARRIOR HEROES IN THE MIDDLE AGES NOT BE SCEPTICS. Another Annoying trope and one that does not limit itself to the its representation in movies set in the middle ages is the uselessness of priest characters. If they are not Fanatics, they are somber, brooding, unhappy delirious, insane or otherwise extremely unlikeable persons who NEVER answer a sceptical character's questions. Ever. Its a rule, even when the priest characters are presented as good they are never able to answer a question that even I, poor sod of a Layman could answer, A priest is a man who dedicates his life to such questions and he wouldn't even attempt an answer? Really!? Also don't get me started on supposedly Catholic characters believing in the Rapture. This trope is endemic in any and every exorcism movie, especially the latest one, The Rite which I have to admit was a little entertaining but who's glaring flaws annoyed the hell out of me.

And now this new movie, Ironclad, it has told me enough from the teaser advert and promotional poster alone to tell me it is Kingdom of Heaven meets Robin Hood. Disillusioned sceptic of a crusader returns home and rebels against his king who is of course a ruthless bloody tyrant who rules arbitrarily and the hero will fight for democracy and freedom and tolerance and blah blah blah, God why can't I go to the cinema and just be entertained anymore?

If nothing else, the new Batman Movies are in my own view immensely entertaining, but it is a sorry state of affairs when professional entertainers can present comic book characters in faithful if original lights and not History.

SOTR: Fine Gael Victory seemingly imminent

2011-02-21T04:27:00.000-08:00

In the Wake of David Quinn's slamming of the Labour Party over its Pro-Abortion policies, the Pro Life campaign in Ireland has stepped up its opposition to the Labour Party's callous canvessing at Parish Chapels after Mass. According to some blogs active in the Irish Pro Life movement, they have cited that the recent drop in poll votes for the Labour Party Is likely down to their involvement in influencing the Public over Moral Issues. David Quinn is the Director of the Iona Institute, a Conservative Roman Catholic Think Tank in Ireland who promote Religion and Family values within the country. This comes as Significent break with past relations as it was only in 2007 when the Labour TD John Burton had launched the Iona Institute's first Policy document with regards to Taxation. http://www.ionainstitute.com/

Also on the News is Enda Kenny attempted to defuse a row with Irish Trade Unions over Party Line comments over 'vested' interests on the Fine Gael website in regards to Trade Unions. David Begg, general secetary of the Congress of Irish Trade Unions is meeting with Enda to settle the Row. The Congress had asked the Line be removed over fears that a Fine Gael Government would enter prolonged confrontation with the Organisation over trade unions despite good relations in the Past.

Now with those headlines said, Recent Election polls, as reliable as they ever are heh, have shown and increase of 5 percent support for Fine Gael and a drop of 4% for Labour, with the Independents gaining as well. In all Likelihood previous predictions of a Fine Gael Majority Government with a coallition of Independents is still quite possible and Labour's chances for power is dwindling rapidly, thank God.

Now its only fair that as Enda Kenny is very likely to become An Taoiseach i should do a breif review of the Fine Gael policies and what they could potentially mean for Ireland's future. Now it goes without saying that as bad as the 'Conservative' Irish Party is to any good and Sound Catholic Irish man, nevermind a Monarchist, they are nowhere near the dirty revolutionaries that Labour is, but it still remains to be seen if they will be the lazy Traitors Fine Fail turned out to be.

The Fine Gael Policy for Reform is delightfully Called 'The Five Point plan to get Ireland working', what else is new? The Five points focus on five major Areas of concern the Party seeks to focus on, Jobs, Budget, Health, Public Sector and Politics. Yeah, a wide range huh? There is no way any government, no matter how competent could hope to fix all these issues in one or two terms, but this depends on how long the Gaels stay in Power for int he South. Lets have a breif overview of each section based on a skim reading of the PDFs they have supplied for public viewing.

JOBS: The usual hub-bub with regards to acknowledging the effects of the recession on Jobs, reducing costs, red tape regulations blah blah ''down with the beurocracy!'' Bull we expect. The meat of the issue is to support investment and support 'competitive taxes' as well as supporting Irish Businness to escape Bankruptcy and a Cabinet Office pertaining to Jobs. They do however support a shift to Export-driven-Growth which could have knock on effects to issues I have raised previously with Ireland's econemy. As well as a 'New Asia Strategy. Another promising er...promise is to encourage working age Irishmen and women to get off benefits and other such debilitating nonsense. http://finegael2011.com/pdf/WorkingforOurFuture.pdf
BUDGET: Call me a cynic, but this is the one area I do not expect any potential government to do well with in the next half a dozen terms, let alone a single term. Their policies are wide ranging and rather intelligible to a certain extent in a wide range of Taxation issues, including water charges. They've also dedicated and entire document outlining how they intend to reform Irish Banking to restore international trust in our competency. Yeah I laughed too. But give them Credit for trying. http://www.finegael2011.com/pdf/LessWasteLowerTaxesStrongerGrowth.pdf http://www.finegael2011.com/pdf/Credit_Where_Credit_is_Due.pdf
HEALTHCARE: Short and to the point, Fine Gael believes the current Healthcare system in the South is broken, and propose the Fine Gael FairCare Universal system eliminating the current public-private two tier system in the South. To this I honestly tell Fine Gael to wise the bollucs up if you'll excuse my language. The current system costs 20 Billion a year, but compare that to the Bloated monster of the NHS right across the water, or the State-crushing French Healthcare system. You want us to emulate these systems? I am not without compassion and I recognise the horrid flaws in the current Healthcare system, but total Nationalisation is not the answer, especially since it will most definitely be a more expensive failure then our current system. I'd link their Policy PDF but they do not have one on their website.
PUBLIC SECTOR: Fine Gael offers to create Smaller, better Government by cutting back room waste, destroying Quangos and shrinking the Public sector to make it more efficient (compare this policy attitude to the Healthcare suggestions if you will). Promising to reduce red tape, and increase accountability of managers and other 'middle men' as well as securing front line public services such as teachers, Gardai, as well as streamlining services etc, etc. Most of this I have no qualms with. The also hark back to budget reform and other such, but it really is a wait and see situation to how successful their policies will be. Assuming the 'like minded' independents they'll invite into Government with them agree. http://www.finegael2011.com/pdf/ReinventingGovernment.pdf
POLITICS: And this is where I flush with Embarassment. Previously I had lamblasted Labour party for 'promising' to abolish the Seanad Eireann, however it seems that Fine Gael is not entirely against this Idea either. However, Fine Gael has promised to make the issue a referendum decision, rather then a policy decision. Not the Best but at least this allows room for the more moderate minded reformists take stage in the public sphere instead of the revolutionaries. Other promises include reducing the number of politicans by 35%, (they did promise smaller government afterall), as well as Constitution Day, which the Government will put forward various suggestions for reform of the Presidency, the Dail, Ombudsmen, and the Judiciary, all of which will be put to Referendum. However I strongly disagree with the abolition of the Second House, it is not effective for Ireland that The Dail should Rule alone and other small countries with only a single house governing well are few and far between. We do not need to take the risk of following their example by abolishing a potential check on the power of Government. http://www.finegael2011.com/pdf/NewPolitics.pdf

And there we have it. Fine Gael is most certainly not the Best possible choice for Ireland's future and I have breifly outlined some of the reasons why. Unfortuneately Ireland really does not have any other choice in the matter, the next Government must be Fine Gael with Independents, we cannot afford to allow the Socialists into power. Whatever Damage Fine Gael does to Ireland it will not be as bad Labour or Sinn Fein.

Or God help us, Fine Fail.

SOTR: A One Party Government?

2011-02-17T05:29:00.001-08:00

Further development in polls in the Republic have seen a steady decline of support for the other parties in the Republic and a relative increase of support for the Fine Gael Party.

This development, while not unexpected, have raised speculators concerns at the possibility of Fine Gael forming the overwhelming majority in the Dail.

Out of practicality and sound political strategy, Fine Gael is still expected to adopt several like minded Independents as their coalition partners, ejecting any hope that Labour or Sinn Fein TDs have an easy road to shared power and if nothing else, God bless FG for that.

Oh yeah and apparently there's various candidates for the leader for the United Left Alliance, rather miniscule alliance of left wing parties in the Irish Republic. These are expected to get nowhere as you might imagine.

I can only thank the Irish Catholic Blogosphere for strongly doing what they can to expose Labour's pro-abortion tendencies to practicing Catholic voters in the Republic. My gripes with Abortion being a disaster, morally, socially and economically for Ireland being more then obvious, this further illustrates the point of keeping that hideous mutant of an ideology Labour Represents out of power. Especially since they have stated to actively seek abortion legislation in Ireland.

Back to Fine Gael however, what this change in attitudes means that, while I dont believe the majority of the Irish Republic are having an upsurge in Right wing conservative pride (although that'd be a decidedly delightful change to the rather liberal half century we just finished), it does mean that our future Government will most definitely be quite Conservative, which is good news for potential Senead Reform if any. Bringing a scalpal to the operating table where Labour would bring the Bulldozer. This doesn't mean I trust Fine Gael completely, I trust no party in any Republic to be fair, I am afterall, a Monarchist for a reason.

Fine Gael, generally though of as the most center right wing of the Irish Political spectrum (with Fine Fail being only slightly more right wing then Labour, consider that for a moment), has done something counter intuitive and that was to promise to stop the practice of candidates for the Dail knowing Basic Irish Gaelige. This, as Mac an RI points out in his blog, is mind boggling, not only is it something that no one, Right or Left, in Ireland actually wants, it goes against their own bloody history as being one of the strongest supporters of the resurrection of the Irish Language in the Nation. If I were a generous man, (and depending on my mood, I am), I would say it is a false sense of egalitarianism that is driving this promise, not to exclude the non native Irish Citizens. Which again is ridiculous when we have heard no complaints from the Immigrant community about Irish Language being thought in schools as a non-elective, or complaints about an Gaelteacht.

However this does raise the possibility that other legislation, such as the currently highly restrictive birth control and Abortion Legislation will not be exacerbated as Labour would have it. Which is good news for the Future of Ireland as the average Irish Family is just over the limit needed to sustain a viable culture without importing immigrants by the boatload to replace labour forces. There is just too much to fix and we cannot fix it all now, and this is putting to one side the Restoration I've been promoting, Ireland is still in deep trouble, and Fine Gael becoming the dominant party wont fix all these things magically, but at the very least, it will stave off the problems becoming disastrously worse.

SOTR: The Tricolour and updates to blog business

2011-02-14T04:30:00.000-08:00

As for now, my Restoration Series of blog post is on hiatus while I focus on the tumultuous events leading up to the potentially disasterous March Elections in the Republic.

In the meantime I will be posting up new twists in turns in Irish politics, the possible socio-political implications of them, and I will post my final thoughts on the election results and what it means for Ireland.

After which I will measure up the State of the Irish Republic in the 21st century and how it measures up to its Constitution, founding principles, and how said constitution and legislative changes measures up to the often Neglected Irish Proclamation of Independence and the goals it has set in achieving Ireland's status as equal in the 'great family of nations'

Also for those of you who read my previous post on the implications of the Labour party's potential in Irish politics may be eleviated in recent turns in the polls have suggested Fine Gael may form a ruling party with only a handful of independents in co-allition. A surprisingly conservative move given all things. However I will direct you to my fellow blogger Mac an Ri's post over at Scotic Monarchy, regarding fine gael and the implications of Irish men being ashamed of their Irish-ness.

I will adress this concern also in later posts as well as a thourough look at availible Nobility in Ireland and how they can be intgrated into an Irish High Kingdom as an Addendum to my Restoration series. You may be surprised at what I can show you, so interested individuals may wish to watch for such a post in the near future.

For this post I will however, focus on Ireland's flag.

It has much been discussed, even in Republican Ireland, that the nature of the Irish Tricolour ultimately does not represent the ideals of the Irish Republic to begin with. To the casual observer, IE the one who is blind to the symbolism of most flags, their would seem nothing wrong with the Irish Tricolour, afterall it represents 'Peace between Protestants and Catholics' with its colours, and has influenced similar meaning in the flags of India and the Ivory Coast. What could there be wrong with it?

Quite alot as any monarchist would tell you. Or even, any Republican worth his salt could tell you.

It is no secret the Irish Tricolour is inspired by the French Tricolour. It is supposed to, asides from peace between the dominent religions of the Island, represent the ideas of the French Revolution, Egalite, Fraternite, Liberte. These are Jacobin Ideas, and while I have ranted how republicanism is utterly alien to Irish culture and spirit. Jacobin Ideas are, or should be, Anathema, even poisonous to the Irish spirit. And frequently often are.

Who are the Jacobins you ask? The Jacobins where a group of frenchmen with radical ideas, much more radical then their contemporary Revolutionaries and are famous for exacerbating the Revolution to its infamously bloody heights. In truth what the represented is a feotal and violent form of what has become a more mature and seductive monster: Secularism and with its twin, Totalitarianism. These were the Men who rabidly preached against Religion, tradition and culture, who burned down churches, hung priests, stripped paris of its Monarchical glory and even went so far as attempting to rename days, months, restandardise years, hours of the day, calenders street names, areas, signposts. In otherwords utterly revolutionize every aspect of France, even going so far as to attempt to implement a state sponsored religion that was at once rejecting God and attempting to deify the state. All under the name of Egalite, Fraternite, Liberte.

It was these men who influenced the french tricolour and set in motion the horrors of the French Revolutionary wars and the subsequent Napoleonic wars. Barely corrected by the Treaty of Vienna. And this was the flag and values the Irish Government sought to emulate under Republicanism?

I can only assume there was an element of Ignorence in the Young and vigorously authoritarian Irish Republic. (Lets face facts, the Irish Government and Irish culture in general suited an Authoritarian regime, even a democratic one, it is just a pity it was the stale Republican model, filled with ugliness) For any student of History will tell you the Catholic Church in Ireland was the State Religion in everything but name. Literally. It was nerly stated as so in the Constitution and the same Constitution still gives special place to the Catholic Church as the Religion of the Majority today. This alone puts the Nature of the Irish Republic at extreme odds with Jacobin Ideals for obvious reason. However, this is most likely the reason why His Holiness Pope Pius XII refused to Bless the Irish Constitution.

As well as this, and something which is pointed out in Scotic Monarchy, the Government also went out of its way to promote Irish speech and literature, a revised studying of Irish history and rigorous patronage of Irish sporting culture (which thankfully remains strong and which intrinsically is an engine of Irish Nationalism and Pride in return while remaining Apolitical) and attempt to perserve elements of Irish culture which had been dieing. This smacks of Traditionalism, another aspect which the Jacobins reject. Nevermind the fact that the Irish Republic, although reluctantly, instituted the Council of CHiefs of the Name. An extremely sympathetic nod to monarchism and Traditionalism.

And Egalite speaks for itself. When has any revolutionary country been truly egalitarian without making things worse for everyone involved?

With this one must consider the Distinctly Medieval, or should I say fuedal nature of all other Irish Flags and Emblems. One need not look further then the traditional flags of the Irish Provinces, themselves representitive of great Irish Royal Dynasties, Unions and History. And are themselves radically different to the National Flag On all counts. The Traditional Ulster flag especially.

And this does not even touch upon the existence of Family crests, a distinctly medieval and traditionalist aspect of Irish Society, which every clan shares. Every single one. Nor the Existence of Lord Mayors. Not just mayors but Lord mayors. a hangover of British Occupation, but one which I have no qualsm with for the forseeable future. Even in the event of a Restoration, the existence of mayorships for towns and Cities being an elected office still sounds reasonable. ANd in my opinion thats were democracy should stay.

The only conclusion is this: The Irish flag, which itself is un-Irish in its inception, is un-Irish in its influence, it clashes with the rest of our culture and promotes an Alien Ideology, and a destructive cultural force that inspired it. It is irrepresentitive of its constitution of its current government and its people's culture and history. In fact its irrespective of the Soldiers of the original Oglah na hEireann and what the stood for (except for the Socialists). It has no affectionate nickname as other nations have for their flags, it is bland and uniform, and smacks of an Innate slave mentality and fear of Irish exceptionalism and Pride, it is anti-intuitive to progress for Irish society culture and politics. It cannot stay as the National flag should any restoration occur; primarily because it should not stay even under the current form of Government.

State of the Republic

2011-02-07T02:17:00.000-08:00

If I seem to be harping on about this topic, it is only because it needs to be hammered home again and again. The Irish Republic is in serious, serious trouble, as I have spent ample time discussing in post after post after post. Why are you so worried, you may ask me? Well, I can understand that as an avowed Absolute Monarchist, Nationalist and proponent of a radical change of the political structure of Ireland that I am, it may seem strange to some why I would not be celebrating a possible downfall of the corrupted, weak-kneed and constitutionally bank-rupt nation state the Irish Republic has become. But then that should just scare you all the more, because I am most certainly not celebrating the crisis in the Republic, and anyone with a brain should know why.

Even though it is still a long shot by most speculators opinion, there is still a sizeable chance that the party known as Irish Labour, (if you havent heard of them, let it's implications sink in first before you hit up wikipedia or google, then prepare to have your fears released), could either form a ruling party in the South in the coming elections or failing that, a co-allition party as the likely second largest party in the coming elections. Paradigm shifts aside, this is incredibly dangerous for the Irish Nation. Why? Not because of its social, political or economic goals, as debateable as those are they arent Irish Labour's real threat. Its real threat is the downright revolutionary attitude it is taking to the Irish Republic's Governmental structure and Constitution.

http://www.labour.ie/ Here's the link to their party site, knock yourselves out.

Now, rather innocently, their policies are listed under policies for reform. Looking over some of their policies, there are sweeping areas of concern that of course warrant further evaluation and consideration for a concerned voter (That priceless and mythical commodity) to mull over. Until you get to the policies for Government reform. Which while extensively detailed in the free PDF for download, (I reccommend a quick read if you have time), the policies they have decided to use as eye grabbing high-lights for Governmental Change are Alarming.

Establishing Independent Electoral commission and fiscal advisory board sound like good ideas at first, but when taken in light of some of the other proposals, such as Abolishing the Seanad Eireann (Irish Senate and Upper House of the Parliament) is an utterly radical move which would transform the Oireactas and Ireland into a Unicameral Legislature, dominated by the most popular Party. Introducing Spending Limits for local and Presidential Elections, while at first seemingly a step in fighting corruption in the office of President by preventing richer parties from dominating. However the Independent Electoral Boards puts the power in compiling electoral Registers and running elections under the authority of a single organisation, who's iunception was sponsored by the Ruling party.

Argueably the only proposal I suppose I could meet Labour halfway on is forcing TDs into longer Sitting days. But even that is thrown into doubt with the suspect motivations behind its other reform policies.

I'd feel safer if Sinn Fein got into office, at least they proved they have no idea what they're doing.

Communication

2011-01-24T02:24:00.000-08:00

The single most cirrppling hinderence to world wide monarchist organisations, and the one thing the revolutionaries indisputably command better then most monarchists; is communication and organisation.

I hate to say this but this is a true fact and it needs to be stated. What are monarchists? Generally they are people in favour of tradition, legitimate authority, with emphatise on both, and patriotic. The vast majority of the time they are also profoundly religious or have a sense of religion. In short, the things we share in common are both our greatest asset, but also indisputably make it hard for us to get along with eachother. But not in the same fashion as Revolutionaries bicker and often times kill eachother like rabid dogs.

See, the qualities of monarchism will seperate a german monarchist and a french monarchist due to pride of language, history and loyalty. The are very much the same but are incredibly different, what makes us special and different from the revolutionaries is Monarchism's demand of a higher standards on both public and personal matters, monarchist must conduct themselves in good manner as a matter of sheer principle, (one can not be a monarchist and have no respect for manners. It is disingenious.), so when monarchists disagree with eachother, and we do, Often and passionately, our squabbles themselves, the very moments when our passions rule our minds and we un-man ourselves are squabbles of a higher manner then those shameful dogfights in the revolutionary political arena. This alone is quite an accomplishment.

However the fact remains that this difference often makes Monarchists too proud to share their ideas, I oftentimes myself harp on about the intrinsic need for more monarchist thinkers in the modern era to produce books and written works, more monarchist friendly media needs to be produced and am even an avid proponent in producing propaganda for monarchism. Because these are all things the revolutionary dogs do, and they are a good century ahead of us in this regard, is it any wonder we monarchists find it so hard to convince others of our arguements? We need to communicate better, monarchists around the world need to share their ideas more, the monarchist blogosphere is a fantastic start in this respect but it is not enough, because even communists klnow the value of blogs.

A prayer request

2011-01-19T19:42:00.000-08:00

My Girlfriend's father has recently been in a car accident, he is an elderly gent on an air canister and is getting well on in his years, she will be the worse off without him should the worst happen. This is a rather personal request for their sake, I ask that you pray for them both and that her father makes a speedy recovery. Thank you.

Protectionism, and how it is neccessary

2011-01-15T21:12:00.001-08:00

Onto something that has always bugged me. Ireland's economy.

Now I will step of my high horse long enough to say this: I am well aware that this is a vast and complex issue this is, and how divisive it can be for both intelligensia and laymen to discuss, that such talks of economics can not in the traditional sense be grasped by so called 'basic understanding' for to understand economics fully is to have enough liberty to be free from its effects, and thus impossible. I confess that economics naturally lends itself to politics, ideology, bias, and culture. My American readers, (and there are a goodly number of you) are well aware of this. I know that it will be impossible for my view and my arguments to be persuasive enough to convince even a small minority of you, and those of you of a socialist bent on Market theory are likely already aware that nothing I say could convince you.

Now with that said I'll just get back onto my high horse here and say this.

There is no such thing as Monarchist Economics and such talk undermines the Principles of Monarchism. I say this firstly because, of course, everything in this blog relates to Monarchism and the Irish situation, so it needed to stated before I am mistaking for speaking for all Monarchists of my stripes, which I am not. And I say it secondly, because it is true. Monarchism, as an ideology, is an ideology of realism, one of enduring traditionalism that absorbs new ideas that strengthens it and one on which it can rely upon good thinking and sound decision making of ages to guide its judgement and hence cannot be restricted y economic theories when said theories only emerge with the times. Monarchism allows for the Sovereign, (one should note I am speaking as an Absolutist here wherein the Kingdom has the Monarch retain a certain amount of active and decision making powers as either a check on Parliament or in communion with it), allows for the sovereign to choose economic policies free from party restrictions, petty election time restraints and concerns, and for the short term popularity or unpopularity of said decisions. After all, in any monarchy the principle about what is always popular is not always right reigns, (or at least it should).

Now how does this relate to Ireland? Well you may recall my previous blog posts lamenting Ireland's shattered harp, the celtic tiger and the threat of Irish Labour, and it got me to thinking of Ireland's economic situation as a whole. And when you get down to the nitty gritty of supply and demand, it is impossible for Ireland to survive without trade, we cannot possibly be a self-sufficient country, in any sense, (I can hear the Greens cry already).

Ireland has few natural resources. We have few precious minerals we can exploit and those resources we can exploit are dwindling and were small to begin with. We have, and likely always will rely heavily on agriculture, farming and fishing, as well as tertiary goods, high end products such as electronics. One thing Ireland has always been good at is producing very high quality products in high enough quantity to warrant the interest of investors, creating jobs, stimulating the economy and other such nonsense we we rent worried about when the country was getting drunk on the celtic tiger.

Yes thats right I am seriously claiming the celtic tiger stunted the Irish Economy, much like how coffee gives you an energy boost yet stunts your overall growth. Yes it gave Ireland the money it needed to build up its infrastructure and help 'the poor man of europe' to catch up but that was not the point of it. Not at all.

In truth, while the EU was subscribing to flawed notions of unending boom, (something that'll take more then a few blog posts to go over, I assure you), it was still relying on the economic make up of Europe during the beginning of that boom, one in which France and Britain controlled the trade in western Europe. Now dont get me wrong, I am not going to berate the French and British for looking after their own interests, its what any of us would do in their place. It was this set up that the EU relied on for their overall market. For the sake of argument, Ireland had a much stronger industry, its beef and grain increased in price due to its high quality and highly sought after worldwide would bring trade to Ireland (this is an isolated example), more trade would flow Ireland's way then it normally has done, Ireland's economy would grow at a slower, but steady rate, it'd pull itself out of the depths of poverty and become a respectible power. At the same time, this would decrease the level of trade that currently goes through France and Britain, American trade, which is still highly sought after, would increasingly invest in the Irish market, to the detriment of the British, this would change the economic make up of Europe.

Solution? Outside of Embargo, the easiest is to make the poor country (Ireland) economically rely on you. The celtic tiger was just that, investment from the EU had the same effect on Ireland as handing a man who had been poor all his life $1000, he will live like he has $1,000,000. And predictably he will get drunk, squander his money and be surprised to find himself sleeping in the same gutter he was in not 20 nights before.

Now, even while this was going on, Irish Industries where hamstrung by EU and UN restrictions on fishing and farming, in fact several times farmers and fishing communities in Ireland where near up in arms over these restrictions, and in other affected areas. These stifled growth, and were further harmed by other, less then above the counter effects. International chains in Ireland, markets famed for the quality of their goods weren't using Irish made products that they were advertising. This is old news for some but in Ireland when this comes to meat sales its quite serious. When most people go to the markets and buy beef, or lamb, or fish, 98% of the times they are buying goods imported cheaply from places such as New Zealand and masqueraded as Irish meat to attract consumers. I've spet a year working in a meat packing plant for such chains to know this is a cold truth. This means that Irish products, despite high quality have to undersell both in local markets and international markets all the time. The downsides should be obvious, after all, isnt this the same thing that happened to the linen industry in Ireland 200 years ago?

The only way a truly responsible government, republican or monarchical can rectify this is through a certain degree or economic protectionism. We have to protect what industries we have in order to justify investments and improve exports and the flow of trade in Ireland and, well, to hell with Europe if such is the case, I mean why not? They say to hell with us. This will no doubt offend those who espouse laise faire policies, but my only response is complete hands off approach to the economy is the same as riding a horse without any gear. And to those Libertarians who think I am a devil for approving some interference with markets, well, I'm flattered. Since I never liked you anyway.

And really my good Gentlemen and Ladies of court, what self respecting Nation hasn't broken a few UN regulations and restrictions in self interest? Come now, lets be sensible here.

Monarchists as Revolutionaries

2010-12-31T07:01:00.000-08:00

Bear with me here for a moment Gentlemen and Ladies

Again, like some other posts before, me and my good friend, the Gent named Mars, have as we almost always do, discuss the nature of monarchism, statecraft, ideology, history and other sorts of meta-social tripe of little and great consequence. It was during such rambling discussions that he prepositioned to me that Monarchists, and by extension all Counter-Revolutionaries are, in and of themselves, Radical Revolutionaries. His logic behind this was solid and I shall promulgation it here for viewing.

The reasoning was thus, the old order of not only Europe, but the world has been destroyed, old concepts regarding civility, conduct, proper politics, government, as well as art, literature, education. Language itself is deterioriating whereas the languages of Europe were as pronounced in their complexity as any other in the world, so much so that the average lout of east London 90 years past would sound more sophisticated then whatever nonsense the local slang has devolved to nowadays. Our princes and Sovereigns are expected 'to do without' and become more and more like the common man because it is viewed as being 'right'. (for those of you who have not read the Mad One's post on the Prince not having servants at his marital cottage should go do so) A fair-weather friend of the British Monarchy though I may be, I am not at peace with this trend. It is because of this profound deconstruction of 'culture' and all that is notable about western civilization, or hell, civilization as a whole world wide that rebelling against such a profoundly popular movement is what makes us, counter revolutionaries, Monarchists, old worlders, Oligarchists whatever you identify yourself as, we are all Rebels and Revolutionaries in this sense.

We are going against what has become the established order of things in the world. We advocate radical change from what is considered the norm, (which itself, Ironically, is that radical change is good), we are standing up and telling the world that everything they believe now, literally, everything, is wrong. That the Democratist is a fool, the Republican is a liar and a thief, that the Communist is a murderer, that the Socialist is a coward and that the Secularist is a vandal and a squatter.

When viewed in this light and not in the usual centuries long span Monarchists are used to viewing in order to justify what they believe in. Suddenly it comes into perspective that we have taken the place of being the loathed, disliked degenerates that the Revolutionaries themselves once held. And when you think about this can work to be advantageous of the Monarchist movement as a whole despite our horrible lack of communication and idea sharing worldwide (I'll address this in another post), because we have largely taking to being an 'underground' movement who are not seen as a threat to the established order despite there being millions more of us now then there were when the revolutionary gangs usurped the world, and a significant portion of us are young men and women, often educated men and women too. The crumbling of the Wilsonian order of things are a sign of the failed experiemnt of the Revolution and sooner or later the old order will be resurrected, like the glorious phoenix that the Eagle is akin to.

Merry Christmas!

2010-12-24T13:31:00.000-08:00

Happy Christmas to all of my readers of the Irish Monarchist! Have a good one! Glory to the New born King who forever reigns over us!

Restoration II: Clans and the Role of the Church

2010-12-15T10:25:00.000-08:00

If a fully Irish Monarchy in today's world is to make any kind of sense, we need a ressurrection of the traditional clan mentality of the Goidelic celts. Something which still exists to an extent in both Ireland and Scotland where family ties still remain incredibly strong in comparison to the rest of western civilization. Family means alot, who you are, who's related to you by blood or marriage, who your parents were still matter a great deal and this has obvious pros and cons. Obviously this is nowhere near as strong as it used to be, the McLoughlin clan say, feels nothing for an opposing sept of the same McLoughlin clan on the other side of the island, despite both septs of the family have common shared ancestry. In fact it is no controversial thing to say that these septs dont have a chieftain, or if there is one they don't know who he is, (the Irish Clan chieftains is a male only held title while in Scotland females may hold the title, although this is rare). And here is where the role of clan chieftans of even the none royal clans can play a vital role in an Irish Monarchy in the form of a native aristocracy that will make sense to the Irish psyche, thus necessitating a renewal of the clan mentality.

The clan chieftain's role is simple, he is the head of the family. The buck of family affairs stops at him. He is by virtue the clan's 'favoured uncle'. In the old ages this would mean he was the military and political chief of his clan and the go-to person if someone wished to petition their regional king. In the modern a

ge he would provide and equally important role, that of unity and family identity, bearing importance on familial relations and establishing a deep seated sense of cultural pride which has obvious benefits. He will be often at times the only link one disparate sept of a clan shares with the larger sept, creating a sense of security. I do not intend to argue the chieftains control political power, because that would be ridiculous and unneccessary as such chieftains would have unstated influence anyway due to their position, besides, if clans had chieftain appointed representatives to their local district councils, suddenly people would have their local governments filled with people who give a damn about the condition of their roads and schools.

Clan relations would of course, cause Irish society to become more complicated and sophisticated as a result, as everyone has not only loyalty but Blood loyalty to the aristocratic ruling class, creating an inherent sense of worth and expectation of higher standards of even the lowest class of Irishman. It also dissuades revolutionary ideas, as no one really wants to kill their favourite Uncle. Well ok no one who is sane anyway. The Chieftains would of course have a keener sense of duty to their clansmen as a result.

Now such a system is not perfect but its an example of how the clan system can justify and create an intelligible aristocracy to a race of people who've only ever in recent memory been familiar with the English model, which has obvious drawbacks on the people's view of legitimacy of the monarchy.

I will touch upon the role of the Royal clans later on in this exercise, and how they relate to the local clans and the High King. Right now I wish to talk about legitimacy and the key pillar of supporting such a claim.

It is no historical secret that the celts, especially in Ireland have always been a fervently religious people. This is true both in Pagan times as it is

now in Christian Ireland. Even in today's world where the Religious establishment has been rocked by abuse cases, poor catechises of its members, corruption of its highest officials, the fact remains that Ireland is still a religious country. In the face of falling mass attendence, priesthood recruitments et al, the idea of a secular country is still an Idea most Irishman either passively dismiss with half hearted words like ''well its a nice idea'' or flat out refuse to acknowledge it as a legitimate concept. During the Christmas season this is especially evident that even with the typical modern decorations you will usually find Christian symbolism in the forms of traditional image of Christmas, especially nativity scenes, strewn absolutely everywhere. This is a country that tacitly allows preachers to give sermons and speeches on the steps of its government buildings and courthouses whether its officially against the law or not, whose government invested radio station talk hosts openly discuss theology on national radio with guests and each other, whose constitution STILL favours a quasi state religion even given all the recent troubles and promises of republicanism and constitutional betrayals said government has performed only recently. Make no mistake, the power of the Catholic Church in Ireland is still amazingly strong amongst its lapsed Catholic population for all the liberal pollution both have undergone. If there's anything the Irish are guilty of giving lip service to, its the ideas of secularism and egalitarianism.

With that said the Church is extremely important yet in the face of an Irish Restoration, it is also the single most unpredictable factor.

What I mean is this, the chance of the restoration of the High Kingdom of Ireland rests solely on a more socially and religiously conservative Ireland and the only really reliable way to guarantee that is for the Church to shake itself out of this 40 year heretical liberal reverie its been stuck in. I made a previous post on my support for the Irish Inquisition and further Inquisitions into the lives of religious and clergy, both high and low elsewhere in the world, because I fundamentally believe such investigations are needed for the Church to clean up its act, regain its moral authority in the eyes of the people, and start preaching good sense to the masses. For if it doesnt and the restoration begins, all it will take is a few liberal bishops and priests to stand against it and preach against it to awaken the dormant nationalism in the Irish working classes (which we saw in Dublin a few years back) in the favour of republicanism and the counter revolutionary movement in Ireland will be set back another century.

It all really boils down to how well the Papacy, the Curia and the magisterium clean house within the Church, something which neither the Irish people nor its government can ever have control of, (nor should they), making the Church's role ultimately necessary in legitimising an Irish monarchy and, unfortunately, the most unpredictable, as a secular monarchy is both nonsensical and unwanted in the Irish case to begin with.

Ireland cannot afford to let itself be fooled now

2010-11-21T06:40:00.000-08:00

Well the embarrassing financial situation of the republic is now open for all, the insane trust in the property development boom has ruined us. But more then that, modern Ireland's casting away of its love of tradition and history and new-found love of money, for love of money was all that defined the Irish mentality this past 20 years, especially in Dublin, has had devastating effects on the Irish Character and mentality. For example what right minded englishman would build a motorway over stonehenge? None. But the irish? Oh they think nothing of building a motorway over the seat of Irish High Kings.

That's a sample of the madness to put things into perspective.

The celtic tiger has been an unmitigated disaster, spellbinding many to the evil myth of unending growth and blinding us to the vast treasure of culture and tradition which has made us so famous and fascinating across the world. Seamus Heany wisely wrote that ''the tiger is now lasing its tail and smashing its way through the harp"

But that's not the height of it. We all know from history that socialists have a vampiric tendency to swoop down on countries in poor economic states, promising socialism will save them from their ills. In fact that is why the old Democratic Left party has renamed themselves Irish Labour, (I'll let the innuendo hang for a bit), and that Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams has now moved down into the county of Louth to campaign for the dail.

The buzzards are circling over the Irish corpse.

Do not get me wrong, I am delighted that the Euro's weakness is finally being highlighted to a great extent, but by no means am I complacent in letting the island fall for socialism. They'll destroy whats left of Ireland's already shattered harp, and replace it with the hammer they used to destroy it.

Dear Ireland, hope you like dependency

2010-11-17T12:22:00.000-08:00

Well that's that then. It looks like the European Union is going to bail out Ireland whether Ireland likes it or not.

In fairness to Cowen he at least tried to stave this off, but to no avail, the ridiculous policies of the Republic have had us relying on an unrealistic unending boom. We are no self sufficient superpower we could not realistically do well all the time, Ireland is too small with few natural resources to believe this realistically.

Projected estimates, (as reliable as they ever can be, heh) show Ireland to be in a worse off situation then Greece, the only benefit is Ireland has been relatively stable socially and politically. Europe will force us to accept the bailout lest Ireland ruin the European economy single handedly. I wonder what it'll feel like to have been literally 'bought' as a nation.

Restoration I: Hibernie Rex. Imperator Scottorum

2010-11-16T06:19:00.000-08:00

This is the first in a series of planned post I will be posting discussing the neccessities and complexities of restoring a Native Irish monarchy, the various forms this could take and the neccessary permutations of government that will result.

In this first post I will be exploring the nature of a possibly Irish Monarch, his position and duties and the meaning and impact of an Irish monarchy in today's modern age. Firstly I will be arguing whether or not 'King' alone is the right title for such a monarch.

Since antiquiety the position of the High King of all Ireland is a long recognised, highly fought over, but ultimately very weak institution within the Nation of Ireland. It is analogous to that of the position of the King of Gaul in both function and Nature. The tribes of Gaul, much like the Clans of Ireland, were fiercely independent of one another, each with their unique cultural traits to distinguish themselves from other Gauls but with enough in common to distinguish themselves as recogniseably 'Gaulish' from other Celtic nations to neccessitate the idea of a king. The throne of the king was traditionally left empty due to natural gaulish suspicion of eachother, and was intended only to be filled in times of crisis, (such as invasion by foreigners), where a suitable man would be crowned king of gaul and would act as supreme commander of all military actions of the Gauls. This was seen very famously in Vercingeterix's legendary yet tragic resistance of Roman Conquest, (who themselves had the position of Dictator for the exact same reasons as their tribal neighbours and which was usually left empty for almost the exact same reasons).

So to is the case with the Irish High King, while much of ancient Irish history is an insufferable mess of legends intermixed with real political developments, the position of the high king in Ireland is at least traceable to before the fall of the Western Roman Empire, and the Irish to their credit, always had someone ready to take up the position. Of course this usually meant the various Tuathes and their subordinate clans fought eachother in order to obtain a throne that would ironically end with none of the clans listening to their rule. Whoever gained the throne of Tara ended up only ruling the province of meath in addition to their own province, with the other kings being largely independent. This is most visible after Ireland became a largely Christian Nation, irish clans began adopting more formalised family surnames, geneaologies began to be traced and the beginnings of proper family dynasties were forming.

Now before I move on, I must say that this is exactly why the ancient Irish nation never truely united, we were proud celts, and we bloody well loved to fight eachother. It made the job of the Normans conquering us that much easier, as the old axium divide and conquer was already half achieved by the time they got here.

Now this is were I focus heavily on Brian Boru as he is commonly known, if you do not know of his tale I suggest you go research it, as I am not here to recite it to you but merely use the good king as an example. By all rights I should have something against the man, afterall it was one of my Royal Ancesters he bumped off in his quest, but I am not. Because I see what he was trying to do, what reasons he was doing it for and most importantly the sublime potential his ruthless quest held for a more glorious future for the nation as a whole extending beyond his own ambitions. And it is this that I have to speak about the nature of being a High King of Ireland, and just as importantly, Emperor of the Irish.

Long story Short, High King Brian Boru, because few would argue he was not the master of Ireland after such a long struggle, created the title of Emperor of the Irish as a style, (he did not crown himself such, for as brutal as he was he was an honest Christian man, and crowning oneself Emperor is inherent blasphemy, example, Napoleon) He did this for very practical reasons, his conquest of Ireland was in many ways special and quite different from previous High Kings, he didnt conquer purely for egotistical gain, he genuinely wanted to strengthenthe country, and he needed to make this impression on the kings of Ireland, so he styled himself as Emperor, not of the land but of the people, the Irish. The meaning was lost on no man. More to the point he was making the High Kingship hereditary, a practice not unheard of but deeply unpopular in certain sections of the islands, the dominant tradition being that royal clans had a gathering of enobled cousins to vote among themselves as to who would be the next king, primogeniture was rare. Now here is where the tragedy begins, after some elements of the clans saw the ageing Boru as weakning they struck out seeking to claim the High Kingship from him and to do so they allied with the descendents of viking settlers, enraged at such a shocking disregard for his hardwon authority, the Emperor took to the field, while he himself was too old to do battle, his first son carried his banner into the fray, (Irish Kings were very much of the older understanding of kings being by neccessity warlords as well as rulers, their participation in battle was neccessary, which speaks volumes for Brian). His son fell in battle but Brian won the day and the war, the dissenters were scattered and many expected a reckoning to come to the leaders of the traitor clans, Brian did what one would expect an old man to do in the situation immediately after the battle, he went and prayed, giving thanks to the Almighty for the deliver and for the repose of his noble son's soul. He had dismissed his bodygaurds to give chase to the enemy as he prayed in his tent and, well.. the rest is as they say, history.

The story of Brian Boru, what he did and what he represented presents a great deal of food for thought for any monarchist interested in restoring an Irish monarchy. For starters it neccesitates this: A ressurrection of clan loyalties. Their cannot be a true restoration of Ireland unless clans, and the love of expanded families, tradition, prid of name and history are fully restored so that even the poorest Irish Dockworker can hold his head high for knowing exactly who he is and bearing the family coat of arms above his door, for this is worthy and expected in any irish kingdom, as all Irish are fundamentally descended from Kings. Damn near every last one of them because of the old clan system, to ignore this is nigh treasonous if we were to establish a monarchy but I will expand on this in a later post having to do with Irish Culture.

The large point that this raises is that any Irish Kingdom,any Irish Kingdom will never be Just a Kingdom. It will always be a collection of clans and tuathes, leasri, ri, princes, knights (in the irish understanding of them), and will never be either, a federation, any kingdom of Ireland needs a High King, and thus becomes a High Kingdom. The only one in the world, (if its established that is), anything less does the nation and its fierce independence an injustice, or would truculent republicans really like to argue to me a Connaught man is the same as an Ulsterman in temperment and mannerisms?

This does neccessitate that the high King would also, by Tradition considering its establishment by Brian, would need to be an Emperor, although the title of Emperor would be a style compared to the Actual title of High King, in which the High King acts with the power and duties he is due.

Which brings me tot he functions of the High King. As High King, His Majesty would act as Head of Government with executive power. Powers which in the Republic are normally entrusted tot he Head of the Government would be lessened and some of these executive powers would be entrusted to the Throne (another advice I would give to my fellow monarchists in Ireland is that we should always refer to an Irish Monarch' s office and ministers as 'The Throne', it has a grounding, earthy effect of authority that resonates with the people and to sufficiently distinguish us in Political Culture to the British, as referring to 'The Crown' in Ireland conjurs very British imagery) The empowering of the Monarch would create a 'strong' constitutional monarchy. In this I am compromising for at heart I am and wiull always remain an Absolutist. And witht he tradition established that the monarchy has grown to weaken the parliament we will have a reversal of the effect the english civil war had on the British Monarchy. His Majesty will then have power and authority to questin the actions of the Diall Eireann, (should it remain called such in a Monarchy), making the diall Eireann Accountable constitutionally to the People WHILE making the elected representitives of the people Accountable to 'The Throne'

This will of course be a drastically radical concept some of our more constitutional brethern will find reprehensible and make outright democratists appalled. Good. Because that means Ireland has placed itself on the map politically in modern geo politics and made every sit up, take notice and more importantly take us seriously because we dare questin the paradigm in such a very real manner. And in that the Restoration has already achieved one of its aims, bringing prestige to the nation.

Specifically the Sovereign will have the usual ceremonial duties (the coronation of said Sovereign would be complex, I will outline why and how we should approach coronating an Irish Monarch in a later post dedicated tot he topic) but these will not be mentioned because they'll be covered later and I have little mind to dictate to His Majesty what he should and shouldn't be doing to display the splendour of an Irish Monarch and the symbolism he will embody. The Monarch would be default be the Commander in Chief of the Armed forces and said forces will need to take an Oath to defend their Sovereign, his successors and subjects for the glory and safety of Ireland in service to God, this oath will help prevent the Military from being legislatively hijacked by an ambitious politician while preventing the monarch from abusing his power in this regard, (an Irish warrior declaring his services to God, the Monarch and the people in that order, if a politican is trying to become a dictator it is the warrior's duty to defend the sovereign and in reverse the soldier is not obligated to obey the sovereign should he order unreasonable slaughter of Irish Subjects, for this would be abhorrant to God. This is in keeping with ancient medieval principles of chivalry where knights were not obligated to obey their lieges in similar circumstances because it would be 'unChristian'), as well as this, His Majesty has the power to propose and veto legislation, ESPECIALLY when the Council of Chiefs find themselves in agreement with His Majesty, (I will cover this further in a later post), the power to grant titles and knighthoods, (this obviously means titles will be recognised constitutionally), the power to declare a state of war or peace, the power to appoint or dismiss Taoiseachs and the power to dissolve Dialls. These will be neccessary to stipulate in a modern Irish Monarchy.

Now His Majesty's duties with regards to being 'Emperor of the Irish', Imperator Scottorum, obstensibly means His Majesty claims the loyalty of all Irishmen and Women, so that means he declares himself the Emperor over the entire Irish Diaspora, (Sovereignty over Irish Descendants in foreign lands is something the Republic does anyway, so anyone who wishes to argue this point as unjust can pretty much get tossed). This will largely be a ceremonial sovereignty as it is unlikely His Majesty can actually command their loyalty, although it gives him leave to grant any irish descendent citizenship should he or she have sufficient proof and ceremonial duties. I am of the opinion that there is in fact a great deal of Irishmen out there who'd be more then happy to claim they have an honest-to-God Emperor in any context.

Now this is all theorizing and you all are welcome to argue my points, make suggestions or ask questions with regards to this, especially as this is still ongoing, input will be invaluable.

Other posts in the Restoration Series
II) Clans and the role of Culture in an Irish Monarchy
III) The Church and the Role of Religion in an Irish Monarchy
- Supplementary post: Divine Supremecy and Tolerance: The Neccessity of State Religion and toleration of Heretics
IV) The Legislative Process in an Irish Monarchy
- Supplementary Post: Monarchist Economics and Dynamic Politics
- The Role of Chieftans and other Lords
V) The High Coronation, the true All Ireland Final
- The Role of the Council of Chieftans, Dynastic succession issues and legitimacy
- The Role of the Church
- The Role of the Monarch and the Royal Family
- Lords, Statesman and Farmers
- Final comments on the Coronation
VI) And all the world is a stage... Foreign Relations and the Role of a Monarchical Ireland in Europe and Elsewhere.

With regards to that embarrassing Socialism

2010-10-31T17:09:00.000-07:00

Dear fellow Irishmen, I shall be honest, we have had many embarrassing developments politically over the last few decades now haven't we? Oh there was that little hub-bub over the Nice treaty which we unanimously said "No!" followed by a muted "Oh alright then", followed again by another No and another Alright then to another little embarrassing treaty where we became a province of a nominally multinational empire.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't that mean we have stepped back a century?

Now while I shall leave that sentence and all its implications hang in the air like an exposed buttocks for all the world to see and hopefully kick with an iron shod boot, a rusty one too if there's any justice in the world left at all, it is not what I have come to speak to you about. And oh no! You needed fret that I shall preach to you about that other little embarrassment in the forgotten province that you either ignore or harp on about for your convenience at election time, no no no, there'd be much too much vim and vigor to pour into that little tirade. No.

What I have come to talk to you about is the fact you have Che Guevera on the face of a Boron hanging from the walls of a Sinn Fein Office next to a picture of Micheal Collins.

Now, it boggles the mind that a Boron, the classical drum of the Irish people that makes frequent appearances at many an 'Old man's bar' and folk night at any club, should have the face of a revolutionary butcher who operated halfway across the world from Ireland imprinted on it like it was honourable. Oh now don't get me wrong I am all for decorating our venerable instruments with the images and icons of our heroes and cultural history. I am merely pointing out the fact of the matter that Che Guevera is neither and doesn't deserve to be placed on the same wall as an otherwise conservative Repub

lican Revolution, oh no no, they are two different breeds of person! Not to mention class. The fact is Michael Collins is Irish and had a place on that wall in plenty of contexts of Irish politics, but Che Guevera however, does not.

And neither does his Socialism.

Of course it must be state that socialists did indeed play a part in the Easter Rising, a small part in comparison to their religious and fervently Nationalist counterparts who served as their temporary allies on the road to Communism. After all, socialism recognises no borders and openly works to destroy all nations in pursuit of this glorious revolutionary goal, but the imperialists are the bigger enemy you know? The British Empire must be defeated before the Irish Nation can be properly disassembled and the Glorious Soviet Republic established, so let us tolerate the Nationalists for now. Or have you not read Marx? Engels? Lenin? No? Well how about those Embarrassingly red posters socialists place everywhere they can with their goals spelled out in plain English?

If you have not yet got what I am trying to say here is, there is no such thing as a Socialist Nationalist. As to claim to be such suggests a fairly frightening degree of cognitive Dissonance on your part.

This is because the destruction of Nationalism, and thus of all nations, countries, states, cultures, religions, henceforth and suchwith all aspects of human civilization and the establishment of the dictatorship of the Proletariat is the stated goals of every. single. socialist. organization. individual. club. social circle. newspaper. blog. forum. party. and anything else you can think of. The only difference is how they agree upon achieving it. Now, my question to you is how can one claim to be a Nationalist, but specifically, ESPECIALLY. An Irish Nationalist, someone who loves their nation, culture, community, family, history and identity to such a point as to take on an empire or glamorize the taking on of an empire, concede to a socialist form of government as being desirable? Oh I am not unaware of socialist support for all insurrectionist groups, including the Irish one, or did you forget that little bit about socialists tolerating their ideological enemies for the sake of convenience?

Or lets jump straight to the point and that is the now socialist party, Sinn Fein, I will not deny that they supported the IRA in the North during the troubles and this endears alot of Nationalists to them, oh this will seem scandalous to my monarchist friends, but I am addressing this open letter to my fellow Irish, many of whom know firsthand what I am talking about if they've been listening to Gerry's speeches lately. Have you noticed that Gerry and other Shinners have been saying they were working toward a United, Independent and Socialist Ireland? Wait a minute. When did any soldier, volunteer or whatever you personally like to call these fighters, join the IRA in the early 20th century to fight British Rule do so because they believed in Socialism? What famous ballads do nationalists sing about their fallen heroes sing about how they died for socialism and not instead for their people or for the freedom of their country? Did Michael Collins fight for socialism? Did DeVelera fight Collins for Socialism? Does the Declaration say we wanted Socialism? Does the Constitution? What manner of Irish History or Irish Character and demeanour suggests we would readily accept a communist state? For that is surely the end goal of all socialists.

Am I, because I am a Monarchist, not also an Irish Nationalist? Do I not wish for the re-unification of Ireland? For it to be Independent? A bastion of freedom fro the Irish People? I bloody well am and bloody well do!I would love nothing more for Ireland to be united, Strong too! It is why I place so much empathise on the Sovereign! Ireland cannot be a Sovereign Nation in the truest, purest sense without an Irish Sovereign for the Irish Nation. I would like nothing more for Ireland to be Free and Green!

Green. I wonder if that means anything anymore to those parasites.

And by this I mean if you claim you are a Socialist, it is not a Green flag you fly but a Red one.

If you harbour a wish for a socialist government, or support a socialist party openly while claiming to be a Nationalist, you are not one, you are a Socialist.

And if you are a Socialist, it means you truely, do support the destruction of the Irish Nation at the most fundamental of levels and the reconstruction of some alien beast foreign to the Irish Consciousness. You are not a Nationalist, you are a Socialist.

And that means you are a traitor.

It is time for Irishmen and Irishwomen, of all classes, north or south of the border, whatever province, whatever sensibilities, whatever opinion to wake up and realise you cannot be these two things, you cannot at once be a patriot, and support socialism and be considered an honest man objectively.

I will not commit the logical fallacy and say ''no true Irishman is a Socialist'', I will however say this truism, ''no true Irish patriot can be a Socialist''

Those who claim that they are are one of three things:

Hilariously un or misinformed, an ignorant prick, or a subversive liar.

I do not care if you share my sensibilities of the need for an Irish Crown, or believe Ireland should be the Christian Nation it has been for centuries, I care only you make up your damn mind and decide which flag waves upon the battlements of your heart. The Red, or the Green.

Slan go phoile

Secret Monarchists

2010-10-03T07:15:00.000-07:00

Something I have noticed, and something I am sure we are all familiar with is that when we decide to be monarchists, we usually hide our true sentiments, both in public and even on the internet for fear of social exclusion. This is a normal human reaction, and even those who wear their monarchism on their sleeves are somewhat wary of being overly vocal, for obvious reasons. That is until we find other monarchists and suddenly we find ourselves not so utterly alien and alone. In fact Prior to this blog I was unaware of any patriotic Monarchists in Ireland, so it was an entire shot in the dark, and I've been pleased to see a few Irish monarchists and be made aware of other monarchists on my island and elsewhere. But this DOES raise a noticeable fact, it usually takes a shot in the dark to raise the awareness of monarchists anywhere.

To test this I tried out my theory on the webgame NationStates, I had created a country of my own and a backstory, then one day on the forums I revealed myself as a Monarchist and Asked if anyone else was there. The result was graciously varied, from immediate and inevitable shout downs by the communists and liberals who until recently assumed they had dominated those forums, to individuals who would tolerate certain degrees of monarchy, those who wouldn't mind, those who liked to but did not think it'd work, to proper monarchists and royalists of different stripes. You can read about this escapade here.

So what does this mean? All monarchists are in fact cowards when we're caught on our own? Most certainly not, there's plenty historical examples otherwise and even modern examples, if anything monarchists are usually brazen yet seemly people. So what does this mean essentially? This means, both in real life and on the aether, Monarchist are essentially everywhere, we are outnumbered no doubt, but there is more of us then even we are aware, and I assure you we can be found anywhere from intellectual and artistic heights to the depths of scum and villainy, (on such respectable sites, and I use that term HIGHLY in jest, such as the chans, [don't ask], and Something-Awful forums)

We just need to look for them.

The Death Penalty, and the one thing we should all agree on

2010-08-29T06:18:00.000-07:00

The Death Penalty is an awkward thing for many of us in the modern period, (or post-modern if you want to be pretentious), to discuss about, some of us support it, others don't, we necessarily must factor in religious, ethical, and moral questions and qualms about Justifications and the Humane manner of executions, leading to all sorts of divides in all sorts of camps about how far many of us will go to supporting the death penalty, or if we support it at all. If you're no stranger to the blogosphere you've likely seen this argument come up again and again, almost as often as hilariously under-informed debates, discussions and slander fests about Religion in the comments of Youtube Atheists and Religious. And like such arguements, the debate never seems to end.

As far as I've seen the same is no different in the Monarchosphere.

However I would like to propose the one crime we should all agree upon, as Monarchists, that should warrant the Death Penalty, the crime of Treason.

Now this opens up all sorts of questions and discussions over 'What is Treason?' and 'Who is a traitor in X scenario with X conditions?' Could Briton Rebel kings and queens that were brought to Rome for Judgement be considered 'Traitors'? Can Counter-Revolutionaries in Republics be considered 'Traitors'? I wont pretend that I will answer these for you, this post is about actually agreeing that the crime of Treason ITSELF be worthy of the punishment of Death.

Personally I say yes, (at great risk to my own legitimacy), if one commits Treason, such as assaulting a Sovereign with intent to Injury, defamation with intention to cause unrest, spying for a foreign power, etc, etc, etc, should truly warrant the Death penalty and here is why, in order of pettiest to severe:

-By these actions an Individual deceives his peers with no regard to their safety

-He ruins the good names of innocents connected to him by business dealings and Acquaintance

-He ruins the standing and risks the estate of his family, both immediate and extended, by his actions. Putting his own desires ahead of his House.

-His actions likely result in injury or death, or in the case of spying, risking the injury, death, and possible conquest of Thousands or Millions of his Countrymen.

-If he is a man of standing, he betrays the trust of the Lower classes, the trust of higher classes, and the trust of his Sovereign.

-If he is not a man of standing, he betrays the trust of all that he would be an upstanding Subject of merit, besmirching the image of the entire lower classes by his base actions, causing distrust suspicion and possible unrest within the nation.

-By endangering his Sovereign he not only shows his disloyalty to his nation and Countrymen, but a callous disregard for everything that Nation is, was or ever will be, by attacking and endangering the enduring symbol of the Nation's continuity, past present and future, that the Sovereign embodies.

All of these crimes show but a glimpse of the tremendous breech of justice that Treason causes, a breech that cannot be filled by simply languishing the Traitor in the worst jail in the Nation for his abominable crimes. Blood must be paid to satiate Justice in this regard, because it is simply not possible for Justice to be served any other way when the crime is against the Country as a whole, blood being spilled is an ugly necessity. It appeases the lower classes, and dignifies the upper classes, and all will know an ugly piece of history has been put to an end once this criminal has been killed. Obviously a Sovereign would have to careful that executing a traitor or rebel wont inspire something worse, as king George VI warned his Government against shooting the Easter Rising prisoners because he had the foresight to see what effect such an action would have, needless to say Parliament didn't listen to their King and here we are.

The rationale behind this would be lost on most republicans, (with the exception of the Americans), as they do not understand how Justice is done by killing the Traitor and not letting him suffer in jail for his whole life. Well, inevitable puns about 'Republican Justice' and the state of most modern Justice systems aside for now, Gents, the reasoning most monarchies, ESPECIALLY in Europe found behind this, was there was no more terrible a punishment for a Traitor's crimes then answering to the Divine for their crimes. And even then the condemned were given their chances to repent before God, not man for man could not forgive them, for their crimes before they met Him. Something that is lost on the modern world.

What do you say? Let us see if we can get another discussion going.

God Bless Geeks

2010-08-22T09:24:00.000-07:00

Greetings all, sorry for the long bout of absence, I have had to deal with malware cannibalising my computer and it was an insidious beast. Had to phone a friend who is very tech-savvy and have him instruct me with a guide he found online as my internet was shot.

All is well now and I should resume regular updating soon.

On Parliaments

2010-07-14T08:35:00.001-07:00

(I'll save my disgust at the behaviour of my fellow Irish Nationalists here in the north recently, for another post)

Ah what a blessed, ugly thing, that great and fantastic, necessary evil for running any modern nation of peoples; that towering, rotten leviathan that has the audacity to refer to itself as the State.

Oh wait no, that's the supreme court I was referring to, my apologies, this post is actually about Parliaments and how I despise them.

I will admit from this point on I am, for lack of a better term, an Absolute Monarchist, after my hatred for the audacious and preposterous idea and notion that the King would ever need to bow to parliament to perform the simplest of His duties won the war of my affections over the notion of a long lasting Nation.

I will be the first to admit that the Dail in Ireland is necessary as a legislative body for the herculean task of managing the laws of the land, but by God it should not rule the country.

My rage at Parliaments, or in America's case, the Senate and Congress, stems not only from my utter distrust of politicians for the simple vice that they are politicians, but also for the more practical reasons that every Parliament in almost every monarchy actively seeks to silence the voice of the monarch, be it Luxembourg, who's Sovereign is to have his signature revoked from the necessity of passing legislature because Grand Duke Henri dared to act upon his constitutional and just role as head of state to disagree and refuse to sign into law a piece of legislation he disagreed with, or let us go to Spain, who's evil socialist government is even now actively trying to rid Spain of its Monarchy, or how the coalition government in Britain is now pondering constitutional changes and at the same time absent mindedly forgetting they have a Queen. Or in Norway where the Monarchy is absolutely hamstrung by the ban on all noble titles by the parliament save for the monarch himself, endangering the Monarchy to an overnight destruction at any given moment in the future.

How I utterly despise the notion of parliamentarian ism, I am firmly and utterly convinced that any ounce of power given to the parliament will always form into a dagger in the back of the Monarchy, I make no apologies from my utter dislike of the idea that Parliaments should be trusted with any length of power in Constitutional Monarchies, for was it not in an emergency meeting with the French equivalent of an assembly, where His Majesty King Louis was ready to give in to some reforms that the revolution truly begin to take place? And was it not through the greed of the Parliament in England that the Stuarts had to flee from the land and brought that Arch-Heretic Cromwell to blight my own country with his own reign of terror in the name of liberty and Justice?

Parliaments are a necessary evil, and are only good when muzzled and leashed, filled with statesmen and not politicians. Otherwise they are a slow, wasteful pox eating at the organs of Nations.

Oh, and with that said, happy First annual Counter-revolution day!

Happy Annual Riot Day

2010-07-12T05:06:00.000-07:00

Saints, how I hate the twelfth...

For those unfamiliar with Irish History... Just go look it up, I have no humour to recount past history this day with regards to the Orange Order marches on July 12th here in Northern Ireland.

What I will talk about is the riots you'll sure to be hearing about soon enough, wherever you are, with regards to the parades.

Where do I start? First I guess, lets start with the parading tradition here in Northern Ireland, Parades and 'Marches' are a long standing socio-political tradition here in Ireland for damn near everyone, and alot of care and effort is put into the Cumanns who do the marching tunes and melodies for the Nationalist and Republican parades and Marches, (Please Note, although all Nationalist parades are mostly attended by your average Paddy McSeamus, similarily enough ALL said parades are distinctly Militaristic in character), the same could be said for the Orange Order Marches our Unionist counterparts, with their impeccably well dressed manner displaying their medals and tokens of office and station. These parades are always a popular sight to see for tourists, be it the shamelessly political and overtly emotive and beautiful tapestries and banners carried in Nationalist parades upon spears and Halberds, or the rousing and hypnotising order of the Orange Parades.

So whats the problem? Simple, the Orange Order Parades march through predominantly Nationalist neighbourhoods and areas of Belfast. Causing a great deal of consternation all around. And no, the Nationalists dont do likewise on similarly important holidays, such as Easter or some such. This is why I hate the 12th, I don't hate it for the History, nor do I hate it for the pride that the orange order and Unionists in general display in the parade, they have the right to do so on their own holiday. What I bloody well hate is the sheer ignorant arrogence of marching through areas where they know they will cause an uproar. My apologies to unionist readers of my blog but my anger must be made known. And to those viewing history of this island from the outside wondering why riots such as these haven't happened in a long time and that nationalists are being overall rotten about this, the nationalist community has in fact been simmering over this issue for quite some time throughout the peace process. I still remember scenes from a few years back where several nationalist residents attempted to blockade their streets or otherwise tie themselves to lamp-posts in peaceful protests of the march going down their streets, (before you ask, yes, Northern Ireland is EXACTLY as tribal as I am making it sound to be, on both sides). I know full well that the Order marches down those particular streets for tradition's sake, but I also know full well that there are indeed a great many in the Unionist community who take great joy in the anger and irritation this causes their Nationalist counterparts. Because that's exactly what this miserable little statelet needs right now, isn't it?

Oh it reminds me of that time the Orange Order tried to organise a march through Dublin city one year, (on what logical grounds no-one can tell you I assure you), and the riots and anger that ensued were LEGENDARY, and did seem to provoke a surge of National pride in the south, (despite the Irish Times trying to pin the entire riots' organisation on the provisional IRA so as to make it appear that Southern Irishmen were not nearly as hot blooded as their northern counterparts, which is of course hot bull-dung, as there were more rioting in Dublin then I have ever heard about here in the North, and caught me quite by surprise) So much drama and anger raised when the March could just take the street slightly to the left of the one it goes down, and everyone can have their traditional marches with minimal consternation. I am usually never a peace activist but this nonsense has been going on long enough.

A very Royal World Cup

2010-07-11T11:31:00.000-07:00

For those of you watching the World Cup final, I hope you, as well as the Royal families present in Johannesburg this evening, enjoy a truly great and enjoyable game, as the national teams of these two Monarchies battle it out for one of the highest sporting glories the world has to offer.

May the best team win.

They're not even trying...

2010-07-07T06:29:00.001-07:00

Every now and again, myself and my good friend Mars, who I have made mention of every now and again and who gave me the inspiration for the Pan-Monarchist flag I have put at the bottom of my blog, amuse ourselves by studying the republics of Europe in depth and realise how many trappings of the Monarchical era still remain and how deliciously oblivious many revolutionaries seem to be the are essentially walking, working, living in breathing in what is essentially 'Tory country' on a continental scale, and then bemoan how the ordinary folk are equally oblivious, for example, in France you take an investigation into its component provinces and counties you will see a WEALTH of flags, and coats of arms, most of them medieval in nature decorating France in a tapestry of colour. The same could be said of other nations.

But let me point out those who are REALLY not trying that hard to be republics,

Let us start with the federal Republic of Russia and how its office of president has the coat of arms of the Romanov Dynasty blazoned across the colour of the Nation itself. Or again, a little closer to Home, how In the Irish Republic we have the office of Uachtarán having the presidential standard consist of the Royal Blue field with the Golden Harp emblazoned upon it, the traditional royal standard of Ireland you can see still incorporated in the Royal standard of the British Royal family.

Hey, why don't we just go even further and point out how San Marino, the Oldest Republic in the World has a bloody Royal Coat of Arms and Standard.

This is not to mention the regional coats of arms of the mention Nations which I assure you also have monarchical meanings, (Ireland's provincial flags especially), why this amuses is the inescapably of Monarchism, and how the fact that all these things remain are evidence in and of themselves of humanity's longing for Monarchy, tradition, honour, grandeur and all else besides.

If only people stopped and looked hard enough.

The Irish Inquisition

2010-07-03T09:57:00.000-07:00

Something is very strange with regards to the attitudes of lay Catholics in Ireland towards the Church Hierarchy, very odd indeed.

For those keeping track with the Clerical abuse scandals should know by now that there is an Apostolic Visitation due to visit Ireland soon enough to investigate into abuses of the Church, specifically; the abuses of Priests and Bishops.

So why is this being viewed as a bad thing among lay Catholics as well as several in Religious Communities?

While reading the Irish Catholic the other day I saw an article written by a nun, supposedly passing off the Apostolic visitation as nothing more then a petty inquisition that will be both useless and will result with nothing more then an odd one sentence report filed away in'some desk drawer somewhere' and is only occurring 'because someone, somewhere decided something was wrong.

Which is something I can agree with, that someone somewhere was likely a whisper from the prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith, or His Holiness himself, and that some drawer somewhere could be the office drawer of said Prefect of what is essentially the Holy Office of the Inquisition.

Oh! So that's why they're so keen to pass it off as nothing. It is clear that even among the conservative Catholics of Ireland something is still very wrong, when an important action taken by Church Authorities, at long last, to do something about the priestly abuses, is viewed as pejorative because ''they aren't being told the results of what the Investigation will be'' until long after the Visitation is completed and said results are reviewed. I say if the religious congregations are living good and Holy lives among their lay brothers and sisters, why would they be worried?

This has similar hallmarks to the reactions of some religious communities in America after it was announced an apostolic visitation would be investigating them, where they openly advocated policies of non-co-operation, these same communities were being shown as 'undeserving victims' as they were 'working tirelessly to bring communities together of different creeds, faiths genders, etc' regardless of the heresies and lapses in honest Christian charity that were replaced good dishonest social justice. Oh wait, they didn't mention that last part, that would've been a bit honest. I am only dealing with the religious attitudes of Ireland in this post, as there was a great deal within this newspaper which angered me with their views towards the black nobility of Italy. But that is anger best reserved from a time when I need it. Like down at the shooting range.

If I am coming across a bit bitter in this post over this topic, its only because I am. The religious attitude in Ireland has been lax or even rebellious all around the population, and I have wanted something done about the priestly scandals FROM the Church Hierarchy for a great while now. And now that its here, and it is deathly serious, the seeds of discontent and dissension are beginning to blossom. As soon as the Church, after such a long, slow reaction, is attempting to do something meaningful and Genuinely Catholic about the issue

Quite frankly, the Inquisition couldn't come soon enough.

CFTHF - And so Judgement Rolls

2010-06-18T10:30:00.001-07:00

Well University life is rough in some respects I guess, learning the fine art of eating various dishes consisting entirely of beans, differing only in when, where, and how burnt they are when you cook them, realising you need a car when you get lost in the city and it takes you a full 3 hours to get back to your place, getting a letter in the mail saying you need to resit this one coursework from the previous semester that up until this point you could've sworn you never even heard about.

But such is life.

So yes, essentially I have passed my exams and my University is fully prepared to welcome me back into its cold, heartless, smothering embrace of hatred lies and small pointy objects called pens - but only if I agree to resubmit this coursework at a fix maximum mark of 40%

Seems reasonable enough I guess, resit an assessment with an unfairly fixed pass mark in order to pay my University £1300 a year in order to gain access to an under-booked library and nothing else.

Wait...

Imperialism

2010-06-17T08:48:00.000-07:00

I have read a very well thought out defence of Imperialism on The Monarchist Manifesto website, (What? You haven't heard of it? You disgust me, good sir), and it has indeed given me much food for thought, especially because as an Irishman my country has been a part of one of the Greatest Empires ever known for the majority of its time in existence as a Christian Nation. So that means that as a descendent of an Empire that I don't look upon too fondly for emotional-historical reasons, Black Baron's blog post has caused another confliction within me with regards to this topic. Normally I am quite lax with regards to Imperialism, for the simple reason it is as natural to Humankind, our collective civilisation as a species, and our history, as Monarchy is. I admire such Empires as that of the Empire of Ethiopia, the Shahanshah of Iran, Japan's and China's respective Ancient Empires, Russia, Germany and more besides, however, due to my background as an Irish Nationalist, I still retain many of such traits in my political and social thought albeit in a VERY different light to many other nationalists, as such I place such things as National Sovereignty, which in my mind cannot be truly achieved for any country unless they have a Sovereign to define it, and this is what creates a conflict between my view of Imperialism as a Monarchist, which is a positive view, and my view of Imperialism as a Nationalist, which is a negative view. I fully invite the other Irish Monarchists I have been delighted to discover reading my blog to fully chip in with their own thoughts on these matters after I have finished this post, because after all, we will have to face this issue as Monarchists sooner or later if our wish is achieved and Ireland has its own Kingdom once more.

Before I go in, we will first define what I will mean when I refer to Imperialism, in an attempt to keep this critique of Imperialism intellectual and not dominated by sneaking, unintelligent passion. By Imperialism I mean by its simplest definition, the Expansion of one's borders, for the security of your Nation, growth of one's economy, prestige and influence in world affairs. This is what I will technically call High Imperialism, because it is the most overt and image provoking type of Imperialism one thinks of. All other forms of Imperialism, Corporate growth, National Chuvanism, Jingoism, the emotionally-chargeddrivel-insult spouted by the left against anything that isn't left, etc; shall be ignored for this exercise. A least for now, I'll save them for later rants.

First I will get the emotional baggage out of the way and deal with the problem of National Sovereignty and Imperialism. The first issue is the most obvious; that of Imperialism being fundamentally the destruction of the cheapening of other Nation's Sovereignty by rights of Conquest, intimidation, or other means. Or in the case of Ireland, and Black baron's primary defence of Imperialism, Strategy. I am not so foolish as to not understand the Kingdom of England's real intent in Conquering Ireland, that of Security. England greatly feared the French or the Spanish, who Irish Tuathes were being unreasonably friendly with in English eyes, using Ireland as a base to launch invasions of England, (this is actually one of the reasons England sought to conquer Scotland as well, to prevent enemies getting in 'by the back door'), for centuries afterwards, (I'm going to skip over the second invasion of Ireland by England and the plantations that followed, that's an ugly bit of history and going over it will just raise passions in all), England has justified its conquering or Ireland by the excuse that 'the Irish could not govern themselves' that their ruling was an act of Mercy, for the most part we can safely say that is true, but only Because England destroyed all means of National Sovereignty for the Irish to begin with, we couldn't rule ourselves because our rulers were driven from the island. This also lead to a great level of clericalism in Ireland, were the peasants looked up to Priests and Bishops as rulers for lack of secular Lords, it was all we had left, especially after the plantations were most of our Aristocracy spent their time living in London and leaving their estates in Ireland in the hands of attendants to administer their rule. It was no wonder when the 18/19th century rolled around and one particularly educated priest began criticising England and saying 'They cannot rule Ireland effectively' Which caused a huge hullabaloo among intellectual circles for obvious reasons. Ireland is an example of 'Bad' Imperialism, not bad in the sense of being 'cruel' or 'evil' really, but bad in the sense of of just being poor, the population was of a different religion to the Aristocracy, had a history of poverty and poor administration, (tenet farming fiasco, random evictions which lead to controversial land law reforms which many British Monarchists today resent), and then had their parliament dissolved because 'they were unfit to rule themselves' Without even mentioning any atrocities, rebellions or whatever violence you care to mention, Irish resentment to British Rule is quite obvious, and in many respects justified, even if it wasn't poisoned by the vicious years of rebellion and the memories of the Arch Republican Heretic and Apostate, Oliver Cromwell, who's name is still quite literally used as a curse in some parts of Rural Ireland. Ironically this is also the reason why when I refer to British Rule, I refer to Parliament, after all, the Monarchs of England often bore no ill will to Ireland, except for that one rather hilarious episode involving Red Hugh and his outfoxing of the British Army, but yet again, that's another post.

I will concede however, in some respects, Imperialism has been known to instil a great sense of National pride and, ironically, Loyalty, and again as an Example, to prove my attempt at even handedness, I will use the British Empire. In this case, there is a great deal of National Identity and Pride in the cases of both India and Scotland, and these cases can be demonstrated the most clearly in respect to the Regiments of both Countries within the British Empire. Scotland has a long, illustrious and Enviable military history of tactical excellence, and stupefying feats of bravery, almost to the point were I'd dare to say the song Scotland the Brave doesn't do the Scottish justice! Someone once said; "I'd be terrified to fight the Scottish, not because they're good fighters, but because they're the only men, Man enough to go to war in sleet, hail or snow in a bloody skirt!" The uniforms of Scottish Soldiers were always recognisably 'British' but at the same time they were always recognisably 'Scottish', for centuries they have fought proudly in kilts and plumed berets and had bag pipers in their war bands instead of drummers, National identity and Pride was never dampened in Scotland even when bans on tartan designs on kilts were enacted, the Scottish wore their kilts proudly anyway, with or without their clan colours, (personally I feel the ban should be lifted by now and Scots should be allowed to wear their tartan colours on their kilts, both to bolster the sense of tradition and strengthen family values and pride, but that's just my opinion) and throughout all that time and even to this day, they see the Monarch of England as also the Monarch of Scotland, even Scottish Nationalists today, who are infamous for their disliking of the British parliament, (almost as infamous as my rabid dislike of Socialism and their affinity towards it, grrrr), bear no ill will against Her Majesty or the Royal family and many seem to even express affection for them. While India is an entirely different story to Scotland, many similarities can be seen, for a great deal of time, the King of England was also considered the Raj, or Emperor, of India, given His Majesty the hybrid title of King-Emperor. The regiments of India served the Empire with ferocity and great loyalty and courage and like the Scottish their uniforms were recognisably 'Indian', and added greatly to the tapestry of Imperial culture within Britain, in fact one of the most enduring symbols of British Imperialism that one can call to mind is an English gentleman being served by an Indian Butler/servant in full regalia and traditional Headdress, (this also goes for Sikhs as well), not the most flattering of images for Indians I grant you, but it is evident of the great cultural impact India has on the larger Empire as a whole. And India today is no worse for wear from British Imperialism, and is even expected to become a superpower in its own right sometime in the future.

Now let us come to more modern times, the age of America, the 20th and early 21st Century, and of the greatest hypocrisy of the world since the Religious Leaders of the Synagogue in the time of Christ. I am of course referring to the empire of Revolution, the domination of contemporary spiritual and intellectual cultures of Liberalism, Socialism, Environmentalism, of self hatred, of undermining one's pride and culture for the sake of one's own aggrandised version of a Utopia, that which cannot exist, that which should not exist, a Want for a land of no conflict, of communes and Peace among all, of boundless wealth and no greed, no morals. A land of Robots. A land of the dead.

Of course my boundless hatred of the liberal disease of the mind cannot be summed up. At all. And this post is hardly the best place to put it, especially since I promised to be dealing with the traditional sense of Imperialism, but it just seems so fitting to make mention of the Anti-Imperial culture. The hypocrisy of such is that it is a form of Imperialism in its own right. It seeks to expand its influence, its prestige, and seeks to destroy its enemies by means of intimidation and influence. The Empire of Revolution is, in the truest sense, an Evil Empire. An empire of falsehoods and lies, of stealth bigotry, self hatred and self destruction, an empire that has turned the once vaunted academia into a mass hive of idealogical think tanks, where true objective study is thrown out in favour of an ideologically bent lens through which to view the world, and is called Objective. Of all forms of Imperialism, this is the most despicable, and is our enemy. Its hypocrisy stems from its own denunciation of pride yet swims in its own vanity, it denounces all forms of righteous and justification for anything as wrong and invalid yet it is nothing but self-righteousness, it is this imperialism and pride that will kill us all. Literally.

I realise the above paragraph was wildly out of context but I still felt the need to express it.

Of course there is still the lingering malaise that haunts all Empires, the single greatest criticism of Imperialism and greatest argument against a nation becoming Imperial. It is an argument I expect many of you not to call to mind if you objectively considered Imperialism in the scope of history, the single greatest threat to an Empire's existence: Stagnation.

Stagnation occurs when an Empire, a social-political entity that has thrived on expansion, rapid development, progress, conquest, domination, glory, danger and respect, runs out on all of the above. This happens first when an Empire grows contented, secure in their borders, their majesty and power, there is no enemy who dares oppose it openly, there are no more lands worth expending the resources to bring under the flag, as a result the population becomes bored, and lazy, and as the population becomes bored and lazy, moral impairment occurs and this leads to a number of social ills which just harm the morale and the mentality of the empire even further, this is, I argue, what killed Rome. It turns an empire that seems like it should stand forever, into a brief, but glorious flash of history, and all that lies in the wake of its passing is crumbling moments, forgotten glory, and sadness. It killed Rome, it Killed the Ottomans, and it will kill America and its own Empire. This is, I feel, the greatest reason for me not to be supportive of Imperialism, simply because all empires fall, it is in their nature, if possible I would prefer us all to be kingdoms, or if we must have imperial styles, to be like the Empires of Japan and Ethiopia, contained, and contented, so that we would last forever. I do not want to look down upon the earth centuries after my time and see a man walk in the desert and see a ruin of King Ozymandias proudly boasting;

My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:

Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!

as a traveller simply walks on by.

Nobody likes the EU

2010-06-07T08:40:00.000-07:00

Personally, I think its about time it dawned upon the lefty Europhiles that nobody likes it, let them delude themselves into thinking more 'openness', more 'integration', more 'softness' and more ethnic diversity of the European Commission will solve the problem of making everyone else in the world hating europe for being the ghost of what it used to be, Europe.

I dont know if my fellow Europeans agree or not, but I really am foreseeing a catastrophe of WWIII proportions sometime in the future if a Miracle doesn't happen to fix this mess of a continent.

Of Riches and Royals

2010-05-21T07:52:00.001-07:00

Commonly-enough asked of monarchists is exactly why should there be a monarchy when it is so expensive to keep? Of course many of you can already answer this question in your sleep by this point in time especially given that this is basically a loaded question which is more often then not asked in rhetoric were Republican opponents don't really care if you can answer it or not. Here's a hint: make a game out of it, when asked, respond in kind and ask 'Why have a presidency when it is so expensive to run elections and to maintain it every so-and-so years?'

The difference here is that monarchists don't think of the monarchy's financial burden on society, (which is laughably small compared to the splendiferous waste of money and time Legislatures use tax payer's money on to begin with), but also of the splendour and magnificence the Monarchy represents, the sheer majesty and pageantry all symbolic of the nation's own power and prestige, they are living symbols of the Nation itself, history and its future. They are living culture, and this is true wealth of nations, where even the most financially insecure nation can stand proud amidst her neighbours. Look to Tonga, who's relatively recently crowned King was criticised for the lavish coronation ceremonies and celebrations, but who's splendour and wealth was spent so that the whole country could enjoy the momentous occasion.

But then again we cant really expect republicans and their ilk to respect this, because they do not value this aspect of humanity, (just look to the secularisation of culture here in the west, lovely, isnt it?) this is a rant I do suppose, and one you've likely heard from a thousand other blogs a thousand times but it still needs to be said. And really, that is the problem isn't it? Why are they deaf to our words and arguments? Why do our opponents consider us childish, old-fashioned, or fascistic? Why do they fear us?

Probably because unlike them we want a restoration of the souls of western society, so that our nations can once again, for better or worse economic weather, remain rich in spirit, in culture. Its no wonder Republicans grumble and grime about money in that sense, because in the end, they are in fact, writhing in spiritual poverty.

An Irish Pope

2010-05-05T11:36:00.000-07:00

This was a rather amusing idea that a friend of mine made aware to me, certain Journalists are speculating the likelihood of one Arch Bishop Diarmuid Martin could very well be in the Running to be the next Pope.

Now far be it from me to point out the outrageous, yet hilarious Irony it would be that the College of Cardinals should select the next Pope after His Holiness has gone to his reward, to be from Ireland of all places based on his clean record in terms of dealing with Clerical abuses.

But thats not really the point of this blog post, the point is really what the content of that article reveals about the intentions and bias of many journalists, especially ones that arent just outrightly hostile to the Catholic Church. That of them wanting to reform the Church to suit modern tastes.

If you take a gander at several instances in the article it is actually quite clear that the author wishes for ''a new ecclesiology'' of the Church and a more ''inclusive'' and ''transparent'' then the ''current royal model'', essentially speaking he would want a more democratic Church. Now this is what outrages me most about a lot of liberal Catholics, never mind their ambiguity on Abortion, that's a rant for later, but their disliking of what the Church is.

I have heard it in numerous places, if they don't hate all of the Church, the attack the Pope, and when they get tired of attacking the Pope, the attack the Church's hierarchical nature in general. It bloody sickens me. The mask this all under the pretence of 'wanting minimal reform' when what the want is a repeat of Vatican II in which liberal priests and theologians took the opportunity to run rampant and cause immeasurable damage to the Church and the Faithful. And yes I am cynical and bitter enough to notice that alot of the current sexual abuses happened in the period after Vatican II more then the period before and promptly call Liberal Catholics out on their almighty bullshit.

Rinse, wash, repeat, these arguments and demands for democratisation of the Church, just so they can ruin it and protestant-ise it, have been around for a good while, but it just annoys me at their leech-like opportunism to attack now.

Don't get me wrong, I still think the idea of an Irish Pope would be beautifully Ironic, especially if it is the Arch Bishop and pulls a fast one on everyone and be just as Conservative as His Holiness is, but not now, not with these liberals heaping their expectations and influence on anyone they think might be the next Pope. Still, it was fun to joke about, self depreciatingly, about a Pope who was no stranger to beer-wait a minute...

Never mind then.

Royal Motivation

2010-04-15T18:35:00.000-07:00

I'm sorry but this was too good to keep to myself. A good friend of mine sent me an image of the King of Sweden with annotations that just suited the expression on His Majesty's face so perfectly. Don't worry I'll get back to proper blogging as soon as life permits.

Otherwise His Majesty will be forced to put an end to my bullshit...

Happy St.Patrick's day!

2010-03-16T23:47:00.000-07:00

I wish you all a Happy St.Patrick's Day!

Pobal na hEireann, and why I dont know a damn thing about it

2010-03-16T08:57:00.000-07:00

Pobal na hEireann was, is, or could be a serious monarchist movement within Ireland that I have heard rumours of but the only proof I have of them is a few pages on the net written in a mix of Irish Gaelige and English. All I know of it particularly is that it has some serious policies and possible reforms planned to change the Irish Constitution to allow a Monarchy of Ireland styled in the old High Kingship with other social reform policies as outlawing abortion completely and encouraging population growth to increase the population of Ireland to a 10 Million minimum for industrial and economic growth reasons. Both such reforms I have little problem with, put another 2 mil on that estimate and i'm game.

Any way all the information I had on the group is sketchy or missing as a few geo-cites which they registered are now defunct or moved, and this post is a general plea to the community for any such links regarding information of the group, or even the remnants of the group should they have been disbanded over the years.

Hell even if you don't have information on the group, if you have any links relevant to the topic at hand feel free to post them anyway. Everything helps.

Be it ever so humble

2010-03-09T11:02:00.000-08:00

I have been gone long enough and while I have some topics to indeed blog about, such as my discovery and investigation into a certain Pobal Na hEireann, a nationalist-monarchist group active in Ireland that until a very good friend of mine, whom we shall name Mars, told me of, had remained unknown to me. As well as my theory of uniting potential noble candidates into a council of cheifs from which an Ard Ri may be elected amongst his noble peers, harkening to ancient tradition and modernised into a monarchy unique to Ireland's quirks and qualms with even room given to the Unionists of the North. Hell, why not even fill you all in on the events happening right now in Northern Ireland from a first hand perspective of a university student in Belfast itself?

But such topics of adventures, escapades and mad theories of an island of mad people, I shall instead ask a pertinent question that concerns all monarchists but especially those of the West, be they Jacobite, Loyalist, Carlist, Legitimist , Bonapartist, Orleonist, Royalist, Constitutional, Absolutist, conventional or unconventional, whatever their philosophy, Religion, qualms, thoughts or nationality. It especially concerns those who value the debating over the monarchistic ideal then the spreading of said ideal.

Why are you all so damn complacent?

This came to mind after talking to several British monarchists online and watching them debate over certain topics and an inescapable pattern occurs that annoys me. They are so blinded by their love for Her Majesty the Queen and the royal family that they almost reject any notion that any threat could oust the Monarchy from power, that the very mention of such a notion warrants the person speaking it to be slapped with a wet fish. This belief remains perplexingly strong despite the undeniable truth that the monarchy in Britain while wielding immense prestige and cultural influence around the world, holds no actual power. Normally this is fine with constitutional monarchists and other sorts but this is exactly the problem when Britain has a growing republican base in its own country, or even with the Labour party likely to get another term in parliament. Hey, they've already done what can be consider almost irreparable damage to the House of Lords during their reign, do you honestly believe they would stop there? Honestly? Them and the others of their ilk?

And its not just in Britain, oh no, the love of the British for their beloved Monarchy is admirable in the extreme and exemplary to the rest of us, there's an element of this in France, where arguably the current modern ailment began, but also surprisingly with one of the strongest monarchist movements in the whole of Europe with at the least three camps arguing amongst themselves, the Legitimists the Bonapartists and the Orleanists respectively. It is perfectly reasonable that the dispute over the throne be resolved, but while they are arguing the Republicans are making inroads in their advance to destroy the beautiful nation of France, is it not more reasonable to instill monarchist fervour in the majority of the French instead and then argue who should have the throne? At least that way we'd be closer to actually having someone on the French throne.

I am of course running my mouth, and I admit I do not know the complexities or the ideals of monarchists in France, Britain, and everywhere else, but my annoyances stand. Of course the curse of monarchism is of course, pride, and it is often this pride that prevents us from truly seeing what is in front of us or more accurately what the truth is:

We are outnumbered, outgunned and down to our last few reigning monarchs whom most of us have something against for one reason or another, that HM Juan Carlos is still un-coronated or that Her Majesty the Queen of England is of the wrong royal line or whatever else have you. The fact of the matter is if we dont do something we have lost everything.

Do not get me wrong, it is as important as everything else that we discuss the finer points of monarchism, the points of conflict and the ironing out of philosophical wrinkles to the point of death, but not at the expense of garnering more support for monarchism as a whole. Why not make posters promoting the Royal House? Why not create flyers? Are these things beneath us? Is it beneath monarchism? Because our enemies are sure as hell counting on us to think so. If you have friends why not talk to them about it? Why not discuss it with your intellectual peers or other sorts? Hell why not even family? We might as well start somewhere because doing nothing is, surprise surprise, getting us nowhere.

A long overdue update - Not dead yet

2009-09-25T18:34:00.001-07:00

My sincere apologies for disappearing there, with sorting out my University affairs and several other private troubles I will not bother you all with I am back.

If any of you feel inclined to contact with me in a more direct manner, you may do so either via Instant messenger or humble email with this address irishmonarchist 'at' hotmail.co.uk

It would be the wiser option, I do not believe I'll be able to keep track with this blog regularly till at least All Hollow's eve

Euro Wars V: The Lisbonites strike back

2009-08-30T09:15:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CFTHF - The Irish Monarchist is not a total idiot afterall...

2009-08-20T12:57:00.000-07:00

CFTHF titled posts from now on are for posts not directly related to Monarchy, Politics, Ireland or other events of import and apply directly to the Servent of the Cheif directly, (AKA me), to alert readers ahead of time to skip these posts in search of more important ones.

I have reported this in more candid and teenage language in some other places, but because I want to keep this blog half way respectable in light of parties interested, I'll be breif and to the point. I have hence received results from ym A Level examinations I had completed earlier this summer and can now inform Ladies and Gentlemen present that I have passed with a degree of satisfaction, the results where not as great as one could dream, but most certainly better then my cynical mind was expecting. With regards to my university choices, I have gained an unconditional offer for my back up choice, which I do not neccesarily want, but my first choice is still undecided. So I am taking it upon myself to go straight up to Belfast, Kindly knock on the university's proverbial door, and request to sort out my University ills in a kindly and gentle manner.

All else fails I'll boot the door down and take the class anyway. I jest of course. But don't think I hadn't considered it.

Scratch that last part, turns out I checked, through the mystical power of the aethernet, that I have been granted an unconditional offer from the University for my first Chocie which was Law with politics.

As I have always believed, God has a wonderful sense of Humour, and laughs at the cynicism I have been veiwing through my mind with by answering my prayers in such a spectacular fashion.

And I have learned that, via my friend MadMonarchist, that his Serene Highness, Prince Albert II of Monacco is making plans for a visit to Ireland. I shall do some research into this myself and have a newer, more revelant post then this current one you are hurting your eyes to read, up later on tonight.

Till then,

Slan go Phoile.

Monarchist Propaganda: Le Monarchiste Militant

2009-08-13T18:11:00.000-07:00

A piece of Monarchist propaganda I had completed today. I pointedly decided to make the soldier figure wear a gasmask, whereas in popular culture the gasmask is a symbol of decay and disease, I use it here to symbolise it , in conjunction with Monarchy, as breath of fresh air from the poisonous clouds of Republicanism, Socialism and the ills of today's normal society. You are free to determine what interpretations you like from this piece, as well as this you are free to use this piece without my permission or even with Credit to whatever end you wish, even to alter it if it suits you, this is a propaganda piece, not something I own.

Slan go Phoile

A question for the Counter Revolutionists

2009-08-13T10:51:00.000-07:00

While wondering about how I was going to start off this blog and reading several other people's blogs, this question which I had thought of before came to my mind.

"How is nobility defined?"

And no i do not mean the philosophical tripe regarding the nobility of one's spirit, or attitude or state of mind. But instead, The Nobility. In the past, there was one key characteristic of noble families, especially in Britain. They were the landed gentry/classes, and had extensive properties. As such this meant they had all the money they would ever need or want, thus, in theory eliminating the want for more, so that instead of working to increase one's income one worked as the Father of the people in your area .

Now I ask this question to Counter Revolutionaries because we all seek the revival and reinstitution of Monarchy, everywhere. And with Monarchy, comes the inevitable Noble families, (or to the egalitarians out there who cannot stomach such filthy and unequal language coming forth from my typing hands, "The old Money", or "The Elites"), who will gain recognition within the system as important. Now in today's world, anyone who works hard enough for it can obtain property for themselves, I see no reason why this is a bad thing, my own father worked hard all his life from a large family who had very little to his own small family who have much. The problem here is that if they are noble because they are landed gentry and have been so for a long time, how can this work intoday's world where a Large capitalist may own more land then a minor nobleman? From that point on does the Capitalist, provided his family own the land for succeeding generations become noble? Does the minor nobleman lose his titles as a result? Please remember I ask this in the context of Modern day Monarchical system.

Slan go phoile

First Post for Irish Monarchism

2009-08-12T14:56:00.001-07:00

Hellow and good evening Ladies and Gentlemen. I have started this blog as I have, over the years, moved from my position as an Irish Republican to the relatively unheard of political and in some peoples' opinion, pyscologically questionable position as an Irish Monarchist.

And before you ask, I am not a supportor of the British Monarchism in Ireland, I actually have my reasoning worked out, but to put it quite simply, I do not support British Rule in Ireland as in short this entails supporting the poor and downright malign treatment of the Irish by the British Government which acted in the Crown's name over the centuries, and while I am not an Irish Republican, I am still an Irish Nationalist, (and to everyone concerned, yes there is a difference if you bothered looking), and it would offend me on a fundamental level if I did. I do not hate the Crown, and I do not hate the Monarchs of Britain, I hate their governments which acted in their name.

Oh and I am quite aware that there is a surprising amount of support for Irish Monarchism from the Irish Diaspora around the world, but I am, as far as I am aware however, the only Irish Monarchist who was born, raised and still lives in Ireland.

This blog will of course be detailing developments and events in the media and the world over regarding Monarchism, but I will also be posting tid bits of my thinking regarding monarchism and its place in the world as a viable alternative to Representitive Democracy and Republicanism at large, as well as my opinions on socio-political matters, and ultimately, use this blog to help promote the idea of a native Moarchy in Ireland to my fellow Irish and all interested parties.

Gia Duit agus Slan Go Phoile.