Interesting times

Well this has been a busy start to the new year. Some of you may remember my fear mongering over a summit to solve the EU debt crisis last year and how, if the leaders of the European nations did not come to an agreement to restore confidence in the euro it would spell a disaster that would domino around the world.

Now of course any reasonable person would have and should have, slapped me about the head for thinking that the European powers WOULDN'T submit to whatever deal was required to restore confidence, and indeed, that seems to have been the case, with the only surprise being Mr.Cameron conceding to his Tory backbenchers and keeping Britain out of the deal. Which Sarkozy was all to happy to allow in all honesty.

Now lets look at the state of affairs, there is a new tax being imposed regarding Financial transactions by Sarkozy and Merkel over the member states has caused some amount of alarm, with even Ireland's own government making overtures to align with Britain in opposing the tax, citing it is oppressive to their businesses. Now, I wont be expressing the alarmism in the stalwart anti-EU newspaper the Daily Express in citing it would bankrupt Britain, but it is a threat to their businesses nonetheless. All is not well in Europe.

As well as that we have the puppet technocratic governments of Greece and Italy trying their damnedest to restore viability in their own markets and implement austerity measures to no noticeable effect so far. It really does not look well when your own puppet government cannot do what you want for a country.

And not only that, there are tremors working along the foetid underbelly of the economic class that confidence in the euro's viability is still shaky despite the austerity measures put in place, now with rumours that it may not even last till the summer before the euro collapses. I doubt that, learning from my previous alarmism, and fully expect further committees and conferences and summits of all sorts to try to restore confidence and cut spending. Which will again, only prolong the inevitable.



Here in Ireland meanwhile, our government is entertaining thoughts of cowtowing to the European Court of Human Right's ruling in favour of liberalizing abortion laws in the Republic. This is a preposterous turn of events. First of all, there can be no altering of the Irish constitution without a referendum or, as is the case with the Lisbon treaty, direct pressure from the EU institutions. The European court of Human Rights, despite its name, is NOT an institution of the overall European Union and is seperate and distinct from the Union, its rulings have no actual authority over nation states, even member states of the Union such as Ireland. This is not to say that many nations, including the EU itself, takes rulings of the court into consideration when making legislations, but its power is limited to solely that. Irish pro-life groups are correct in opposing this movement and in laying siege to the government proclaiming that the Republic does not have to obey the commands of the court. Doubtless the secularists in power will do everything in their abilities to avoid allowing this matter to go to referendum, which will surely sound a death knell to bringing abortion to greater availability in Ireland.

But apparently, the demise of the European dream of a US style economic union of states seems to be the least troubling thing on our overlord's minds right now.



By now word has reached the ears of practically everybody of the bold steps taken by Hungary in rejecting the secularism of our age.

Admittedly, the first inklings I had heard of the changes occurring in Hungary where, in all honesty, a thread on a forum board in the back of beyond on the internet, where some left leaning poster had linked to some article or other, (the article was probably in Hungarian, I wasn't in the mood for hitting Google translate at the time and reading through it), and proclaiming some alarmist concerns that Hungary was turning into a fascist state. Now at the time I just passed it off, so a European country elected a conservative government and left wingnuts were proclaiming it as fascist. What else is new? I went on with my business.

Turns out now I should have paid closer intention, the events in Hungary are startling and unprecedented since the inception of the European Union. In fact, it is borderline counter-revolutionary and I for one sure as hell never saw this coming.

The Hungarians radically conservative alterations of the Constitution, effectively declaring Hungary a 'Catholic' State, rejecting secularism and rabidly condemning communism and socialism, as well as forbidding non-Hungarians from high positions in Hungary's media as well as, horrors of horrors, joy of joys, removing the word Republic from Hungary's official name, has absolutely terrified the elites in not only Brussels, but also, apparently, scared the hell out of the Obama Administration in the United States. This is easily deduced from both administrations denouncing Hungary's moves as dangerous and even badnying about the word 'fascist' themselves with regards to Hungary's change of status.

Now I will admit, they are right to be afraid, Hungary, along with some eastern European members of the EU, are very conservative countries, and the precedence set by Hungary, which mind, technically does not breach any major EU directives - yet anyway, could start a stronger habit of member states asserting their right to self-determination, a cardinal sin in the growing centralization of the EU. Would anyone really be surprised if this brave direction inspired, say, the conservatives in Poland to redouble their efforts and continue along a similar line? And if another country follows and thereby legitimizing the self determination of Hungary, others may follow. And the EU establishment can't have that now, can it?

Now my fellow monarchists may be hoping for a restoration with the removal of the word 'Republic' from Hungary's official name, but I again urge caution. Counter-revolutionary many of the changes in Hungary's constitution may be, it does not neccessarily foreshadow a monarchical restoration in that nation, though it seems the local Archduke would be ready if they restoration movement there pulls through. THEN we'll see the EU's true colours when it reacts to such scandalous insubordination from a 'mere' member state.

These are, indeed, interesting times we are living in, slan go phoile.

Friday: Operation Unthinkable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy Christmas.

"Sort out your countries - Or else"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God this is depressing, here, have a puppy.

Nuetrality Part 3: A compendium of responses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Shattered Union Cometh

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.