Future monarchy, population control and a place in the sun

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overpopulation!: Hurr durr...

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

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

Irish Voters need to Vote with their morality

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

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

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

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

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

The Uselessness of Enda Kenny's Posturing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOTR: Fine Gael Victory seemingly imminent

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: The Tricolour and updates to blog business

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

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

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.