''Rights''

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.

God, I hate Hollywood

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.

With regards to that embarrassing Socialism

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

On Parliaments

(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!

They're not even trying...

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.

Of Riches and Royals

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.