Monarchism, the Nationalist's Guide part 1

It has already been put forward on this blog many times that in order to successfully propagate monarchism as an ideology to my fellow Irishmen several things need to made clear. (This is only terms of propagation of Monarchy as an idea, not touching upon the other myriad cultural factors that need to change in order for a successful restoration)

1) The distinction between Irish Nationalism as a sociopolitical force and the Republican Ideology. Defining what Irish Nationalism actually pertains to since its inception, its modern permutations and driving a wedge between this understanding and the Republican ideology.

And

2) The disassociation of the idea of Monarchy and Monarchism from Britain. This will be done by emphasising the long tradition of Irish Kingsmen both at home and abroad and Ireland's relations with other monarchies, particularly those of France and Spain, throughout the centuries.

We shall deal with the first factor for now.

What was Irish Nationalism and what is it now?:
Nationalism in Ireland did not actually exist until the late 19th century. Prior to this, the Irish people had always possessed a fierce sense of identity, culture and a sort of National pride. However the War of the three kingdoms, Cromwell's effective destruction of Gaelic Civilization, the flight of the earls and the penal laws had essentially dismantled Irish culture to the point almost nothing remained and the Irish themselves, almost wholly, existed as a race made up entirely of peasants, prisoners in their own land. Oh surely we Irish made fine peasantry, in fact we were once described as the finest peasantry in the world for a time. But for too long that had defined the Irish character, and the English notion that the Irish were 'unfit' to govern ourselves.

However stirrings began in the 19th century when largely protestant intellectuals began flirting with the ideas of 'Irishness' and appeals for greater legislative autonomy for Ireland in the form of a parliament in Dublin. During this period three forms of Irish 'Nationalism' emerged which were distinct both from eachother and, on a whole, largely distinct from other forms of nationalism found in Europe. These three strands of Nationalism were Cultural, Political and Intellectual. The movement grew to become something of a force in Imperial politics when the Home Rule question and the growing Catholic Middle class in Ireland putting their own weight behind the push for legislative independence (as well as further associating Nationalism with Catholicism which alienated many protestants) led to increasingly strengthened Home Rule bills which had almost resulted in a separate Parliament for Dublin had it not been for the outbreak of World War One.

What is casually looked over quite often when studying this period of History, (late 19th-early 20th century Ireland), is the lack of violent revolution in Ireland despite the tremendous popular support the home rule movement enjoyed. More specifically why there was a lack of violent Revolution. This is because Irish Nationalism, from its inception right up to the Easter Rising, had been a prominently monarchist affair, and the vast majority of Irish 'Nationalists' were in fact Irish 'Monarchists'.

This is particularly evident when looking both at the nature of the Home Rule bills themselves, what they sough to achieve and looking at the revolutionary elements of Irish Nationalism that did exist and why they failed to achieve dominance in the Nationalist movement.

The Home Rules bills were and always have been, about the formation of a Parliament in Dublin to deal with Irish Affairs separately from Imperial affairs. Nowhere in these bills did the Irish Nationalists seek outright independence from the Empire in fact, despite the horrible treatment and misgoverning of Ireland by England, the vast majority of Irish where loyalists to the King and the Empire. The Home Rule bills at most sought an effective end to the lie of the United Kingdom. That being, it cannot be the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland when the territories are only treated as one kingdom with one parliament when there is obvious difference in culture, identity and needs between the two kingdoms. Home Rulers sought, at times, the creation of a Personal Union, a Parliament in Dublin and London with the King being the Head of state for both, the sovereign being the 'King of Ireland' in an official context. In fact even one of the leaders of Sinn Fein, the then 'dual-monarchist' party, envisioned a union along Austro-Hungarian lines.

The British of course, would never have it, and it was more blind pride and prejudice then practicality that fueled Tory resistance to the Home Rule movement. That a nation of 'peasents', Catholic ones at that, being the equal to the English was unthinkable for many in britain. In fact, the prejudice was so strong that a comment by an Irish priest stating that, truthfully, the incompetence and cruelty of English governance was such that the English were unfit to rule Ireland, had caused a furious uproar and shock amongst the upper classes there.

Furthermore, under the New Departure initiatives, the attempts to find common ground between Irish Nationalists and Irish Republicans is proof that in the beginnings, there really was little common ground between Nationalists and Republicans in Ireland.

In fact, such was the profound monarchism of the Irish Nationalist movement in the early 20th century that DeVelera himself had to promise the electorate that he would allow a referendum for the formation of an Irish Kingdom should such a thing come to pass.

How quickly we forget history.

In the modern Context, Irish Nationalism, especially here in the North has been so intertwined with Irish Republicanism that it seems to be an impossible knot to untangle. I will attempt to explain the ways in which Irish Nationalists, through the education of history, can untangle the snarl of republicanism, and return to the true implications of their own social identity in my next part.

The Standards of Space Aliens

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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