Monarchists as Revolutionaries

Bear with me here for a moment Gentlemen and Ladies

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

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

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

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

Merry Christmas!

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

Restoration II: Clans and the Role of the Church

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other posts in the Restoration Series

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

Ireland cannot afford to let itself be fooled now

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

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

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

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

The buzzards are circling over the Irish corpse.

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

Dear Ireland, hope you like dependency

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

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

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

Restoration I: Hibernie Rex. Imperator Scottorum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With regards to that embarrassing Socialism

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

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

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

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

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

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

And neither does his Socialism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that means you are a traitor.

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

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

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

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

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

Slan go phoile

Secret Monarchists

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

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

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

We just need to look for them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God Bless Geeks

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

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