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.

''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.

Nuetrality Part 3: A compendium of responses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neutrality part 2: The Eager young men of Eire

(normally I'd be wont to comment on the English Riots and speculate at their causes, but presently I am content to watch the liberal scum there blame the cuts, the right wingers talking up a game of clamping down, the tension in English society and the future of that nation be put to death by ignoring the deeper causes of these riots. Some of which are obvious. The political football match is in its second half and it is fascinating to watch. Like a speeding train hurtling towards a sharp corner near a cliff side.)

Earlier this year, one week in spring I was on a late night train to Belfast, heading to my student accommodations for the university week ahead. I was tired and had half dozed off on the train, putting down the gothic fantasy novel I had been reading for my amusement, (I am always one for a good blood and thunder story), and my head up against the vibrating window for comfort. Some lads from the Republic where in the same train compartment and a few seats ahead of me and they were discussing life and its miscellaneous shenanigans, joking and fooling around as young men do. It wasn't until one of the girls with them had been asking them where they were heading that I brought myself back to consciousness in fascination and had overheard what they were going to do once they got to Belfast.

And it was when I had heard their designs I took proper notice of the kit bags they had with them and the nature of the accutriments adorning them.

The young men where heading north to try their fortune in the British Army regiments. With jobs scarce and many of them, judging by their earlier inconsequential chatter, had an innate fascination with the military and military life and history, often throughout their conversation exchanging knowledge on weapons and historic generals and battles. Things I myself enjoy. They had no real love of Britain, but they weren't joining the British Army because they did, as the girl had suggested, and they protested to the girl, that many other young Irish lads before them didnt join the British army for their love of it either. They wanted adventure and the chance to were uniforms, to serve, to protect and if neccessary fight. They had possessed within them a warrior calling.

When questioned as to why they didn't just join the Irish Defense Forces, I was dismayed and had assumed prematurely that they did not do so because of poor pay or perhaps 'it wasnt exciting enough' or maybe they liked the idea of being in the military and didn't feel patriotic or didn't love their country enough and decided to go to the British Army because 'that's where the action is'. I was very cynical at the time. And to my delight and surprise, i found out that each of the young men and many of their friends had already tried ''but the defence forces didn't have enough room for that many applicants'' Scoffing the girl had joked ''What? not enough room for all 7 of you?" to which one of the young men replied "not enough room for all 4,000 of us"

Then I had really perked up. The defence forces needed forty new recruits for positions in the army had an overwhelmingly enthusiastic response for the positions, but because of some quota or some other bueracratic shenanigans, they could accept no more then forty.

Over 4,000 young men, eager and ready to join the Military at such a scant excuse, and here I was, on a train with 7 such fine young men, finding themselves frustrated at not being able to fulfil their callings and being forced to look elsewhere, even to Britain, for military employment.

And that, my friends, is a scandal.

I had in my previous post bemoaned the negative effects neutrality had on us as an economic power and now I present another effect. Here we are, crippling ourselves with our cowardly fear of brandishing a stick at our sides like all our brother nations do, even the other neutral ones, preferring to whimper and cower in a small corner and hope to God none of the bigger dogs in the pack take too much notice of us.

We have a rather large pool of eager young men wanting desperately to serve their country and here we are content to waste their callings on other nations, denounce them as bloodthirsty for even wanting to be part of a stronger national army for the good of the country, and cradle our precious, useless, false idol of neutrality as if it is doing us any favours. It failed during the second world war, it is failing us now by crippling our economic growth by making us to be dependent on other nations for security and it will damn sure fail us whent he next great global conflageration rolls around.

Or do you really think 5 patrol boats for a navy and desperate pleas of recognizing some by then useless neutrality proclamation will spare us the wrath of whatever new hitlerite monster the future will throw at us?

Odd rumblings

Enda Kenny denounced the Vatican directly after the Cloyne report and I already covered how this was little more then political scapegoating both to draw attention away from the Hospital scandal and the state's failures also mentioned in the report.

The Confessional Seal legislation which would be the most ineffectual law in Irish History in the pursuit of protecting children.

And of course, FG Cait Keane urging that the Eucharistic congress would be inappropriate to be held in phoenix park....despite the fact it is not planned for Phoenix Park but for the RDS and Croke Park.

And in all three cases the Association of Catholic Priests, a liberal group of clerics opposed to Orthodoxy and Sensible religion and moral character in general, has been cheering Fine Gael on.

Excuse me but what the hell is this utter horse dung?

While I am awaiting what is rumoured to be a strong Papal Nuncio response to the Cloyne Report and the fractious relationship between Dublin and Rome, can someone please give me one good reason why we haven't tossed this filth out of the sacristies?

I know I am for a proper Inquisition into the Affairs of the Irish Church for some time now and the results of an initial Apostolic Investigation, although the full report hasnt been disclosed, is that the Irish Church is ten years away from an irreversible disaster. And had been hoping with the Eucharistic Congress and the Pope's own schedualed visit to Ireland next year, something would at least be done. I had even mentioned my dismay at the emergence of religious rebellion earlier this year with regards to this same organization and I am only increasingly vindicated. And on top of this a leading Theologian has called for all Bishops of Ireland appointed before 2003 to be removed and replaced with a reshuffling of diocese. A move I fully support because Rome has neglected Ireland for the past century and the Bishops have grown lazy and indolent at best, and outright heretical at worst. And I see the worst elements of this heretical malaise at the heart of Irish Spirituality in the Association and its persistent political opportunism. I would bet money that if at all possible they would have Dublin break from Rome and create an established State Church. Remind you of Anyone?

I have never been one for anti-clericalism, a respect for the divine and a respect for the clergy is as old as the Irish character itself, stretching back even into our pagan days. But be that as it may I wish for more public denounciation of the Association from prominent Catholics and for the Bishops to submit to Rome. I have made it quite clear any lasting Irish Restoration cannot be built on a secular foundation, the wolves of revolution will just tear at it till it is nought but bone. I just wish for something drastic to be done. Very badly.

Slan go Phoile.

The paralysis of Neutrality

When the subject of militarism or war is brought up in Ireland you'll get a variety of opinions on various matters pertaining to just about everything besides the modern Irish Military. And even if you direct the conversation towards the topic you will find the majority of the people you meet will have not given it considerable thought, and if they do they will usually fall into rough groupings of liberals grumbling about Irish Neutrality to try to steer the conversation away fromt he topic and that'd be the end of it. Either that or you'll end up in the other secular camp that shout vehemently about the nature of chaplaincies in the Irish armed forces. In either case the result is the same.

For some bizarre reason the modern Irishman is hostile to any state run body of National pride and masculine projection made manifest in physical form.

I could go on with touching upon the hypocrisies of Irish Republicans on the matter but that would give the impression this problem is limited to them in some way.

In truth the modern Irish mind is so dedicated to Neutrality, long instituted since the founding of the Republic, that it forgets both the disservice it has done us in the past and lamenting the memory of why it was instituted in the first place.

When the Republic was young, the Irish army was not vast, we had virtually no navy or fighting aircraft, we were in every essence a fledgling state and proclaiming neutrality was a wise move to protect ourselves until we had the means with which to defend ourselves. Europe was a very dangerous place at the time. The problem with this policy happened early on, when the second world war rolled around our Neutrality cost us the favour of the Allied forces, with whom we were actively, if not admittedly, aiding in the war. Americans refuelled their plans here and their troops did exercises and did bunk here, but because we never actively taken part in the war effort when we were under the best protection to do so (what with England being a good buffer state between us and Hitler), we were penalised by our erstwhile allies with poor trade deals. And got bombed by the occassional Luftwaffe sortie for our troubles regardless. Now, nearly a century onwards pray tell why are we still neutral?

I ask that question earnestly, why are we still neutral? Look across Europe, to Switzerland and Austria, both neutral countries, both with fine military traditions and proud displays of patriotism (in comparison to the Irishman's own at any rate) It is all well and fine for them to remain neutral, being better equipped to fuel their own needs and sharing mostly land borders they need not worry for want of battleships. Neutrality does these countries well because they are fully prepared to go to war should that neutrality fail them. Has it been doing us well? we are on the corner of Europe, who is our enemy? England? They could care less for conquest these days, the Scots or the welsh? Their own grievances with the English they could care less about us, it is no secret the French are jealous of our corporate taxes making us more competitive economically, but they will never go to war with us for such a petty prize, who then? The Americans? Icelanders? Neutrality is doing us nothing but hampering us economically.

Upon talking with friends at University about the Ireland's economic nature and how we are perfectly poised on a trade route between the North Americas and Europe, and lamenting how no one seems to have the will to push us forward to be more prominent in markets we already excel in and to feed a burgeoning trading industry among our coastal cities. Lord knows the poorer regions of Ireland would be grateful for it and the entire nation would benefit from it. But even if in our discussions I find that my compatriots are in agreement with me in this issue, they will ask, 'But will that mean we will have to give up our neutrality?' and I am dumbstruck.

I have argued before that if Ireland did cease upon a greater economic destiny Europe would take note and our rise would upset the market balances in Western Europe and many a man would direct their Ire to Ireland. And yes, this would mean we would have to sacrifice our neutrality. For to become a player on the world stage, however small, we will have to show we are prepared for the consequences of winning over the pot at the poker table. But because of this bizarre and unnecessary neutral mentality we are paralysed with fear of success, for success brings antagonism. Who dares, wins, and it is the Pious, masculine nation who values its honour and integrity in all things, even its approach to material success, that will be smiled upon by God. For if we never play the game because of fear, then we will never win.

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?

Stop Labour subverting Fine Gael's pro-life commitments. Take a minute to send an online postcard

Dear Friend

Strong elements in Government, particularly in the Labour Party, are

pressing hard to have abortion legalised. They are doing everything

to create the impression that Ireland is obliged to legislate for

abortion following the recent European court ruling in A, B and C v.

Ireland. The judgment, however, in no way forces Ireland to legalise

abortion. In fact, it respects the entitlement of the Irish people to

determine legal policy on protecting the lives of unborn children.

Before the General Election, Fine Gael gave written commitments to

oppose abortion legislation and destructive research on living human

embryos. Labour, however, is pressuring them to renege on these

promises. To ensure Fine Gael holds steadfast to its commitments,

your FG Oireachtas representatives need to hear from you.

You can do this quickly and easily. Your online message will also

automatically go to An Taoiseach and the Minister for Health. Efforts

like this are vitally important from time to time and can make all the

difference. Please encourage all your family and friends to also

participate in this initiative.

Send your online postcard here

Thank you for your continued support.

Ruth Cullen

Pro Life Campaign

I cannot post a postcard as I reside north of the border and have no

representitive in the Oireachtas, therefore I urge any honest Irish

Man and woman, whether you voted or not in the past election to

engage in this campaign, we must stop this subversive movement

by the labour party to pressure Ireland into a Pro-Abortion state

based on a NON-BINDING COURT CASE IN THE EUROPEAN

COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. This same court declared it was a

violation of human rights to deny prisoners in the UK the vote, but

the United Kingdom Parliament was well within its rights to

disregard the ruling AND HAS NOT SUFFERED AS A RESULT OF

THEIR ACTIONS. Neither will we, this will not affect our relations

to Europe and will not effect us economically. You have NO EXCUSE

for ignoring this vile subversion on the part of labour to utilise this

non binding decision to push their anti-Life agenda, I urge each and

everyone of you, if you do value the continuation of Irish life on this

island, to do all in your power to oppose this. Send your online

postcard via the link provided in the letter to urge Fine Gael to be

mindful of their pro-life promises.

Once again I curse the day FG decided to take labour into power

instead of a co-coalition of indos, and now my cynicism and anger is

once again justified.

My thanks go out to Fr. Gabriel Burke and his blog for also sharing

this letter.

If any of you know of a way for me, a resident in the north of Ireland

to support the Pro-Life movement in the south (or even to help this particular campaign along) Mindful I AM a citizen of the Irish Republic,

my family just live north.

A Shattered Union Cometh

Europe is on the verge of collapse, whether violently or just in a disinterested and bitter, but altogether peaceful, breakup of the eurozone and several european institutions, remains to be seen.

Everyone has different opinions on why the European project is failing at heart, even those for whom, the breakup of the EU is unthinkable. Yet this is what happens, poor fiscal policies in member nations and a one continent wide currency that treats its constituent economies unfairly, coupled with unsustainable government entitlement systems as well as the Joe ignorent public, lulled into reliance on the state transfiguring into the much feared unthinking 'mob' pulled straight from the tales of the great ancient republics of Greece and Rome once the state fails to meet unreasonable demands in the face of crippling past failures of the state. The Greek crisis and its second bailout is, in the eyes of nearly every onlooker, delaying the inevitable. Greece will fall and fall hard, and the European Union, utterly unwilling to admit any of its policies or decisions were in err, has not let the Hellenic Republic go to save itself. If it had, it would have been called selfish and cruel, but the European farce would have at least been preserved for longer. As it stands, Greece will fall, as will other struggling states, including, likely, the Irish Republic (give or take our own fiscal and governmental shenanigans with a different party in nearly two decades finally being in power)

The immoral decadence and refusal of self responsibility of the western Liberal dream will be the death knell of Western Europe as a whole as our eastern European cousins will look on as we commit self destruction. They themselves will likely work with Russia, as the west becomes more akin to a horde of roving barbarians then a civilization to be envied in the coming century.

No one can say with certainly when exactly the fall will happen, or what will occur when it does. But I feel it will have these notable characteristics; There will be a great sense of urgency and crisis in Brussels and the overall European Government which the average man and woman will only vaguely take notice of, crisis policies will be enacted calling for harsher taxes and more centralisation, peacekeeping forces will be deployed to various parts of Europe to prevent anarchy and to bolster failing institutions, likely resulting in inflaming the local populace even further by the unexpected, and in many eyes, unjustified deployments, far right and far left political elements will start gaining voice in the public arena across the continent, at least one or two European governments, most likely centre right governments, or centre left ones with a strong patriotic voter base, will voice dissent publicly and rumours of secession will become increasingly common, and pretty soon in either a velvet revolution of otherwise peaceful but bitter acknowledgement the EU will collapse, or frustrated nation states will start removing themselves from the Union by force, and this will all happen within the space of a year or two and nobody will have any clue what has just occurred or why everything is on fire. Behold the fruits of Revolution!

In either case, God help us all for what will occur after the break up will be beyond prediction.

Our Lady, Queen of Ireland, pray for us.

Do your country a favor, Protest INTO

The Irish National Teacher's Organization is stirring up some rather foul smelling broth with regards to Irish Private education.

This will come as no surprise to others who pay more attention to the Education shenanigens in Ireland, but I'll keep this brief. INTO is currently protesting a law that gives Schools some leeway to choose the teachers they employ based on religious beliefs and sexual orientation (particularly Religious Private Schools, you know, those silly little Catholic Grammar schools that nobody cares about? Silly mediaevalist institutions that they are, I mean really.). Citing the law as discriminatory, and denouncing the concept of schools being informed by a religious ethos to be unacceptable and also citing that a fair percentage of Irish Principals supporting a revamping of The Irish Private school system to remove it from its Catholic Roots. (If some reader could be kind enough to find me a an appropriate link of exactly what law they are talking about I would be most grateful, I wish to look it over myself out of curiosity, or part of the law, this sounds like one of those subsection clauses in legislation that deal with particularities)

Why yes, how utterly unacceptable it is to find that a private educational institution has the capacity to discriminate prospective employees before hiring them. Why, letting Religious Private Schools at that being able to hire teachers that reinforce their socio-ethical, moral and religious values, that is even more preposterous! Shocking even! Loathe the day when such a thing should come to pass! Why, its almost as if there is an incredibly ancient history and tradition spanning centuries upon centuries of Religiously informed Academia driving forth intellectual, technological, philosophical progress and refinement across the entire breadth of human civilizations. But that is silly, fantasy talk, this is the 21st century! We are so much more enlightened and cultured then those brutish, ancient rubes on whose shoulders we stand! Truly we are a society to be envied were tolerance and acceptance is paramount at the expense of the virtues that got us to where we are!

Ok, yes, I am bitter about this. Very bitter. I love education, and have strong opinions on it, its role in society and whatnot but they are apparently as irrelevant in the south as they are in the North. This kind of thing really boils my blood, the deconstruction of the education system, in favor of modernist nonsense thinking, on the basis that religious education is 'discriminatory'.

Really? Thats what they're going with? HEAVEN FORBID! Heaven forbid that an extremely successful system be allowed to continue because they have bloody standards! Next you will be telling me that University level education will become a 'right'!

Sorry for the delay in updates, and the shameful expression of invective that greets you in your blog updates with this post, but this thing is just a right thorn in my side, especially after the debacle here int he north with the 11+ and Catrina Ruan the hypocritical Sinn Fein Education minister who tried to deconstruct our segregated system (in fact the current Sinn fein minister is trying to go further with it), as imperfect as it is, by uh, forcing the communities together into schools. Yes, I'm sure that will heal all wounds, by crushing the offending parties together. I cant see anything negative resulting from this. At all.