Abdication most Holy

So there I was coming home from a successful job interview ont he train, coffee in my hand, another one of my 'blood and thunder' novels that I shamelessly enjoy upon the table. I open up my phone and go to a news app that came with it, (I have always hated phones until I found I could check my emails and news sources on it, otherwise they can go to hell), and see the Pope has decided to abdicate.

I promptly spit up my coffee in shock, luckily no one was sitting across from me.

Yes two abdications at the start of 2013, not a good beginning in my book, and I certainly wasn't expecting to see another Papal conclave in my life so soon. But so it is.

I have to admit, I adored His Holiness and his dedication to tradition and orthodoxy and, most prominently, his steadfastness when dealing with those within the Church,t he Careerists and the outright heretics and I'd be lying if I didn't suspect dealing with these elements where part of the reason he decided to abdicate, breaking 600 years of Popes dying while in Office.

I will be looking forward to the doubtless tirade of questions, speculation and outright, tinfoil hat wearing, lunacy conspiracies surrounding the lead up to the Papal conclave. If anyone has any information on who might be considered 'papable' I'd be glad to hear it.

Slan go phoile.

Everyone is a Fascist Pig

Now I am not saying I am a Doommonger...

But I am a Doommonger.

Hope you all had a good and safe New Year's and I PROMISE that I will get back to good ol' Monarchical Theory sometime this year, but Ireland has been in the news alot recently and its kinda hard for me to outright ignore all the scandals.

The Savita Halappanavar fiasco, the crisis pregnancy center scandal, the Northern Irish Flag controversy and how it made an economic bust of the Christmas period for Belfast city...

Oh, and Ireland is set to have a spin on the President of the Council of the European Union.

Yippee.

(NOT the President of the European Council, they're not the same thing. Brief rundown for our non-Euro readers: Th Council of the European Union is effectively the upper house in the EU Legislature, equivalent to a Senate or House of Lords, the presidency of that position is what Ireland has inherited. The European Parliament is just that, the lower house. The European Council is a rather unique decision making body with no legislative power that nonetheless decides "the general political directions and priorities" of the European Union, a pseudo policy making body, THEN you have the European Commission, the Executive body of the union similar to the cabinet. All four bodies have their own presidents. If this sounds like an unnecessary amount of steps divorced from the national decision making authority then you are correct and it is intentional, the Union ceased to be a mere trading bloc a long time ago.)

In the midst of this crisis or that crisis, my own doom-mongering over the absolutely terrifying debt we owe both as Ireland the nation and collectively as a continent, I seem to have been proven consistently wrong (me and my more extremist eurosceptic compatriots). Which is laughable because kicking a lit dynamite down the road doesn't prove the alarmist wrong about the fact that it is, in fact, a lit dynamite and time is running out.

The Americans found that out rather starkly this New Year's with the threat of the fiscal cliff which they have now completely, and unequivocally solved... by kicking it down the road.

What does all this have to do with this post's title? Well it has to do with the reality of the situation. I talked with a few friends, one in particular who studied economics in secondary and has moved on to studying politics in tertiary, the European single currency and by extension the European Union as a whole cannot exist in its current state indefinitely and must either decentralize and risk turning into a loose confederation and the destruction of the single currency or centralize so completely as to effectively destroy the traditional nations of Europe as extant entities.

But of course reading this blog you know my opinions on these matters. But herein lies the looming cloak and dagger.

We know the European Union as an entity and its supporters would never, except perhaps with the threat of nuclear annihilation, ever give in and allow the Union to be dissolved so we are almost certainly be going down the centralization route as we have been for the past while.

But if we slip into realpolitik for a second, a question emerges: So what? This is a question painful to a patriot's ears when faced with this prospect. But in realpolitik this would stabilize currency and the security of the European state and probably lead to economic recovery if not prosperity and, as far as realpolitik is concerned, a good thing has happened.

Too bad it disregards the necessary totalitarianism involved.

Europe is too vast and too diverse to ever be a true unitary state, the only reason other huge federal states such as the USA and Mexico and Brazil can exist as they are is because most of those states share a common lineage and history in their foundation I'd hate to say it but those states where 'constructed' before they began to grow whereas most European identities and cultures were free range and grew naturally if violently, their colonial past makes their integration and acceptance of federal unionism slightly easier (even if the Americans would never admit it). If we look to other huge unitary states towards the east, namely Russia and China, we see the frightening totalitarianism of China to keep it all together and the rather authoritarian federalism of Russia (obviously Russia is the much more preferable country but hear me out) Both these unions have such a huge variety of cultures, languages, traditions and religions within them, even their dominant ethnicities have sub ethnicities and differences (evident with the Slavs in Russia and its constituent Republics), it is impossible to keep such diversity into nice, roughly even political voting groups with which to run a stable representative democracy, the system is simply too damn big (there's a monarchism article in that actually, I'll get to it some other time) and it'd be even worse with direct participatory democracy with having the votes of the sparser populated republics simply ignored outright by bigger neighbors, (and country folk and townsfolk ignored outright by city voters). In a centralized European Union, dissent would have to be quashed. Harshly.

We are seeing signs already with Cameron being FORCED by rebels within his party to push for more autonomy from the EU while still having a relationship and Europhilic hardliners playing hardball with the new fiscal deal, how in the hell would Countries such as Hungary which INFAMOUSLY threw off alot of European regulations and reformed its constitution in a most 'unEuropean' fashion fair in a United States of Europe? Pretty damn unfairly and I wouldn't be surprised if Europe 'economically sanctioned' Hungary into starvation to get it to capitulate to European oneness. "Silly Magyars, you aren't a country, you're a province." I am not sure it would get to the point of sanctioning outspoken eurosceptics but I would not be surprised if Nationalists the continent over would be labelled as 'Fascists' or some other politically loaded phrase and ostracized from society somehow for being 'reactionary' and 'anti-unionist'. Europhiles today even predict this and look forward to 'justifiably' calling their euroscpetic counterparts 'throwbacks', fully complicit in the creation of a 'politically unacceptable' underclass. I have no idea where it would go fromt here but I doubt it would lead to some kind of second renaisence or some other explosion of culture and beauty. Because if growing up in a postmodern world has thought me anything is that the modern world is an ugly thing that revels in its own horror, and its kind of hard to have an explosion of culture when you have spent decades destroying any semblance of such a thing by importing immigrants to plug holes in your demographics caused by very ill advised population, abortion and contraception laws, creating multiculturalism to try to stem the backlash at cultural invasion and THEN using said multiculturalism as a social engineering tool that has resulting in absolute disaster and nigh universal condemnation. All to try to create some kind of blank slate with which to build the 'great and noble European' culture which never existed in the first place. The European state will label its opponents as fascist and use fascism to silence them.

And we aren't alone in this. With regards to American politics, with apologies to my American readers, but I say a pox on both their houses for their parties and a further pox on both their houses for those parties' supporters. The American election cycle was bothersome and dominated everything and I saw a good deal of what I hated about America ruining what I love about America. I suppose I should leave it at that before I say something I can't take back. But my point is that some of the extremists in America, of both the right and left, are absolutely correct. America has become a corporate run nightmare state and is 4 out of 5 laws passed before becoming a UN recognized police state, the most recent law of which, asides from the infamous 'Drone assassin' law that allows the US Government to kill US citizens via assassination, it has also recently passed a law that allows for the indefinite military incarceration and detention of US citizens suspected of terrorism without trial. A law suspending Habeas Corpus effectively. The only law America is missing before reaching the magic 5 laws before being seen as UN recognized police state (based on Nazi Germany no less) is a law allowing for the term limit of the presidency or equivalent executive office to become indefinite.

But that is incredibly unlikely right? It'd never happen, why just last century America passed a Constitutional amendment PREVENTING a president from having no limit to the amount of terms he may serve, if a president were popular enough, effectively be tantamount to indefinite term limit, there would never be a law attempting to overrule such an amendment and it would be so unlikely to pass over thirty of the state legislatures it'd need to, why, no one would have the sheer brass ones needed to put it before congress.

Oh. Wait.

Next week: Monarchism, I swear.

The Hatred of Women

The Maternal death rate in the Republic of Ireland is 6 out of every 100,000 live births. We are among the lowest maternal deaths in the world, being edged out by Estonia at 3 per 100,000. Our next door Neighbour of Britain has 12 per 100,000.

Ireland kills women. Clearly.

Clearly we are murderous gogs and magogs whose backward, dark aged, neanderthals operating on theocratic dogma to enslave and destroy women through the most unholiest of weapons: childbirth.

Clearly we are every bit of the monsters the pro-abortion crowd calls us.

Even though we are not cynically using the tragic death of a talented young woman by septicemia to further our aggressive social engineering goals. Oh no, if we do that we wouldnt be monsters.

We'd be heroes. We'd be paragons of change. It doesn't matter that if abortion on demand where to be legalized the maternal death rate would almost certainly double. It doesn't matter that corrupted crisis pregnancy centers tell women not to inform their doctors that they had an abortion overseas and thus endanger them in future medical operations as their doctors are left ignorant of their full conditions. Why, it doesn't even matter, if women outright die from their abortions, so long as they can have them and less babies are brought into the world. Because that is freedom, we know what women's freedom is, we know what they want, of course we do, afterall we'd tell them what they want, we'd rail against any of them that espouse otherwise and silence their male allies as misogynistic, theocratic, would-be talibans. We'd know what a real woman wants, and those that don't want abortion further legalized, isn't really a woman, and it totally isn't objectifying for us to decide that. That totally wouldn't make us despicable, oppurtunistic, parasitic, misanthropes who would stoop so low to grasp upon the death of this woman with white knuckled fists and demand our agenda before we knew anything about the situation.

Before the inquiries investigate.

Before the Hospital releases a full statement regarding the matter and the doctors involved.

Before the president elect of India's Federation of Obsetetrics and Gyneacologist societies expressed his thoughts acting on the miscarrying baby would have caused Savita to die two days earlier.

Wait, no, that wouldnt matter, as the abortion would have been performed. Then the death of Savita wouldnt have mattered at all even if it did cause her to die earlier.

Fancy that.

I apologise for the poison in this post but the death of Savita and the controversy blown up around me has caused me some introspective pain, and especially in light of my last post had these doctors stated their reasons for refusing the abortion on grounds that Ireland was a Catholic Country, strictly legally, they would have been at fault. But I didn't know enough about the case, no one outside of the operating rooms and the hospital itself does, to give a firm opinion on the matter, legal or personal. So I am not directing this post at Savita's distraught family, or the doctors of Galway University Hospital. I am directing it at the Pro-Abortion, and that's what they really are in the end, savages who are using Savita as so much ammunition to push their despicable designs on Ireland and my previous warnings about the Labour party in the Republic have come to fruition, as they as using this to push their pro-abortion agenda and risking the death of the current coalition government to achieve it.

In the end, they don't really care about Savita, or women in general for that matter, they care about their own sick ideological goals above all else.

Red Handed

The Oireachtas has approved an independent review on the findings of the HSE over the scandal the previous weeks of crisis pregenancy centers giving women, who typically have gone abroad for abortions, highly illegal, unethical, unprofessional advice to hide the fact they had an abortion from their GPs because of the stigma of abortion in Irish society.

A couple of things and I hope you all can please forgive my own lapse of professionalism and eloquence but

FUCK those Crisis Pregnancy centers.

There, I can now keep my vitriol down to a simmer and get into the reasons why I just said what I said.

Now I am pro-life, almost ridiculously so. As such I will try to explain why, using my skills three years of legal education have thought me, that this independent review is both neccessary and correct, because I sure even some of my pro-life readers likely make exceptions for abortions in cases of rape and hence, will likely be appaled at my above outburst. So let me begin.

1) Firstly, the Irish Constitution makes allowances for abortion, on the advice of doctors who think it best, for the health and safety of the mother. Ireland's gynecological medical rating is literally one of the best if not the best in the world and our doctors are highly competent men and women who exercise deliberation, caution and professional medical practice. They do not usually think it in the best interests of the mother's health to have an abortion and with good reason, despite the general state of Irish healthcare, Ireland is literally the safest country in the world to have an abortion almost regardless of the woman's actual medical circumstances because of the quality of our medical professionals. Social abortions such as 'I am not ready/fit to raise this baby at my age/working situation' or 'I just do not want to have a baby' is unacceptable reasons for a termination. Why? Because the Irish constitution legally recognizes the right to life of the unborn, that the fetus is, essentially a person and thus, terminating it on grounds of social reasons is legally tantamount to killing a person for social reasons. It creates a cognitive dissonance within Irish Law. Whereas the health exception would be cases where having the child would greatly exacerbate a woman's medical condition to the point of life threatening. Quality of Life is not taken into account.

2) With regards to the above Law of the Irish constitution and the case of X, Y and Z vrs Ireland case before the European Court of Human Rights. Several facts need to be made clear. Firstly this court is not, in fact, and institution of the European Union of which Ireland is a member state of and is hence, subject to its directives. This gets confused as the EU has an ECHR which refers to the European Convention of Human Rights, which is something else. The rulings of the Court of Human Rights have no binding legal effect on European states, the worst that can come from deciding against the ruling of the court is likely political embarrassment or estrangement, which is unlikely to happen anyway since very few people take some of the more stringent rulings of this court seriously enough to enforce them in their own countries. Unless its ruling is strongly related to the ECHR, in which case the EU may take notice and force peoples' hands. This is why Britain could ignore the Court's ruling on giving prisoners the right to vote while in prison. Now, the case of X, Y and Z v Ireland invoked the ECHR, claiming Ireland's laws were contrary to several articles of the ECHR. The Court famously refuses to take a hardline stance either side of major social issues such as abortion and gay marriage, justifying that there is no majority opinion across the continent on which it can justify ruling one way or the other as evidence by previous abortion cases brought before it in the past. In the case, two of the women involved where struck down, as the court ruled that Irish doctor's refusal to perform abortions for them was not contrary to the specific articles they invoked of the ECHR, (they both effectively amounted to social reasons for abortion trying to justify it under right to privacy and another article) however in X's case was successful. But not for the reasons pro-abortion proponents in Ireland think it is. in X's particular case the woman had cancer, I believe it was in remission at the time, Doctors told her of her medical condition when she inquired about the abortion and told her that they would advise continuing the pregnancy. Everything was fine and legal up until the woman asked to see her medical information on which the doctors were basing their judgement as well as services in other countries that offer abortion, they refused to give it to her. THIS is what the X case was about. Under Irish law she DID in fact have a right to see her medical information, and the doctors withholding of it was wrong. (Granted, had they let her see the information their opinions and that of their colleagues would be no different and she could not force them to have an abortion if she disagreed with their opinions.) The X case was the court of Human Rights mandating that Ireland makes its own constitutional law clear, resulting in the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments, later included in the text of the eight amendment and amounted to essentially not refusing a citizen's freedom of movement from state to state (a right that existed in Irish law but was never condensed into a sentence as part of the constitution) as well as, and this is important; 'This subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state.' Effectively meaning it WAS legal for a woman in Ireland to move to another state to procure an abortion.* But the case was never, EVER about making the Irish state legalize abortion. This is a farce, a straight up lie. It was about forcing Ireland to enforce the laws it already had in place not forcing it to radically altar its constitution to make further allowances for abortion. Also of note in the wake of the case there were several referendums attempting to remove the threat of suicide as justifying procurement of abortion. These failed. The logic was that there were women who feigned suicidal tendencies over pregnancy in order to get an abortion, they were defeated because removing this justification would, logically, would result in genuinely psychologically troubled women from procuring an abortion and result in higher suicide rates among women. Ireland often looks at the result of abortion laws effects in England when trying to get examples. Also technically abortion isn't exactly legal per se in England either as much as it is allowed. Its complicated but one scandal at a time since it will be relevant to a future abortion post regarding Northern Ireland.

*This is relevant to my final points so remember this.

3) Rape pregnancies happen. They are an extremely minor cause of pregnancy to the point where, in my own legal opinion, legalizing abortion on a wider scale because of it is ethically and legally unsound but at the end of the day they happen and the cause a great deal of trauma to the women involved. This is where Crisis pregnancy centers enter the scene. Legally speaking, yes, they are allowed to give women advice on where they can go to procure abortions safely, legally, and discreetly in foreign countries. In fact crisis pregnancy centers offer this advice to a wider array of pregnant women other then those who conceived through rape and/or incest, this is obvious and I won't be going into the ethics of the centers in general in this post. I will say, however, that the professional councilors, (or I hope they are professional councilors, in most cases at the very least), are not, ARE NOT, permitted to advise women to withhold important medical information to their GPs. I cannot stress this enough. Medical confidentiality is a serious thing in common law jurisdictions, Ireland is not an exception, while a doctor, as in the UK, may, in some circumstances, share your medical information with other trusted professional colleagues in his field for second opinions and discussion, they are not permitted to talk about your particular information to anyone else under penalty of prosecution and lawsuit against, potentially not only him or her but also the medical institutions they are affiliated with and could end up with their medical licence revoked even under the relatively light gavel the courts use regarding medical professionals, (remember that bit about doctors being revered in Ireland? yeah it makes the courts lenient with them, the same is done to fire fighters and police officers in order not to deter or dis-incentiveise 'rescuers'. The same is practiced in UK common Law. But in serious breaches of duty of care the law can come down like an meteor and leave just as large a blast radius). So, considering this, and indeed, considering that going abroad to procure a discreet abortion is legal, you informing your GP that you had an abortion is INCREDIBLY important information for a woman's future health. Without going into detail of the medical dangers or realities of abortion (otherwise this post's comments will get ideological REAL quick) at the end of the day, an abortion could at the very least, perforate a woman's womb, causing internal bleeding or perhaps difficulties in future pregnancies. (I have seen people by this point argue that if Abortion were legal in Ireland this wouldn't happen which is logically farcical since these abortions are usually procured legally in say, the UK, France, the Netherlands or Belgium where abortion is widespread, legal (sortof in the UK's case) and "professionally done". Lets leave it at that for now.) Now, the crisis pregnancy centers in question have advised these women, USING THE FEAR OF SOCIAL STIGMA OF HAVING AN ABORTION AS THEIR JUSTIFICATION, to not inform their GPs of the operation.

Ok, so see where I am going with this?

You really should by this point.

In truth, a woman who procures an abortion abroad should have maybe a close knit group of maybe 5-10 people at the most who knows she has procured it. It is impossible for me to presuppose on their situations, about who knows what about their circumstances and I am not going to address the existence of the abortion stigma in Ireland because it is the obvious result of living in a highly pro-life society (if nothing else). I could go to America, get a job and make many friends, admit I had testicular cancer and have become totally impotent as a result of the operation. I would then have a stigma attached to me. Stigmas. Happen. They are unfair and they may result in you not telling even your closest friends about your circumstances.

They are not an excuse not to tell your doctor about your previous medical operations, whose very existence could pose complications of future medical procedures. And do. Woman have died from not telling medical professionals handling their data that they had procured an abortion abroad.

Perhaps now you are beginning to see.

These councilors have broken their duty of care to these women. Some probably did it out of genuine concern for the woman's social status, even though they should have rightly known doctors cannot discuss their patient's circumstances. A darker side of me, the cynic of old, believes that at least some of these councilors may have had a malicious motive but I am tossing that to the ditch to maintain professionalism in this post. Their motive, unless it genuinely was malicious, matters not.

Their advice to the women to procure foreign abortions was legal, their advice to withold important medical information was not. Anyone who argues otherwise is wrong, they do not care for these womens' wellbeing. These women, under the law, should not have been advised to withhold such crucial medical information (keep in mind the women may not have entirely been aware of the particulars of the law when receiving this advice), these councilors where in the wrong and have endangered these women.

Whatever your stance on the issue, (and you do have one, so there is no point in me arguing my stance in attempts to convert you), you are wrong to think that a review and investigation into these centers was not warranted.

The Oireachtas is correct in calling for the review of these findings, but the HSE cannot be trusted to review these crisis pregnancy centers. You do not ask a banker to review his own corrupt holdings.

That Insidious Apathy

I have remarked many a time on the apathy that defines the modern Irish polity. We can hardly get worked up about anything. We work hard, get taxed to death, but do not complain about it because we know our nation is in debt, not only national debt but debt irresponsible bankers burdened us with when our state bailed them out. National debt would have been worked off by now and the Internal Revenue service would have had no call to increase their vampiric stranglehold upon the common Irishman, hell not even them, it seems even our rich and successful aren't above it if the scandal of foreclosing on Target is anything to go buy. What's that? You have a company that can pay off its debts under a revised repayment scheme? Not anymore you don't!

The corruption of our officials and the almost supervillainous backroom scheming of the likes of our Health TD with regards to trying to revise a perfectly good constitution that not even subversive elements such as monarchists ever complain about, is enough to drive me back into one of my many introspective moments when I regard Ireland's history and place in the world.

And then I take a shot of Jamesons.

You know, when people refer to their 'Irishness' is what makes them depressed, they usually are referring to the strict social mores and religious conservatism that is depressing them and if we only removed that, our Irishness will be cured. I have a different Theory, the Irish are all natural poets. We see the truth of the situation as it is, but may have a skewed, idealistic or pessimistic view of how we got to where we are or where we are going. We see the world and we see Ireland for what it is right now, a third rate power that was lucky enough to be positioned in the first world. A nation with phenomenal potential for scientific, cultural, economic, religious and artistic expression and development. But it is a poisoned well, one where people see our potential but do not believe we are capable of it, worse, will never be capable of it. Its why we have so many West-Britons in the Irish Political and cultural establishment, its also why we have so many half hearted political support for, well, anything.

Take the gay marriage debate in Ireland for instance, you don't hear about it much. That's because either side, for one reason or another, can never seem to get worked up enough to actually fight for their own beliefs. Even so it is likely it may just be legalized by default. Its why the pro life movement in Ireland has to work extra hard, because even though the vast majority is actually warm to the idea of pro-life, almost no one is politically aware of attempts to legalize it and have Ireland fall into the dangerous social trap Britain fell into, and they didn't even fully legalize abortion!

We are a depressed nation, a dead thing floating down the river subject to its currents and motions and like a dead thing down the river, we will be washed ashore in the dark part of the forest like the rest of the detritus.

I really wish I did have something good to say or some insight in how to reverse this, into how to make people actually care about Ireland. or hell, about anything! I am a confessed cynic alot of the time but its a bad show if someone like me is actually more idealistic then the majority of my peers.

The Queen's visit

I'll admit I have been sleeping on the job here because this crept up on me while I was dealing with unemployment woes, (yes that means I am out of university and not a law job in sight, ah well, maybe the meat packing plant needs another worker?), but the Queen's visit to Northern Ireland, in short, has been positively received. Mc Guinness being the Sinn Fein representitive that shakes Her Majesty's hands shouldn't surprise anyone, we all know what Gerry is like. However I am going to have to draw a different bead on the situation then the good fellow on MadMonarchist who is interpreting this as a 'victory' for United Kingdom Royalism. I normally don't disagree with the man but I honestly think he is horribly mistaken in his exuberence.

On the parts he is correct about is that yes this does represent that the anger and hatred of years passed has simmered down to the point where this is possible, but his appraisal of why even Roman Catholic Nationalists in the North are accepting the status quo is woefully misaimed.

In truth, it is no secret Dublin wants nothing to do with the North, everybody knows that, in fact that's one of the primary reasons I direct alot of bile towards the southern government, (oh yeah, and the confessional seal law, looking up to Uncle Mao are you an Tainiste?), but the reason northern nationalists arent keen on dissolving partition nowadays is because they do not want to be taxed into the ground like our southern Brothers and sisters are. My own mother, who's about as republican as you can get said she would vote against reintegration precisely along those economic lines. So in reference to the mad one's post, it is not so much that the Crown 'won' as much as Leinster House 'lost' because of economic realities, (well that and the NHS, mother is surprisingly keen on the institution despite its horrendous flaws). Its a sad state of affairs when economics override principles, but hey, that is literally the story of the 21st century so far, so we aren't too out of place.

Why I am so calm and couldn't give two rats behinds about the furore Anglophilic Royalists and Irish Republicans alike are throwing up over this whole ordeal is because I acknowledge the inevitable reality of Northern Ireland: Whether anyone likes it or not the North will be integrated into a United Ireland sooner or later. Its a demographic inevitability, as well as that, when it comes down to it, London wants the North even less then Dublin does and I don't believe for a moment, except for a few Imperial holdouts in the rest of the UK, that Britain wont have a referendum held for reintegration of Northern Ireland into the south as soon as it is demographically feasible, I dare you to look at the constitutional set up of Northern Ireland and tell me this is not the case. This is why in all my other posts dealing with speculation for a Irish High Kingdom pre-supposes unification and I allude to the 'unionist problem' which is something a future United Ireland will be left with in the wake of this, (Because the Unionists won't be going anywhere after all, their roots are already planted in the North).

Anyway, sorry for the lack of updates, now its back to figuring out how to be of use to society I go.

Slan go Phoile

Dear American Observers

(Image taken from the Telegraph)

It has been some time since I last posted, I have been busy studying for my final exams of University and other assorted worries so my posting has been severely limited. That said I have been keeping up with blogs that I follow as well as looking further afield in the political and Catholic blogosphere and I have noticed something.

American bloggers are not only fascinated about the crisis in Europe, but are worried about it, and about how it will affect them, and even persons such as Bill Whittle from Pyjamas Media, (a New Media right wing news outlet), have been using the crisis in Europe as an allegory for how not to run a Union. Needless to say my reactions to these concerns from American observers have varied from incredulous to symnpathetic, so I felt the need to devote a post addressing some of the concerns Americans have with the crisis in Europe.


1, You cannot help us
While ordinary Americans are not guilty of it, they are unaware of the LUDICROUS political influence their government has had in Europe for most of the last century, the current political landscape in Europe is as much the result of American meddling as it is a reaction to it, (as well as giving account for European stupidity of course), we do not need American help. You wouldn't know how to help us anyway, we are not American, and cannot exist on an American mindset, however it is defined.


2, If the Euro is going down the drain, the Dollar is on fire
This is addressing primarily economic concerns of American observers. Yes, if the European markets crash it will be a disaster for the whole world, you are right to be concerned about that. Yes, Europe's fiscal irresponsibility is ultimately the cause of our economic downfall, the same as everywhere else. Yes the monetary Union and perhaps the entire European political experiment will fail before Christmas, and yes you can learn from Europe how NOT to run a multi-national Union. This is of no use because however boned the Euro is, the Dollar is worse off. The euro may die and the dollar may live for another few decades but it will never be worth what it once was and it will only continue to decrease in value, I draw my American readers' attention to their own deficit which has literally reached astronomical proportions. It will never get better, never. To believe it will get better is going beyond optimism or religious belief and straight into white knuckled, despair-fuelled denial.


3, If there is another continental war in Europe, American wont be able to intervene
Now we get into the meat of the worry for Americans. Many of whom are worried that if there is another conflagration in Europe in the wake of this crisis, and that is not an unlikely occurance when all is taken into account, Americans may once again be forced to intervene. This is an understandable and human worry but I am going to have to tell my American readers why they wont be able to intervene, the reasons are several-fold
- You won't know who to fight. If another war occurs it will definitely not be like WWI or WWII, it will not be a fluid battle between nations who are easily divided into two alliance blocs. A continental war in Europe at this stage will likely be a furious confusion of border skirmishes, civil unrest and various civil wars in places with no clear clue of who started what fight or which side being victorious would be in America's interests.
- You won't be able to fight a whole continent. With all due respect to America's phenomenal military might and force projection, you simply would not be able to go for broke and simply pacify the entire continent. Oh sure, you most definitely could do this if you were fighting the European Union as a unified entity, but that wouldn't be the case, you wouldn't be fighting the European Union, you'd be fighting Europe which is a different beast, in such a scenario as this, it would be as simple as driving a M1 Abrams tank through a thick, Jungle under-bush. It would be impractical in the extreme, not only would conquered territories not be willing to co-operate with you troops, but as soon as you find out intelligence about say, a French fortified position, it would not count for the sudden German incursion force which would totally blind-side your forces.
- You'll have your own problems to worry about. Putting Europe aside, America wouldn't intervene because in the wake of a European collapse would likely be an entire worldwide collapse. I would be very surprised in such a scenario that America would still be able to field and fortify its military positions all over the world. Indeed, it'd probably be forced to withdraw its worldwide forces not only because it would be nigh impossible to hold them where they are stationed, but because the disaster will likely result in civil unrest if not outright civil war in America itself.



All things considered, while the concern of our American friends is heartening, it is impractical and probably not in their best interests to be concerned. Europe's socio-political experiment will fail, and probably fail spectacularly, but America and Americans cannot do anything to help the situation.

Happy Easter Sunday

I hope everyone is having a happy and Holy Easter, and sorry about the derth of blog posts recently.

Monarchism, the Nationalist's Guide part 2

((Before I start I must apologise for a contrivance in my previous Nationalist's guide post pointed out by Shane, regular commenter on my blog and a decent devil's advocate for my arguments. I had purposefully conflated two periods in Early Modern Irish history, that of the Repeal movement and the Home Rule movement, as one period for the sake of time and space. I shall now correct myself for the sake of clarity, especially with foreigners reading this article who may not be familiar with Irish History, the Repeal movement began as a response to the Act of Union in 1800 which united Ireland and Britain under one Parliament, whereas previously Ireland had a separate parliament, you can check the basic facts of this history with this article. The Repeal movement failed and later the Home Rule movement and the proper intellectual formations of Irish Nationalism occurred later that same century. My apologies for any misconceptions.))

What is Nationalism today?
Ever since the Easter Rising, the resulting war for Independence, the institution of the Irish Free State as a Dominion of the Empire, Partition and the declaration of the Republic of Ireland, Irish Republicanism slowly but surely, became the dominant mindset of the entirety of the Nationalist south. This really is due, in large part, to the natural inclination of the Irish people to Authority. Let us be honest, the Irish, while certainly with evidence throughout history, are possessed with an innate fighting spirit and sense of justice, are not, nor ever have been anti-authoritian. This is one of the reasons we made such fine peasantry other then our fine stock and dutiful work ethic of centuries past.

So it only makes sense that, the monarchist contingent of Irishmen, convinced of living under an 'Irish' Government, were satisfied and content and prepared to simply accept that their nation was a Republican nation and that was all there was to it. Afterall that had certainly been a mentality the leadership of Ireland had encouraged, intentionally or unintentionally with a passive aggressive relationship with Britain, the 'Old Enemy', especially with De Velera's 'economic war', if it could even be called such. Which just reaffirmed a growing association with monarchism with Britishness and British servitude imposed on Ireland. Is it any wonder why Irish Monarchism died a quiet death?

Afterall, while it certainly doesnt exist as such now, the political institution of Ireland in its inception had been virulently traditionalist, even if not monarchist, to the point where both parties, Fine Gael and Fine Fail at the time were technically 'conservatives' who just found themselves on opposing sides of the civil war (there really is no more vicious a conflict then between brothers). What had the conservative souls of Ireland to fear? As far as the conservatives, traditionalists and cultural revivalists were concerned they had effectively 'won', and the ressurrection of Gaelic Civilization was just on the horizon. Certainly the Catholic Church felt no need to meddle in affairs at the time. Why would it have need to? Ireland was THE quintessential Catholic nation with an effectively Catholic state and Constitution that was seen as a mighty fortress for the Church that it could feel it'll always rely on. A mistake all of them had made. If ever there was a case example of democratic republicanism instilling apathy in a nation, Ireland is that case example. The innate traditionalist nature of the people and organizations of Ireland should have guaranteed to coalesce and transform the Irish Nation into, if nothing else, a socio-political force to be reckoned with and a bastion of traditional thought, theory and practice which conservatives and traditionalists of Europe could seek to mimic proudly. It didnt. It all died. And the defining characteristic of Irish politics is apathy, not passion. And what's left in evidence of the passionate flame for Irish Identity is little more then youths 'wearing' the Irish flag at football games and seeing nothing symbolically wrong with effectively 'sitting' on theirs nation's flag on a dirty stadium chair. They dont do it maliciously, they do it ignorantly.

And in the North, we all know too well the story of the Troubles, Sinn Fein's rise in popularity. Ever since the end of the civil war, Sinn Fein and the IRA had been flirting with socialism and had been breaking apart as a result whenever situations called for distinction between social democratic politics and traditional nationalism. As was the cas eint he troubles where Loyalist paramilitary agitation in the North effectively caused a coup in the IRA's leadership with traditionalist splitting off and taking the bulk of the IRA to form the provisional IRA and, well, the rest is history and so forth. Northern Nationalism still exist, but its more of a cultural identity. One is a Nationalist if one views the Irish republic generally favourably, hates the British State, is catholic or from a catholic family or community etc etc etc. Southern Nationalism is a dormant thing that needs to be poked with a stick to see any activity as is the case with the Love Ulster parades, see my previous blog post for that.

In a word, modern Nationalism is 'nothing'. The Modern Irishman is defined by apathy and inactivity. The government in the south piles on another tax? Grumble over your pint then continue with your work day, what else is new? And to think, we are one of the 'better off' of the so called Pig nations of the EU, (Thanks for that moniker by the by, really endears us to you continentals in Brussels. Really.)

As bleak as this is, it actually presents an opportunity for Nationalist Monarchism. Asides from the obvious association with Britain, what can people fault Monarchist Nationalism on in Ireland? Is it a violent ideology that advocates agitation and revolution? No, quite the opposite really. Its obviously a tyrannical system that will make us all indentured servitudes to faraway masters right? You're already living in that kind of system, son. Clearly we will de-construct the dail Eireann and the people will have no representation at all, right? As repugnant as parliaments are, a Monarchy will hardly destroy the Parliament. Really the only roadblock Irish Monarchists have that is preventing them from establishing monarchy as an independent idea in the Irish Marketplace is the association with Britain, which we already have ample ammunition to de-construct. Th opportunity being a propagandic one, that a population who does not hold anything in great strength is unlikely to hold monarchism's ideological opponents in great strength and to whom monarchism will seem like a new idea.



How can we appeal to Nationalists to adopt Monarchism?
Speaking for myself, my interest in Monarchy came about as a result of my interest in history, which came about as a result of my interest in my Nationalism. Therefore the true disassociation of Nationalism from republicanism and Socialism is the study of History. As the old saw goes, 'The Study of History is the beginning of political wisdom', while obviously said for different reasons and for adifferent context, applies here as well. Considering everything in my Guide so far, a nationalist who studies not the beginning of Irish republicanism but the beginning of Irish Nationalism, is introduced to a variance of ideological thought at the birth of the modern Irish concept of 'Nationhood'. This variance will not in itself destroy a Nationalist's inherent republicanism that he has been thought to believe in since birth, but it will cause him to question the bias in the Republican narrative. The prevalence of monarchism in Ireland at the birth of the Republic will give some food for thought, the existence of the Irish Chiefs of the name will cause curiosity, the fact that every Irishman alive today is descended from old Irish kings will cause him to stall any bloodlust for blueblood he may possess..

The study of socialism in a wider context (all socialism, not just outdated Marxism) throughout history and in comparison to Irish Nationalism, will reveal quite alot of dissonance in values between the ideologies, and specifically the anti-nationalism inherent in socialism. The Study of History is the death of socialism and all other 'The End of History' ideologies such as modernism, post-modernism, social democracy and liberal democracy, to quote Fukuyama. The study of history reveals that there is no such thing as an end of history that does not include the end of civilization and even then, time marches on. There may be eras, epochs, but there really is no such thing as 'stages' of history, that could only be defined if we had something to compare history in its totality to, which we do not.

The real key of course, is appealing to the heart of the Irishman and the innate Monarchism in Irishness. The desire for community, family, the love of traditions however silly, all of which requires a sense of tradition basic politicking by blogs such as my own cannot foster, I can only work so much by appealing intellectually. A man, even if he intellectually acknowledges any value of Monarchism, will be unlikely to convert to monarchism, even monarchism infused with nationalism, if his heart is not in it: "Wow, Monarchism actually sounds sorta okay and I may like to live in one, but it is so unlikely to happen, we're all republics, I don't really see the point in advocating monarchy." Russians reading this blog in particular will be familiar with this line of reasoning. Polls done in Russia reveal a startlingly high percentage of Russians are in favour of a return to monarchy but simply do not see it as remotely possible. This is confirmed in my secret monarchist post where a shot in the dark question asking whether fellow monarchists existed on a internet game revealed a variety of responses to potential real life monarchism (with obvious virulence from socialist quarters)

If you wondered before this is why I promote the Catholic Church in Ireland so much and particularly Catholic traditionalism, apart from my own obvious Religious bias, being a Catholic myself, but because religion in general and Catholicism in particular are PHENOMENAL engines of traditionalism. In order to appeal to a man with traditionalism and traditionalist things, he must have a sense of tradition. The modern apathetic Irishman has little to no sense of traditionalism and that which he does possess is atrophying rapidly. In the wake of the celtic tiger collapse, social analysts determined that in the boom years of the Irish economy the average Irishman did not give one wit about culture and cared more about Housing prices, the Americanisation of our culture (after previous Anglicization) has proved disastrous and now our culture, while not happy, WILL comply to European pressures of integration. You know the possibility of an Irish referendum on the financial agreement people are talking about now? Even if it does come to pass, don't expect Irishmen to vote against it and even if they do, don't expect them to vote no twice. There is little spirit to work with in Ireland and we really DO need the Church to revitalize it. And, well, furthermore, the Bishops Ireland has right now are decidedly much more liberal, (or more accurately, they are desirous of autonomy from Rome) then Conservative Rome would like, and even if all other things being equal and a Monarchist movement does come into force, one can expect the current Bishops at best murmur and groan against us, sadly, or worse, vote from the pulpit against monarchism, which would sadden me as a Catholic and a Monarchist that of all things in Irish politics, the Bishops would oppose us actively. It is this outcome I dread and it is why I hope His Holiness Pope Benedict and the Magisterium installs more traditionalist or traditional friendly Bishops in the future, this is the great gamble of Irish Monarchism because it is something we have no control over.

In practical terms, Irish Monarchists can at the moment only work at creating a safe area in the intellectual marketplace in Ireland for Monarchist thoughts. Blogs, including this blog are a start, Scotic Monarchy is another, and the admittance or discussion of monarchism on other Irish blogs can only help bringing monarchism into the national conversation, discussion, debate, arguments, anything short of outright fighting aids the monarchist cause and awareness of monarchist ideas. Monarchism is only irrelevant as long as its not being discussed, hence why it is shunned actively by revolutionaries. Eventually this will require books, dissertations, sociological studies and other things to seriously discuss monarchism. Only then will its enemies either seriously respond to it as an idea or reveal themselves by continuing to fling defecation at the very notion. For my part, my blog occassionally gets mentioned on forums and other places and, most of the time, I am held for ridicule. Places such as Politics.ie and a large Irish Republican forum have created a thread or two about this blog, and it went about as well as you'd think. Ironically enough, the patrons of politics.ie acted more like monkies in a zoo and I no longer take that site seriously, whereas the Republican site, while not taking me seriously either, at least responded largely rationally, give or take an anarchist denouncing me for advocating a monopoly of violence in my monarchism and some fellow calling me a 'Basement dwelling, Anorak wearing Virgin'. But then again if advocating Monarchy was easy I wouldn't need this blog as much.

Love Ulster day to return to Dublin

Oh hey, what a great idea, this worked so well last time, right lads?

Forgive me for the brief post, but I cannot express my pre-emptive rage at what is going to happen once the 'Love Ulster' Parade goes through Dublin again.

Do not get me wrong, I want to build bridges with the Protestant and Unionist community in the North as well, hopefully in a way that does not insult or demean either their traditions or our own, (which really can only be achieved under loyalty to a Monarch but thats for a longer, better post), but this enrages me first of all because last time it was endorsed by the Unionist parties up here precisely because they knew what it would result in, anger and indignation.

And that was not the worst of it, when the inevitable riot broke out (which everyone in the North had expected to occur on either side of the divide), the media down south scrambled to explain it away, even going so far as to insist it was a conspiracy by Northern Republicans who shipped hundreds of nationalists down from the North and organised the Riot in an astroturf incident to show that objection to a Unionist March through Dublin was stronger then it really was.

Oh you think I am exaggerating? That has literally been the establishment story for the past 5 years for those riots. And it will be again.

In a sense, I suppose I should be grateful for the Unionists for provoking the riots, it did give me some faith in latent patriotism of my southern Brothers and Sisters, and further ingrained my indignation against the 'west briton' media, because no man of reason nor faith will accept the given story of a republican conspiracy to explain the riots at face value.

Sadly the establishment will know what the next parade will provoke in the Average Irishman of Dublin City, and will take steps to quarantine it. A prediction: The parade will go off roughly without a hitch and the media will report something not unlike these words; "Wow, look how accepting us southerners are of the Unionists, unlike those rotten northerners who infiltrated the city in 2006 to start those awful riots" while conveniently panning the camera over conspicuously empty city plazas as the Police holds back anyone coming near the parade.

Unless they are stupid in which case they wont take the propaganda oppurtunity and allow the people to view the parade unrestricted, in which case a riot will break out. Especially since the parade will be passing in front of the General Post Office, you know, that symbol of the Irish Republic, the site of the Easter Rising, that little old thing? You don't think southern Nationalists will take objection to it? No? Oh ok then, go ahead. Let's see how that works out for you.