Search This Blog

Friday, 18 June 2010

CFTHF - And so Judgement Rolls

Well University life is rough in some respects I guess, learning the fine art of eating various dishes consisting entirely of beans, differing only in when, where, and how burnt they are when you cook them, realising you need a car when you get lost in the city and it takes you a full 3 hours to get back to your place, getting a letter in the mail saying you need to resit this one coursework from the previous semester that up until this point you could've sworn you never even heard about.

But such is life.

So yes, essentially I have passed my exams and my University is fully prepared to welcome me back into its cold, heartless, smothering embrace of hatred lies and small pointy objects called pens - but only if I agree to resubmit this coursework at a fix maximum mark of 40%

Seems reasonable enough I guess, resit an assessment with an unfairly fixed pass mark in order to pay my University £1300 a year in order to gain access to an under-booked library and nothing else.


Wait...

Thursday, 17 June 2010

Imperialism


I have read a very well thought out defence of Imperialism on The Monarchist Manifesto website, (What? You haven't heard of it? You disgust me, good sir), and it has indeed given me much food for thought, especially because as an Irishman my country has been a part of one of the Greatest Empires ever known for the majority of its time in existence as a Christian Nation. So that means that as a descendent of an Empire that I don't look upon too fondly for emotional-historical reasons, Black Baron's blog post has caused another confliction within me with regards to this topic. Normally I am quite lax with regards to Imperialism, for the simple reason it is as natural to Humankind, our collective civilisation as a species, and our history, as Monarchy is. I admire such Empires as that of the Empire of Ethiopia, the Shahanshah of Iran, Japan's and China's respective Ancient Empires, Russia, Germany and more besides, however, due to my background as an Irish Nationalist, I still retain many of such traits in my political and social thought albeit in a VERY different light to many other nationalists, as such I place such things as National Sovereignty, which in my mind cannot be truly achieved for any country unless they have a Sovereign to define it, and this is what creates a conflict between my view of Imperialism as a Monarchist, which is a positive view, and my view of Imperialism as a Nationalist, which is a negative view. I fully invite the other Irish Monarchists I have been delighted to discover reading my blog to fully chip in with their own thoughts on these matters after I have finished this post, because after all, we will have to face this issue as Monarchists sooner or later if our wish is achieved and Ireland has its own Kingdom once more.

Before I go in, we will first define what I will mean when I refer to Imperialism, in an attempt to keep this critique of Imperialism intellectual and not dominated by sneaking, unintelligent passion. By Imperialism I mean by its simplest definition, the Expansion of one's borders, for the security of your Nation, growth of one's economy, prestige and influence in world affairs. This is what I will technically call High Imperialism, because it is the most overt and image provoking type of Imperialism one thinks of. All other forms of Imperialism, Corporate growth, National Chuvanism, Jingoism, the emotionally-chargeddrivel-insult spouted by the left against anything that isn't left, etc; shall be ignored for this exercise. A least for now, I'll save them for later rants.


First I will get the emotional baggage out of the way and deal with the problem of National Sovereignty and Imperialism. The first issue is the most obvious; that of Imperialism being fundamentally the destruction of the cheapening of other Nation's Sovereignty by rights of Conquest, intimidation, or other means. Or in the case of Ireland, and Black baron's primary defence of Imperialism, Strategy. I am not so foolish as to not understand the Kingdom of England's real intent in Conquering Ireland, that of Security. England greatly feared the French or the Spanish, who Irish Tuathes were being unreasonably friendly with in English eyes, using Ireland as a base to launch invasions of England, (this is actually one of the reasons England sought to conquer Scotland as well, to prevent enemies getting in 'by the back door'), for centuries afterwards, (I'm going to skip over the second invasion of Ireland by England and the plantations that followed, that's an ugly bit of history and going over it will just raise passions in all), England has justified its conquering or Ireland by the excuse that 'the Irish could not govern themselves' that their ruling was an act of Mercy, for the most part we can safely say that is true, but only Because England destroyed all means of National Sovereignty for the Irish to begin with, we couldn't rule ourselves because our rulers were driven from the island. This also lead to a great level of clericalism in Ireland, were the peasants looked up to Priests and Bishops as rulers for lack of secular Lords, it was all we had left, especially after the plantations were most of our Aristocracy spent their time living in London and leaving their estates in Ireland in the hands of attendants to administer their rule. It was no wonder when the 18/19th century rolled around and one particularly educated priest began criticising England and saying 'They cannot rule Ireland effectively' Which caused a huge hullabaloo among intellectual circles for obvious reasons. Ireland is an example of 'Bad' Imperialism, not bad in the sense of being 'cruel' or 'evil' really, but bad in the sense of of just being poor, the population was of a different religion to the Aristocracy, had a history of poverty and poor administration, (tenet farming fiasco, random evictions which lead to controversial land law reforms which many British Monarchists today resent), and then had their parliament dissolved because 'they were unfit to rule themselves' Without even mentioning any atrocities, rebellions or whatever violence you care to mention, Irish resentment to British Rule is quite obvious, and in many respects justified, even if it wasn't poisoned by the vicious years of rebellion and the memories of the Arch Republican Heretic and Apostate, Oliver Cromwell, who's name is still quite literally used as a curse in some parts of Rural Ireland. Ironically this is also the reason why when I refer to British Rule, I refer to Parliament, after all, the Monarchs of England often bore no ill will to Ireland, except for that one rather hilarious episode involving Red Hugh and his outfoxing of the British Army, but yet again, that's another post.


I will concede however, in some respects, Imperialism has been known to instil a great sense of National pride and, ironically, Loyalty, and again as an Example, to prove my attempt at even handedness, I will use the British Empire. In this case, there is a great deal of National Identity and Pride in the cases of both India and Scotland, and these cases can be demonstrated the most clearly in respect to the Regiments of both Countries within the British Empire. Scotland has a long, illustrious and Enviable military history of tactical excellence, and stupefying feats of bravery, almost to the point were I'd dare to say the song Scotland the Brave doesn't do the Scottish justice! Someone once said; "I'd be terrified to fight the Scottish, not because they're good fighters, but because they're the only men, Man enough to go to war in sleet, hail or snow in a bloody skirt!" The uniforms of Scottish Soldiers were always recognisably 'British' but at the same time they were always recognisably 'Scottish', for centuries they have fought proudly in kilts and plumed berets and had bag pipers in their war bands instead of drummers, National identity and Pride was never dampened in Scotland even when bans on tartan designs on kilts were enacted, the Scottish wore their kilts proudly anyway, with or without their clan colours, (personally I feel the ban should be lifted by now and Scots should be allowed to wear their tartan colours on their kilts, both to bolster the sense of tradition and strengthen family values and pride, but that's just my opinion) and throughout all that time and even to this day, they see the Monarch of England as also the Monarch of Scotland, even Scottish Nationalists today, who are infamous for their disliking of the British parliament, (almost as infamous as my rabid dislike of Socialism and their affinity towards it, grrrr), bear no ill will against Her Majesty or the Royal family and many seem to even express affection for them. While India is an entirely different story to Scotland, many similarities can be seen, for a great deal of time, the King of England was also considered the Raj, or Emperor, of India, given His Majesty the hybrid title of King-Emperor. The regiments of India served the Empire with ferocity and great loyalty and courage and like the Scottish their uniforms were recognisably 'Indian', and added greatly to the tapestry of Imperial culture within Britain, in fact one of the most enduring symbols of British Imperialism that one can call to mind is an English gentleman being served by an Indian Butler/servant in full regalia and traditional Headdress, (this also goes for Sikhs as well), not the most flattering of images for Indians I grant you, but it is evident of the great cultural impact India has on the larger Empire as a whole. And India today is no worse for wear from British Imperialism, and is even expected to become a superpower in its own right sometime in the future.


Now let us come to more modern times, the age of America, the 20th and early 21st Century, and of the greatest hypocrisy of the world since the Religious Leaders of the Synagogue in the time of Christ. I am of course referring to the empire of Revolution, the domination of contemporary spiritual and intellectual cultures of Liberalism, Socialism, Environmentalism, of self hatred, of undermining one's pride and culture for the sake of one's own aggrandised version of a Utopia, that which cannot exist, that which should not exist, a Want for a land of no conflict, of communes and Peace among all, of boundless wealth and no greed, no morals. A land of Robots. A land of the dead.
Of course my boundless hatred of the liberal disease of the mind cannot be summed up. At all. And this post is hardly the best place to put it, especially since I promised to be dealing with the traditional sense of Imperialism, but it just seems so fitting to make mention of the Anti-Imperial culture. The hypocrisy of such is that it is a form of Imperialism in its own right. It seeks to expand its influence, its prestige, and seeks to destroy its enemies by means of intimidation and influence. The Empire of Revolution is, in the truest sense, an Evil Empire. An empire of falsehoods and lies, of stealth bigotry, self hatred and self destruction, an empire that has turned the once vaunted academia into a mass hive of idealogical think tanks, where true objective study is thrown out in favour of an ideologically bent lens through which to view the world, and is called Objective. Of all forms of Imperialism, this is the most despicable, and is our enemy. Its hypocrisy stems from its own denunciation of pride yet swims in its own vanity, it denounces all forms of righteous and justification for anything as wrong and invalid yet it is nothing but self-righteousness, it is this imperialism and pride that will kill us all. Literally.

I realise the above paragraph was wildly out of context but I still felt the need to express it.


Of course there is still the lingering malaise that haunts all Empires, the single greatest criticism of Imperialism and greatest argument against a nation becoming Imperial. It is an argument I expect many of you not to call to mind if you objectively considered Imperialism in the scope of history, the single greatest threat to an Empire's existence: Stagnation.

Stagnation occurs when an Empire, a social-political entity that has thrived on expansion, rapid development, progress, conquest, domination, glory, danger and respect, runs out on all of the above. This happens first when an Empire grows contented, secure in their borders, their majesty and power, there is no enemy who dares oppose it openly, there are no more lands worth expending the resources to bring under the flag, as a result the population becomes bored, and lazy, and as the population becomes bored and lazy, moral impairment occurs and this leads to a number of social ills which just harm the morale and the mentality of the empire even further, this is, I argue, what killed Rome. It turns an empire that seems like it should stand forever, into a brief, but glorious flash of history, and all that lies in the wake of its passing is crumbling moments, forgotten glory, and sadness. It killed Rome, it Killed the Ottomans, and it will kill America and its own Empire. This is, I feel, the greatest reason for me not to be supportive of Imperialism, simply because all empires fall, it is in their nature, if possible I would prefer us all to be kingdoms, or if we must have imperial styles, to be like the Empires of Japan and Ethiopia, contained, and contented, so that we would last forever. I do not want to look down upon the earth centuries after my time and see a man walk in the desert and see a ruin of King Ozymandias proudly boasting;

My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!

as a traveller simply walks on by.


Friday, 21 May 2010

Of Riches and Royals

Commonly-enough asked of monarchists is exactly why should there be a monarchy when it is so expensive to keep? Of course many of you can already answer this question in your sleep by this point in time especially given that this is basically a loaded question which is more often then not asked in rhetoric were Republican opponents don't really care if you can answer it or not. Here's a hint: make a game out of it, when asked, respond in kind and ask 'Why have a presidency when it is so expensive to run elections and to maintain it every so-and-so years?'

The difference here is that monarchists don't think of the monarchy's financial burden on society, (which is laughably small compared to the splendiferous waste of money and time Legislatures use tax payer's money on to begin with), but also of the splendour and magnificence the Monarchy represents, the sheer majesty and pageantry all symbolic of the nation's own power and prestige, they are living symbols of the Nation itself, history and its future. They are living culture, and this is true wealth of nations, where even the most financially insecure nation can stand proud amidst her neighbours. Look to Tonga, who's relatively recently crowned King was criticised for the lavish coronation ceremonies and celebrations, but who's splendour and wealth was spent so that the whole country could enjoy the momentous occasion.

But then again we cant really expect republicans and their ilk to respect this, because they do not value this aspect of humanity, (just look to the secularisation of culture here in the west, lovely, isnt it?) this is a rant I do suppose, and one you've likely heard from a thousand other blogs a thousand times but it still needs to be said. And really, that is the problem isn't it? Why are they deaf to our words and arguments? Why do our opponents consider us childish, old-fashioned, or fascistic? Why do they fear us?

Probably because unlike them we want a restoration of the souls of western society, so that our nations can once again, for better or worse economic weather, remain rich in spirit, in culture. Its no wonder Republicans grumble and grime about money in that sense, because in the end, they are in fact, writhing in spiritual poverty.

Wednesday, 5 May 2010

An Irish Pope


This was a rather amusing idea that a friend of mine made aware to me, certain Journalists are speculating the likelihood of one Arch Bishop Diarmuid Martin could very well be in the Running to be the next Pope.

Now far be it from me to point out the outrageous, yet hilarious Irony it would be that the College of Cardinals should select the next Pope after His Holiness has gone to his reward, to be from Ireland of all places based on his clean record in terms of dealing with Clerical abuses.

But thats not really the point of this blog post, the point is really what the content of that article reveals about the intentions and bias of many journalists, especially ones that arent just outrightly hostile to the Catholic Church. That of them wanting to reform the Church to suit modern tastes.

If you take a gander at several instances in the article it is actually quite clear that the author wishes for ''a new ecclesiology'' of the Church and a more ''inclusive'' and ''transparent'' then the ''current royal model'', essentially speaking he would want a more democratic Church. Now this is what outrages me most about a lot of liberal Catholics, never mind their ambiguity on Abortion, that's a rant for later, but their disliking of what the Church is.

I have heard it in numerous places, if they don't hate all of the Church, the attack the Pope, and when they get tired of attacking the Pope, the attack the Church's hierarchical nature in general. It bloody sickens me. The mask this all under the pretence of 'wanting minimal reform' when what the want is a repeat of Vatican II in which liberal priests and theologians took the opportunity to run rampant and cause immeasurable damage to the Church and the Faithful. And yes I am cynical and bitter enough to notice that alot of the current sexual abuses happened in the period after Vatican II more then the period before and promptly call Liberal Catholics out on their almighty bullshit.
Rinse, wash, repeat, these arguments and demands for democratisation of the Church, just so they can ruin it and protestant-ise it, have been around for a good while, but it just annoys me at their leech-like opportunism to attack now.

Don't get me wrong, I still think the idea of an Irish Pope would be beautifully Ironic, especially if it is the Arch Bishop and pulls a fast one on everyone and be just as Conservative as His Holiness is, but not now, not with these liberals heaping their expectations and influence on anyone they think might be the next Pope. Still, it was fun to joke about, self depreciatingly, about a Pope who was no stranger to beer-wait a minute...

Never mind then.

Thursday, 15 April 2010

Royal Motivation

I'm sorry but this was too good to keep to myself. A good friend of mine sent me an image of the King of Sweden with annotations that just suited the expression on His Majesty's face so perfectly. Don't worry I'll get back to proper blogging as soon as life permits.


Otherwise His Majesty will be forced to put an end to my bullshit...





Tuesday, 16 March 2010

Happy St.Patrick's day!

I wish you all a Happy St.Patrick's Day!

Pobal na hEireann, and why I dont know a damn thing about it

Pobal na hEireann was, is, or could be a serious monarchist movement within Ireland that I have heard rumours of but the only proof I have of them is a few pages on the net written in a mix of Irish Gaelige and English. All I know of it particularly is that it has some serious policies and possible reforms planned to change the Irish Constitution to allow a Monarchy of Ireland styled in the old High Kingship with other social reform policies as outlawing abortion completely and encouraging population growth to increase the population of Ireland to a 10 Million minimum for industrial and economic growth reasons. Both such reforms I have little problem with, put another 2 mil on that estimate and i'm game.

Any way all the information I had on the group is sketchy or missing as a few geo-cites which they registered are now defunct or moved, and this post is a general plea to the community for any such links regarding information of the group, or even the remnants of the group should they have been disbanded over the years.

Hell even if you don't have information on the group, if you have any links relevant to the topic at hand feel free to post them anyway. Everything helps.

Tuesday, 9 March 2010

Be it ever so humble


I have been gone long enough and while I have some topics to indeed blog about, such as my discovery and investigation into a certain Pobal Na hEireann, a nationalist-monarchist group active in Ireland that until a very good friend of mine, whom we shall name Mars, told me of, had remained unknown to me. As well as my theory of uniting potential noble candidates into a council of cheifs from which an Ard Ri may be elected amongst his noble peers, harkening to ancient tradition and modernised into a monarchy unique to Ireland's quirks and qualms with even room given to the Unionists of the North. Hell, why not even fill you all in on the events happening right now in Northern Ireland from a first hand perspective of a university student in Belfast itself?

But such topics of adventures, escapades and mad theories of an island of mad people, I shall instead ask a pertinent question that concerns all monarchists but especially those of the West, be they Jacobite, Loyalist, Carlist, Legitimist , Bonapartist, Orleonist, Royalist, Constitutional, Absolutist, conventional or unconventional, whatever their philosophy, Religion, qualms, thoughts or nationality. It especially concerns those who value the debating over the monarchistic ideal then the spreading of said ideal.

Why are you all so damn complacent?

This came to mind after talking to several British monarchists online and watching them debate over certain topics and an inescapable pattern occurs that annoys me. They are so blinded by their love for Her Majesty the Queen and the royal family that they almost reject any notion that any threat could oust the Monarchy from power, that the very mention of such a notion warrants the person speaking it to be slapped with a wet fish. This belief remains perplexingly strong despite the undeniable truth that the monarchy in Britain while wielding immense prestige and cultural influence around the world, holds no actual power. Normally this is fine with constitutional monarchists and other sorts but this is exactly the problem when Britain has a growing republican base in its own country, or even with the Labour party likely to get another term in parliament. Hey, they've already done what can be consider almost irreparable damage to the House of Lords during their reign, do you honestly believe they would stop there? Honestly? Them and the others of their ilk?

And its not just in Britain, oh no, the love of the British for their beloved Monarchy is admirable in the extreme and exemplary to the rest of us, there's an element of this in France, where arguably the current modern ailment began, but also surprisingly with one of the strongest monarchist movements in the whole of Europe with at the least three camps arguing amongst themselves, the Legitimists the Bonapartists and the Orleanists respectively. It is perfectly reasonable that the dispute over the throne be resolved, but while they are arguing the Republicans are making inroads in their advance to destroy the beautiful nation of France, is it not more reasonable to instill monarchist fervour in the majority of the French instead and then argue who should have the throne? At least that way we'd be closer to actually having someone on the French throne.

I am of course running my mouth, and I admit I do not know the complexities or the ideals of monarchists in France, Britain, and everywhere else, but my annoyances stand. Of course the curse of monarchism is of course, pride, and it is often this pride that prevents us from truly seeing what is in front of us or more accurately what the truth is:

We are outnumbered, outgunned and down to our last few reigning monarchs whom most of us have something against for one reason or another, that HM Juan Carlos is still un-coronated or that Her Majesty the Queen of England is of the wrong royal line or whatever else have you. The fact of the matter is if we dont do something we have lost everything.

Do not get me wrong, it is as important as everything else that we discuss the finer points of monarchism, the points of conflict and the ironing out of philosophical wrinkles to the point of death, but not at the expense of garnering more support for monarchism as a whole. Why not make posters promoting the Royal House? Why not create flyers? Are these things beneath us? Is it beneath monarchism? Because our enemies are sure as hell counting on us to think so. If you have friends why not talk to them about it? Why not discuss it with your intellectual peers or other sorts? Hell why not even family? We might as well start somewhere because doing nothing is, surprise surprise, getting us nowhere.

Friday, 25 September 2009

A long overdue update - Not dead yet

My sincere apologies for disappearing there, with sorting out my University affairs and several other private troubles I will not bother you all with I am back.

If any of you feel inclined to contact with me in a more direct manner, you may do so either via Instant messenger or humble email with this address irishmonarchist 'at' hotmail.co.uk

It would be the wiser option, I do not believe I'll be able to keep track with this blog regularly till at least All Hollow's eve