Search This Blog

Friday, 31 December 2010

Monarchists as Revolutionaries


Bear with me here for a moment Gentlemen and Ladies

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

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

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

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

Friday, 24 December 2010

Merry Christmas!


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


Wednesday, 15 December 2010

Restoration II: Clans and the Role of the Church

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

The clan chieftain's role is simple, he is the head of the family. The buck of family affairs stops at him. He is by virtue the clan's 'favoured uncle'. In the old ages this would mean he was the military and political chief of his clan and the go-to person if someone wished to petition their regional king. In the modern a
ge he would provide and equally important role, that of unity and family identity, bearing importance on familial relations and establishing a deep seated sense of cultural pride which has obvious benefits. He will be often at times the only link one disparate sept of a clan shares with the larger sept, creating a sense of security. I do not intend to argue the chieftains control political power, because that would be ridiculous and unneccessary as such chieftains would have unstated influence anyway due to their position, besides, if clans had chieftain appointed representatives to their local district councils, suddenly people would have their local governments filled with people who give a damn about the condition of their roads and schools.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunday, 21 November 2010

Ireland cannot afford to let itself be fooled now

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

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


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

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

The buzzards are circling over the Irish corpse.

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

Wednesday, 17 November 2010

Dear Ireland, hope you like dependency

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

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

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

Tuesday, 16 November 2010

Restoration I: Hibernie Rex. Imperator Scottorum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunday, 31 October 2010

With regards to that embarrassing Socialism

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

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

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

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

Now, it boggles the mind that a Boron, the classical drum of the Irish people that makes frequent appearances at many an 'Old man's bar' and folk night at any club, should have the face of a revolutionary butcher who operated halfway across the world from Ireland imprinted on it like it was honourable. Oh now don't get me wrong I am all for decorating our venerable instruments with the images and icons of our heroes and cultural history. I am merely pointing out the fact of the matter that Che Guevera is neither and doesn't deserve to be placed on the same wall as an otherwise conservative Repub
lican Revolution, oh no no, they are two different breeds of person! Not to mention class. The fact is Michael Collins is Irish and had a place on that wall in plenty of contexts of Irish politics, but Che Guevera however, does not.
And neither does his Socialism.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that means you are a traitor.

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

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

Those who claim that they are are one of three things:
Hilariously un or misinformed, an ignorant prick, or a subversive liar.

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

Slan go phoile

Sunday, 3 October 2010

Secret Monarchists

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

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

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

We just need to look for them.

Sunday, 29 August 2010

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

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

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

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

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

Personally I say yes, (at great risk to my own legitimacy), if one commits Treason, such as assaulting a Sovereign with intent to Injury, defamation with intention to cause unrest, spying for a foreign power, etc, etc, etc, should truly warrant the Death penalty and here is why, in order of pettiest to severe:
-By these actions an Individual deceives his peers with no regard to their safety
-He ruins the good names of innocents connected to him by business dealings and Acquaintance
-He ruins the standing and risks the estate of his family, both immediate and extended, by his actions. Putting his own desires ahead of his House.
-His actions likely result in injury or death, or in the case of spying, risking the injury, death, and possible conquest of Thousands or Millions of his Countrymen.
-If he is a man of standing, he betrays the trust of the Lower classes, the trust of higher classes, and the trust of his Sovereign.
-If he is not a man of standing, he betrays the trust of all that he would be an upstanding Subject of merit, besmirching the image of the entire lower classes by his base actions, causing distrust suspicion and possible unrest within the nation.
-By endangering his Sovereign he not only shows his disloyalty to his nation and Countrymen, but a callous disregard for everything that Nation is, was or ever will be, by attacking and endangering the enduring symbol of the Nation's continuity, past present and future, that the Sovereign embodies.

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

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

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

Sunday, 22 August 2010

God Bless Geeks

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

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

Wednesday, 14 July 2010

On Parliaments

(I'll save my disgust at the behaviour of my fellow Irish Nationalists here in the north recently, for another post)

Ah what a blessed, ugly thing, that great and fantastic, necessary evil for running any modern nation of peoples; that towering, rotten leviathan that has the audacity to refer to itself as the State.

Oh wait no, that's the supreme court I was referring to, my apologies, this post is actually about Parliaments and how I despise them.

I will admit from this point on I am, for lack of a better term, an Absolute Monarchist, after my hatred for the audacious and preposterous idea and notion that the King would ever need to bow to parliament to perform the simplest of His duties won the war of my affections over the notion of a long lasting Nation.

I will be the first to admit that the Dail in Ireland is necessary as a legislative body for the herculean task of managing the laws of the land, but by God it should not rule the country.
My rage at Parliaments, or in America's case, the Senate and Congress, stems not only from my utter distrust of politicians for the simple vice that they are politicians, but also for the more practical reasons that every Parliament in almost every monarchy actively seeks to silence the voice of the monarch, be it Luxembourg, who's Sovereign is to have his signature revoked from the necessity of passing legislature because Grand Duke Henri dared to act upon his constitutional and just role as head of state to disagree and refuse to sign into law a piece of legislation he disagreed with, or let us go to Spain, who's evil socialist government is even now actively trying to rid Spain of its Monarchy, or how the coalition government in Britain is now pondering constitutional changes and at the same time absent mindedly forgetting they have a Queen. Or in Norway where the Monarchy is absolutely hamstrung by the ban on all noble titles by the parliament save for the monarch himself, endangering the Monarchy to an overnight destruction at any given moment in the future.

How I utterly despise the notion of parliamentarian ism, I am firmly and utterly convinced that any ounce of power given to the parliament will always form into a dagger in the back of the Monarchy, I make no apologies from my utter dislike of the idea that Parliaments should be trusted with any length of power in Constitutional Monarchies, for was it not in an emergency meeting with the French equivalent of an assembly, where His Majesty King Louis was ready to give in to some reforms that the revolution truly begin to take place? And was it not through the greed of the Parliament in England that the Stuarts had to flee from the land and brought that Arch-Heretic Cromwell to blight my own country with his own reign of terror in the name of liberty and Justice?

Parliaments are a necessary evil, and are only good when muzzled and leashed, filled with statesmen and not politicians. Otherwise they are a slow, wasteful pox eating at the organs of Nations.



Monday, 12 July 2010

Happy Annual Riot Day

Saints, how I hate the twelfth...

For those unfamiliar with Irish History... Just go look it up, I have no humour to recount past history this day with regards to the Orange Order marches on July 12th here in Northern Ireland.

What I will talk about is the riots you'll sure to be hearing about soon enough, wherever you are, with regards to the parades.

Where do I start? First I guess, lets start with the parading tradition here in Northern Ireland, Parades and 'Marches' are a long standing socio-political tradition here in Ireland for damn near everyone, and alot of care and effort is put into the Cumanns who do the marching tunes and melodies for the Nationalist and Republican parades and Marches, (Please Note, although all Nationalist parades are mostly attended by your average Paddy McSeamus, similarily enough ALL said parades are distinctly Militaristic in character), the same could be said for the Orange Order Marches our Unionist counterparts, with their impeccably well dressed manner displaying their medals and tokens of office and station. These parades are always a popular sight to see for tourists, be it the shamelessly political and overtly emotive and beautiful tapestries and banners carried in Nationalist parades upon spears and Halberds, or the rousing and hypnotising order of the Orange Parades.

So whats the problem? Simple, the Orange Order Parades march through predominantly Nationalist neighbourhoods and areas of Belfast. Causing a great deal of consternation all around. And no, the Nationalists dont do likewise on similarly important holidays, such as Easter or some such. This is why I hate the 12th, I don't hate it for the History, nor do I hate it for the pride that the orange order and Unionists in general display in the parade, they have the right to do so on their own holiday. What I bloody well hate is the sheer ignorant arrogence of marching through areas where they know they will cause an uproar. My apologies to unionist readers of my blog but my anger must be made known. And to those viewing history of this island from the outside wondering why riots such as these haven't happened in a long time and that nationalists are being overall rotten about this, the nationalist community has in fact been simmering over this issue for quite some time throughout the peace process. I still remember scenes from a few years back where several nationalist residents attempted to blockade their streets or otherwise tie themselves to lamp-posts in peaceful protests of the march going down their streets, (before you ask, yes, Northern Ireland is EXACTLY as tribal as I am making it sound to be, on both sides). I know full well that the Order marches down those particular streets for tradition's sake, but I also know full well that there are indeed a great many in the Unionist community who take great joy in the anger and irritation this causes their Nationalist counterparts. Because that's exactly what this miserable little statelet needs right now, isn't it?

Oh it reminds me of that time the Orange Order tried to organise a march through Dublin city one year, (on what logical grounds no-one can tell you I assure you), and the riots and anger that ensued were LEGENDARY, and did seem to provoke a surge of National pride in the south, (despite the Irish Times trying to pin the entire riots' organisation on the provisional IRA so as to make it appear that Southern Irishmen were not nearly as hot blooded as their northern counterparts, which is of course hot bull-dung, as there were more rioting in Dublin then I have ever heard about here in the North, and caught me quite by surprise) So much drama and anger raised when the March could just take the street slightly to the left of the one it goes down, and everyone can have their traditional marches with minimal consternation. I am usually never a peace activist but this nonsense has been going on long enough.

Sunday, 11 July 2010

A very Royal World Cup



For those of you watching the World Cup final, I hope you, as well as the Royal families present in Johannesburg this evening, enjoy a truly great and enjoyable game, as the national teams of these two Monarchies battle it out for one of the highest sporting glories the world has to offer.

May the best team win.

Wednesday, 7 July 2010

They're not even trying...

Every now and again, myself and my good friend Mars, who I have made mention of every now and again and who gave me the inspiration for the Pan-Monarchist flag I have put at the bottom of my blog, amuse ourselves by studying the republics of Europe in depth and realise how many trappings of the Monarchical era still remain and how deliciously oblivious many revolutionaries seem to be the are essentially walking, working, living in breathing in what is essentially 'Tory country' on a continental scale, and then bemoan how the ordinary folk are equally oblivious, for example, in France you take an investigation into its component provinces and counties you will see a WEALTH of flags, and coats of arms, most of them medieval in nature decorating France in a tapestry of colour. The same could be said of other nations.

But let me point out those who are REALLY not trying that hard to be republics,

Let us start with the federal Republic of Russia and how its office of president has the coat of arms of the Romanov Dynasty blazoned across the colour of the Nation itself. Or again, a little closer to Home, how In the Irish Republic we have the office of Uachtarán having the presidential standard consist of the Royal Blue field with the Golden Harp emblazoned upon it, the traditional royal standard of Ireland you can see still incorporated in the Royal standard of the British Royal family.

Hey, why don't we just go even further and point out how San Marino, the Oldest Republic in the World has a bloody Royal Coat of Arms and Standard.

This is not to mention the regional coats of arms of the mention Nations which I assure you also have monarchical meanings, (Ireland's provincial flags especially), why this amuses is the inescapably of Monarchism, and how the fact that all these things remain are evidence in and of themselves of humanity's longing for Monarchy, tradition, honour, grandeur and all else besides.

If only people stopped and looked hard enough.

Saturday, 3 July 2010

The Irish Inquisition

Something is very strange with regards to the attitudes of lay Catholics in Ireland towards the Church Hierarchy, very odd indeed.

For those keeping track with the Clerical abuse scandals should know by now that there is an Apostolic Visitation due to visit Ireland soon enough to investigate into abuses of the Church, specifically; the abuses of Priests and Bishops.

So why is this being viewed as a bad thing among lay Catholics as well as several in Religious Communities?

While reading the Irish Catholic the other day I saw an article written by a nun, supposedly passing off the Apostolic visitation as nothing more then a petty inquisition that will be both useless and will result with nothing more then an odd one sentence report filed away in'some desk drawer somewhere' and is only occurring 'because someone, somewhere decided something was wrong.

Which is something I can agree with, that someone somewhere was likely a whisper from the prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith, or His Holiness himself, and that some drawer somewhere could be the office drawer of said Prefect of what is essentially the Holy Office of the Inquisition.

Oh! So that's why they're so keen to pass it off as nothing. It is clear that even among the conservative Catholics of Ireland something is still very wrong, when an important action taken by Church Authorities, at long last, to do something about the priestly abuses, is viewed as pejorative because ''they aren't being told the results of what the Investigation will be'' until long after the Visitation is completed and said results are reviewed. I say if the religious congregations are living good and Holy lives among their lay brothers and sisters, why would they be worried?

This has similar hallmarks to the reactions of some religious communities in America after it was announced an apostolic visitation would be investigating them, where they openly advocated policies of non-co-operation, these same communities were being shown as 'undeserving victims' as they were 'working tirelessly to bring communities together of different creeds, faiths genders, etc' regardless of the heresies and lapses in honest Christian charity that were replaced good dishonest social justice. Oh wait, they didn't mention that last part, that would've been a bit honest. I am only dealing with the religious attitudes of Ireland in this post, as there was a great deal within this newspaper which angered me with their views towards the black nobility of Italy. But that is anger best reserved from a time when I need it. Like down at the shooting range.

If I am coming across a bit bitter in this post over this topic, its only because I am. The religious attitude in Ireland has been lax or even rebellious all around the population, and I have wanted something done about the priestly scandals FROM the Church Hierarchy for a great while now. And now that its here, and it is deathly serious, the seeds of discontent and dissension are beginning to blossom. As soon as the Church, after such a long, slow reaction, is attempting to do something meaningful and Genuinely Catholic about the issue

Quite frankly, the Inquisition couldn't come soon enough.

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.