• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please contact us.




What is Irish Republicanism - And does it have a Future?

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
224,089
This was written by internet comrade of mine, a child of the real country, the land Pearse loved so much that he threw his body against the granite cold face of history to shatter and die in order that it might realize itself, the spawn of martyrs who have hallowed the earth beneath us. There are some things in this that I would disagree with, I dont think that he fully grasps the complexities of Ulster history for example never the less this is a demonstration that outside and against Glenstal, The ISIS Times and what passes for academia people are thinking and their thoughts are not ones that many of the loudest on here want to even think exist, however as Pearse declared; beware of the thing that is coming, beware of the risen people who will take what you would not give, did you think that you would conquer the people or that law is stronger than life? Wind your necks in.

What is Irish Republicanism - And does it have a Future?

Republicanism was probably a strange idea to the Gael, when Theobald Wolfe Tone and his fellow Enlightened Irish Protestants introduced it to Ireland. Gaelic society had been based on a warrior aristocracy up until the Defeat at Kinsale, Briseadh Chionn tSáile, 1601, and all of our Gaelic poetry and song was aristocratic in mentality (and, for the most part, still is). I would think that the Gael who fought in 1798 had very little concept of Republicanism, but knew it was against the English enemy, and that was good enough. Later on, Daniel O'Connell was basically treated as a king, as was Dev in the 20th century. And, if the truth be told, it's better to have a good king than a democratic rabble like we have now, who want nothing so much as to plunder and loot the country for all they can get.

But, it's obvious why Wolfe Tone would introduce Republicanism as a concept. It seemed to provide a transcendent idea that could win the allegiance of all Irishmen. The reality, of course, was otherwise.

That said, at least Republicanism did manage to provide an organizing idea to the majority of the native Gael, particularly after 1916, though it was a particularly Irish form of Republicanism that the likes of Voltaire and Robespierre would have found difficult to recognize.

But, that was then, and this is now. We never won liberty, still less equality (and recently that word has been turned into a joke), and the one thing we did have as a people, a sense of fraternity, has been thrown to the wind.

Modern Ireland is a place that fails on every level. We are ruled by scoundrels, who, to our great shame, we elect ourselves. Our media is owned and run by people with a visceral hatred for the Irish nation and all things Irish. On the economic level, we have only managed to put up a show of success by turning Ireland into a safe haven for corporate money laundering. And these companies bring in 75% of their employees from abroad. Art and culture are poor to say the very least. And partition is as strong as ever - if not stronger.

Well, I think any objective observer would say that Irish Republicanism is really not serving the purpose of giving the people a unifying idea. An objective observer might even ask "what is Irish Republicanism?" If he picked up a PSF document, he would probably learn that it's about equality. But, he would be left no wiser as to what this equality actually is. RSF would certainly give a more detailed response. Éire Nua and Saol Nua certainly give some idea of what a future Irish Republic might look like. But, I'm afraid he would get very little from the other Republican groups by way of explanation. One way or another, he would have to come to the conclusion that whatever Irish Republicanism is, it is not exciting the imaginations of the people, and it is not winning their confidence.

So, what exactly is the nature of the crisis we face today in Ireland?

In the south, it really isn't that our so called government pawned the people's wealth to pay off criminal banksters and landowners. You put rats in a cellar full of cheese, and they will always eat it. You can't blame them for that. It isn't even the Unionists in the north-east. They are behaving like any people would in that situation.

It seems clear that the crisis is inside those who might have been expected to form the bedrock of the nation, i.e. the native Gaelic population. This population is being pounded into fragments, and nobody is doing anything to stop that, or even recognize that it's a problem. Where there should be some unity of purpose, there is only a riot of factional and individual interest.

Can Irish Republicanism be considered as any kind of transcendent idea now? Particularly, given that many, if not most, Irish Republicans today have bought into a liberal attitude that would even deny that the nation has any need of any kind of bedrock or foundation. And, of course, if that were to be correct, why even bother with an Irish state. Would we not be better to move to a single European state, were we can all be Irish and Republican to our hearts content. In effect, this is what great numbers of Irish people are now saying. Though Brexit may have woken some of our Irish people out of their dream state, PSF was campaigning to present EU misrule as "the will of the people."

So, as a unifying idea, Irish Republicanism is really very weak. At the very least, it needs to be reassessed. No doubt we love to hold on to dearly held traditions, but if, decade after decade, we come no closer to success, but even fall backwards - and nobody can doubt that the situation in the south is now chronic - then we have to step outside those traditions and look at the whole picture with different criteria.

Today, in Ireland, people are primary respected according to their wealth. After that, according to the type of work they do. But, in reality, Ireland cannot function unless everybody does his own particular job to the best of his ability. And this is where Ireland falls down every time. If you give exorbitant wages to company directors and lawyers, but give less than a living wage to the man who collects the garbage, what you are really saying is that company directors and lawyers could run the country on their own. Those who work with their hands are not really needed. And they are made to feel that they are not really needed. How can any nation prosper with such a violently wrong mentality?

Our problem is that we are not ruled by the strong. We are ruled by the nearly strong – who only see the nation as an opportunity for themselves and their families. The really strong see all the nation as their beloved brothers and sisters. The really strong do not bargain a worker down – to the point that he or she can no longer live. This would be a disgrace – an intolerable shame to the really strong. When the man who is really strong sees poverty and exclusion, his heart bursts with rage and indignation. He does not try to justify it – only the half strong do that. Those poltroons who populate our economics departments and departments of state, and sit on the boards of our so called Irish companies.

At the very core of Irish Republicanism is the question: What is the nation?

The Social Democrat will, of course, claim that the nation is the sum total of those who live within the borders of the national state at any given time. In effect, the past and the future are denied. What we have here is an example of a man waking up with self inflicted amnesia, and, seeing himself lying in a gutter, covered in puke, decides that since he is lying in a gutter covered in puke, this must be the best state to be in, and why he got there is of no interest whatsoever. This is how our latterday Social Democrats think.

If we say the nation exists, we must ask how could such a thing as the nation come into being. And if we find that an objective process was involved, then we must ask ourselves does the nation still exist, or can it continue to exist into the future, if this foundational objective process is removed.

I would be so bold as to suggest that the nation would not exist if there was not such a thing as the tribe. I know may of our lefties here will disagree. Good. That's what a political debating forum is for. We are not religious fanatics, trying to protect some dogma from intellectual investigation.

I would also venture the possibility that the great anthropologists, such as Claude Levi-Strauss, are not entirely wrong. Tribes are built on blood relations between closely knit family groups and the nation-state is a later formation, usually associated with the emergence of capitalism and the bourgeoisie. If we look at the objective picture of the world as it has emerged over the last two or three hundred years, nation-states tend to crystallize around particular tribal groups. In other words, there will be a dominant, or hegemonic, tribal group, who will mound the nation-state in its own image.

But, if one were to accept that there is a tribal kernal to every nation state, then we could legitimately put the question - If we deny and eradicate this tribal kernal, can the nation-state survive?

Look at the nation-states that have most strenuously denied the tribal kernal. Are they not the very same states which are suffering the most extreme existential crisis, and which are actually behaving in increasingly psychotic and murderous ways towards their more tribal neighbors, and who are the states which bring the survival of life itself on earth into the most jeopardy? It's clear that the EU's effort to become a non-ethnic state has crashed on the hard kernel of ethnicity. The idea that Africans and Asians can be Europeans just by taking part in some kind of government ceremony and getting a bit of paper has been spectacularly rejected.

In my view, unless Irish Republicanism breaks its connection with Liberalism and Multiculturalism it will never achieve any useful function in Ireland, and will continue to fail to act as a unifying principle in Ireland. Indeed, as Adams & Co. have shown, Irish Republicanism may well end up being just the hired help of Goldman Sachs and the rest of the international financier clique.
 


freewillie

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2013
Messages
7,491
This was written by internet comrade of mine, a child of the real country, the land Pearse loved so much that he threw his body against the granite cold face of history to shatter and die in order that it might realize itself, the spawn of martyrs who have hallowed the earth beneath us. There are some things in this that I would disagree with, I dont think that he fully grasps the complexities of Ulster history for example never the less this is a demonstration that outside and against Glenstal, The ISIS Times and what passes for academia people are thinking and their thoughts are not ones that many of the loudest on here want to even think exist, however as Pearse declared; beware of the thing that is coming, beware of the risen people who will take what you would not give, did you think that you would conquer the people or that law is stronger than life? Wind your necks in.

What is Irish Republicanism - And does it have a Future?

Republicanism was probably a strange idea to the Gael, when Theobald Wolfe Tone and his fellow Enlightened Irish Protestants introduced it to Ireland. Gaelic society had been based on a warrior aristocracy up until the Defeat at Kinsale, Briseadh Chionn tSáile, 1601, and all of our Gaelic poetry and song was aristocratic in mentality (and, for the most part, still is). I would think that the Gael who fought in 1798 had very little concept of Republicanism, but knew it was against the English enemy, and that was good enough. Later on, Daniel O'Connell was basically treated as a king, as was Dev in the 20th century. And, if the truth be told, it's better to have a good king than a democratic rabble like we have now, who want nothing so much as to plunder and loot the country for all they can get.

But, it's obvious why Wolfe Tone would introduce Republicanism as a concept. It seemed to provide a transcendent idea that could win the allegiance of all Irishmen. The reality, of course, was otherwise.

That said, at least Republicanism did manage to provide an organizing idea to the majority of the native Gael, particularly after 1916, though it was a particularly Irish form of Republicanism that the likes of Voltaire and Robespierre would have found difficult to recognize.

But, that was then, and this is now. We never won liberty, still less equality (and recently that word has been turned into a joke), and the one thing we did have as a people, a sense of fraternity, has been thrown to the wind.

Modern Ireland is a place that fails on every level. We are ruled by scoundrels, who, to our great shame, we elect ourselves. Our media is owned and run by people with a visceral hatred for the Irish nation and all things Irish. On the economic level, we have only managed to put up a show of success by turning Ireland into a safe haven for corporate money laundering. And these companies bring in 75% of their employees from abroad. Art and culture are poor to say the very least. And partition is as strong as ever - if not stronger.

Well, I think any objective observer would say that Irish Republicanism is really not serving the purpose of giving the people a unifying idea. An objective observer might even ask "what is Irish Republicanism?" If he picked up a PSF document, he would probably learn that it's about equality. But, he would be left no wiser as to what this equality actually is. RSF would certainly give a more detailed response. Éire Nua and Saol Nua certainly give some idea of what a future Irish Republic might look like. But, I'm afraid he would get very little from the other Republican groups by way of explanation. One way or another, he would have to come to the conclusion that whatever Irish Republicanism is, it is not exciting the imaginations of the people, and it is not winning their confidence.

So, what exactly is the nature of the crisis we face today in Ireland?

In the south, it really isn't that our so called government pawned the people's wealth to pay off criminal banksters and landowners. You put rats in a cellar full of cheese, and they will always eat it. You can't blame them for that. It isn't even the Unionists in the north-east. They are behaving like any people would in that situation.

It seems clear that the crisis is inside those who might have been expected to form the bedrock of the nation, i.e. the native Gaelic population. This population is being pounded into fragments, and nobody is doing anything to stop that, or even recognize that it's a problem. Where there should be some unity of purpose, there is only a riot of factional and individual interest.

Can Irish Republicanism be considered as any kind of transcendent idea now? Particularly, given that many, if not most, Irish Republicans today have bought into a liberal attitude that would even deny that the nation has any need of any kind of bedrock or foundation. And, of course, if that were to be correct, why even bother with an Irish state. Would we not be better to move to a single European state, were we can all be Irish and Republican to our hearts content. In effect, this is what great numbers of Irish people are now saying. Though Brexit may have woken some of our Irish people out of their dream state, PSF was campaigning to present EU misrule as "the will of the people."

So, as a unifying idea, Irish Republicanism is really very weak. At the very least, it needs to be reassessed. No doubt we love to hold on to dearly held traditions, but if, decade after decade, we come no closer to success, but even fall backwards - and nobody can doubt that the situation in the south is now chronic - then we have to step outside those traditions and look at the whole picture with different criteria.

Today, in Ireland, people are primary respected according to their wealth. After that, according to the type of work they do. But, in reality, Ireland cannot function unless everybody does his own particular job to the best of his ability. And this is where Ireland falls down every time. If you give exorbitant wages to company directors and lawyers, but give less than a living wage to the man who collects the garbage, what you are really saying is that company directors and lawyers could run the country on their own. Those who work with their hands are not really needed. And they are made to feel that they are not really needed. How can any nation prosper with such a violently wrong mentality?

Our problem is that we are not ruled by the strong. We are ruled by the nearly strong – who only see the nation as an opportunity for themselves and their families. The really strong see all the nation as their beloved brothers and sisters. The really strong do not bargain a worker down – to the point that he or she can no longer live. This would be a disgrace – an intolerable shame to the really strong. When the man who is really strong sees poverty and exclusion, his heart bursts with rage and indignation. He does not try to justify it – only the half strong do that. Those poltroons who populate our economics departments and departments of state, and sit on the boards of our so called Irish companies.

At the very core of Irish Republicanism is the question: What is the nation?

The Social Democrat will, of course, claim that the nation is the sum total of those who live within the borders of the national state at any given time. In effect, the past and the future are denied. What we have here is an example of a man waking up with self inflicted amnesia, and, seeing himself lying in a gutter, covered in puke, decides that since he is lying in a gutter covered in puke, this must be the best state to be in, and why he got there is of no interest whatsoever. This is how our latterday Social Democrats think.

If we say the nation exists, we must ask how could such a thing as the nation come into being. And if we find that an objective process was involved, then we must ask ourselves does the nation still exist, or can it continue to exist into the future, if this foundational objective process is removed.

I would be so bold as to suggest that the nation would not exist if there was not such a thing as the tribe. I know may of our lefties here will disagree. Good. That's what a political debating forum is for. We are not religious fanatics, trying to protect some dogma from intellectual investigation.

I would also venture the possibility that the great anthropologists, such as Claude Levi-Strauss, are not entirely wrong. Tribes are built on blood relations between closely knit family groups and the nation-state is a later formation, usually associated with the emergence of capitalism and the bourgeoisie. If we look at the objective picture of the world as it has emerged over the last two or three hundred years, nation-states tend to crystallize around particular tribal groups. In other words, there will be a dominant, or hegemonic, tribal group, who will mound the nation-state in its own image.

But, if one were to accept that there is a tribal kernal to every nation state, then we could legitimately put the question - If we deny and eradicate this tribal kernal, can the nation-state survive?

Look at the nation-states that have most strenuously denied the tribal kernal. Are they not the very same states which are suffering the most extreme existential crisis, and which are actually behaving in increasingly psychotic and murderous ways towards their more tribal neighbors, and who are the states which bring the survival of life itself on earth into the most jeopardy? It's clear that the EU's effort to become a non-ethnic state has crashed on the hard kernel of ethnicity. The idea that Africans and Asians can be Europeans just by taking part in some kind of government ceremony and getting a bit of paper has been spectacularly rejected.

In my view, unless Irish Republicanism breaks its connection with Liberalism and Multiculturalism it will never achieve any useful function in Ireland, and will continue to fail to act as a unifying principle in Ireland. Indeed, as Adams & Co. have shown, Irish Republicanism may well end up being just the hired help of Goldman Sachs and the rest of the international financier clique.
Would you mind going through that again?
I am just in from the pub and got distracted by repeats of Bullseye. Some Geordie lad has won the tumble dryer and a toaster but is going to gamble it all against Bullys star prize.
I think its a caravan
 

freewillie

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2013
Messages
7,491
I dont believe it. He's won the caravan
 

Mitsui2

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
33,384
This was written by internet comrade of mine, a child of the real country, the land Pearse loved so much that he threw his body against the granite cold face of history to shatter and die in order that it might realize itself, the spawn of martyrs who have hallowed the earth beneath us.
:D

The way that some of you folks who would prefer that we lived in a Theocracy use pick 'n' mix Republicanism in the same way some Irish Republicans have traditionally pick 'n' mixed Catholicism is a sight to see.

The fact that you yourself are a troll only increases my bafflement that folks who are clever enough to weave such fantasies as this online don't actually do something useful in the real world. Not to mention the fact that posters who take themselves very seriously (and who often denigrate those who disagree with them as "sheeple" or equivalent) fall for it every time.

But over the decade I've been here I've obviously seen youse at it again and again, so nowadays I just accept that stuff works this way - at least it explains some GE results I've known.

But it's still remarkable, really. Not you guys per se, because w@nking is universal and takes endless forms... but all those eejits (whose usernames so often include words like "truth", "justice" or - God help us! - "reality") who'll take you seriously.
 

Cruimh

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
85,702
:D

The way that some of you folks who would prefer that we lived in a Theocracy use pick 'n' mix Republicanism in the same way some Irish Republicans have traditionally pick 'n' mixed Catholicism is a sight to see.

The fact that you yourself are a troll only increases my bafflement that folks who are clever enough to weave such fantasies as this online don't actually do something useful in the real world. Not to mention the fact that posters who take themselves very seriously (and who often denigrate those who disagree with them as "sheeple" or equivalent) fall for it every time.

But over the decade I've been here I've obviously seen youse at it again and again, so nowadays I just accept that stuff works this way - at least it explains some GE results I've known.

But it's still remarkable, really. Not you guys per se, because w@nking is universal and takes endless forms... but all those eejits (whose usernames so often include words like "truth", "justice" or - God help us! - "reality") who'll take you seriously.
The 'internet comrade' is none other than ..... Tadhg Gaelach, posted on the Chuckle Factory site, Political Irish .....(don't we have a rule about excessive quoting?)

Does that show schizophrenia?
 

Mitsui2

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
33,384
The 'internet comrade' is none other than ..... Tadhg Gaelach, posted on the Chuckle Factory site, Political Irish .....(don't we have a rule about excessive quoting?)

Does that show schizophrenia?
Obviously I presumed it was Tadhg from the warmth of the reference - the more braindead Tadhg is, the more effulgent Ratso's praise is.

I suspect they're very close, really, in downright mysterious ways.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
224,089
I remember once showing someone the bits of The Knights Templar of the Proletariat by Alexander Dughin (who I regard as the greatest thinker of our time) that had been translated into English and they were totally flabbergasted and convinced that it all had to be a wind up, when I illustrated just how influential he was not just in Russia but through out Byzantine Orthodox cultural sphere and just how much is influence is growing among the remnants of the culturally conservative "Old" Left and Anti-NATO Right in western Europe well you can just imagine how taken aback they were. As opposed to be being a troll I am rather an Anti-Jacobin. However it is a simple fact that Irish Republicanism has historically been far less warped than the genocidal manias of a Washington or Robespierre- though the Freemasonic poison of 1789 still flowed in its veins preventing the FS/ROI from truly realizing its potentials.

An interesting difference between NI and the ROI is what people mean why they say "Im a Republican and not a Nationalist". That sentence means something radically different once you cross the border.

:D

The way that some of you folks who would prefer that we lived in a Theocracy use pick 'n' mix Republicanism in the same way some Irish Republicans have traditionally pick 'n' mixed Catholicism is a sight to see.

The fact that you yourself are a troll only increases my bafflement that folks who are clever enough to weave such fantasies as this online don't actually do something useful in the real world. Not to mention the fact that posters who take themselves very seriously (and who often denigrate those who disagree with them as "sheeple" or equivalent) fall for it every time.

But over the decade I've been here I've obviously seen youse at it again and again, so nowadays I just accept that stuff works this way - at least it explains some GE results I've known.

But it's still remarkable, really. Not you guys per se, because w@nking is universal and takes endless forms... but all those eejits (whose usernames so often include words like "truth", "justice" or - God help us! - "reality") who'll take you seriously.
 

neiphin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
5,604
There must be more to life,
Unless you are getting paid ?
 

Stasia

Active member
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
273
:D

The fact that you yourself are a troll only increases my bafflement that folks who are clever enough to weave such fantasies as this online don't actually do something useful in the real world.
Not being too savvy about such things, I don,t know what exactly a troll is. Something bad, presumably.
Either way, I found this OP interesting. The fact that some of the points are debatable just adds to the interest. If there is nothing to debate, why bother with a site like this?
 

Spanner Island

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
24,203
Irish Republicanism is different things to different people... just like being Irish is...

For some if you don't speak Gaelic, support your local GAA team, wallow in the past and indulge in maudlin' musical sh!te about the misery of old and in stories like Peig and in perpetual victimhood, then you're not really Irish...

This is utter bullsh!t of course... as the reality in 2016 is that being Irish is a very different thing for all sorts of people living all sorts of lives from all sorts of backgrounds... just as being a 'republican' is... and every version is probably valid to an extent.

When you've Gerry Adams and Michael McDowell claiming to be republicans the diversity of this is clear...
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
224,089
Irish Republicanism is different things to different people... just like being Irish is...

For some if you don't speak Gaelic, support your local GAA team, wallow in the past and indulge in maudlin' musical sh!te about the misery of old and in stories like Peig and in perpetual victimhood, then you're not really Irish...

This is utter bullsh!t of course... as the reality in 2016 is that being Irish is a very different thing for all sorts of people living all sorts of lives from all sorts of backgrounds... just as being a 'republican' is... and every version is probably valid to an extent.

When you've Gerry Adams and Michael McDowell claiming to be republicans the diversity of this is clear...
Peig Sayers writings show an incredibly pure of love of life and unconquerable spirit- reading them you get to imagine what Adam and Eve must have been like, they really show forth the human essence as God intended it to be. This why the agents of destruction Ireland harbour a particular hatred of her; the purity of her soul which shines from the pages she wrote is unwitting refutation of all their sordid desires and vicious habits.
 

freewillie

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2013
Messages
7,491
Peig Sayers writings show an incredibly pure of love of life and unconquerable spirit- reading them you get to imagine what Adam and Eve must have been like, they really show forth the human essence as God intended it to be. This why the agents of destruction Ireland harbour a particular hatred of her; the purity of her soul which shines from the pages she wrote is unwitting refutation of all their sordid desires and vicious habits.
Wouldnt it be better time spent if our students could converse in their national language after15 years studying Irish rather than reading ************************e that puts them off the language?
 

LadyLou

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 20, 2010
Messages
1,374
Peig Sayers writings show an incredibly pure of love of life and unconquerable spirit- reading them you get to imagine what Adam and Eve must have been like, they really show forth the human essence as God intended it to be. This why the agents of destruction Ireland harbour a particular hatred of her; the purity of her soul which shines from the pages she wrote is unwitting refutation of all their sordid desires and vicious habits.
As I remember, Peig Sayers actually existed. Adam and Eve did not. I fear for Ratio's sanity!
 

antidistinctlyminty (ADM)

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Messages
3,681
I dont believe it. He's won the caravan
Remember a story doing the rounds years ago about Bullseye - if the star prize wasn't won, one of the programme managers provided a speedboat to show as the prize they could have won - story went that no-one ever won the speedboat as it was only wheeled out when the contestant lost - apparently the use of the speedboat was to add glamour to the show

PS You can't beat a bit of Bully
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
224,089
As I remember, Peig Sayers actually existed. Adam and Eve did not. I fear for Ratio's sanity!
If you are to a Christian you must believe in a historical Adam and Eve- which does not mean necessarily believing in Young Earth Creationism; have you ever heard of the Gap Theory?
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top