|
Post by Young Ireland on Nov 26, 2021 21:48:53 GMT
One problem in regard to Tony Flannery is not his views, but that he is parroting other people's views. Let's face it. We are talking about a theological lightweight who is shopping around theologians to get one that suits himself. The Augustinian Kieran O'Mahony gets picked and he has a doctorate which in this instant reminds me more of a quote from the economist Kenneth Galbraith: He uses statistics like a drunk uses a lamp-post; for support rather than illumination. So it goes with Fr O'Mahony's doctorate. But there is nothing unusual about theologians holding this thesis, here that Christ didn't institute a priesthood. And there are many more where that came from. Going off topic a bit here, but Dr. Galbraith's quote was suprising to me as someone for a statistics background, since we are specifically trained to use statistics to support any hypothesis. Maybe that makes all drunks, I don't know
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Nov 26, 2021 21:26:41 GMT
I've not been a fan of the Burkean since it got hijacked a few years ago, but I'm shocked that it is continuing to plumb new depths. Today it interviewed a Nazi apologist with no attempt to rebut his arguments. The man's claim that the Nazis were really small government types would be laughable were the subject matter not so serious - a regime that required children to join state-sponsored youth organisations, encouraged them to spy on their parents, set up affiliated groups covering every facet of German life, is the exact opposite of a small government. Note also the praise of Francis Parker Yockey - a man who dedicated his magnus opum to "the hero of the Second World War", and who held anti-semitic views to the point where he considered the Soviets preferable to the Americans (gulags and all) on those very grounds. Free speech is one thing, Nazi apologia is quite another and the sooner the Burkean is placed in the dustbin of history, the better IMHO. Link provided for information only: www.theburkean.ie/articles/2021/11/26/thomas777-an-interview-with-the-internets-cultured-thug
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Nov 26, 2021 21:01:21 GMT
Here's a question I've been thinking about for a while - to what extent did the rise of the far-left in the wake of the crash contribute to the loss of the Eighth? Obviously the Savita case and the subsequent misinformation was a big factor, but I'm amazed no one on either side has picked up on it, given that the leadership of the pro-abortion movement and the far-left have significant overlap.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Oct 20, 2021 22:02:43 GMT
Just in from a pro-life demonstration by the Life Institute outside Leinster House. Rousing speeches from Niamh Ui Bhriain, Michael Collins TD and Peadar Toibin TD. Unfortunately some of the other speakers were only semi-audible as they didn't stand close enough to the microphone. Strong Aontu presence; a couple of Marian images, about which I have mixed feelings. Some Franciscan Sisters of the Renewal. I doubt if it will attract much attention but it's important to come out in the cold and bear witness. As Dean Swift said; they may put us on the rack but they can't forbid us to roar. Sounds like it went well, Hibernicus. Was there a large crowd? I couldn't go myself unfortunately as I am recovering from a cold.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jul 18, 2021 8:27:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jul 10, 2021 21:12:10 GMT
The thing is Assisi that you seem to be painting our situation as a binary choice between the National Party on one hand and the mainstream parties on the other, when in fact this is far from the case, in that there are several other parties that we can support that don't have the NP's repulsive tendencies, Aontú being chief among them. As regards your point about the left, anyone with any familiarity with Catholicism knows that Communism is evil and why. This is so obvious that really it ought to go without saying. The only part of the world where your point might apply is South America, but we are in Ireland, and the fact of the matter is that there are several more viable and reasonable alternatives for those who wish to vote with their consciences. I should also add that right-wing regimes like Russia and Hungary have no qualms about collaborating with Communist regimes either, even when they commit genocide as is happening in Xinjiang, only backtracking in the face of massive opposition, so the lines are not as clear cut as you seem to suggest: chinaobservers.eu/the-fight-over-fudan-a-chinese-university-in-budapest-sparks-reckoning-for-sino-hungarian-relations/Your complaint that we shouldn't play by the rules ignores the fact that that sort of recklessness is really destructive and can in fact make things even worse. Finally, can you give me one good reason why the NP is preferrable to say Aontú? Last time I checked, Aontú do not advocate the unilateral revocation of citizenship for non-ethnic Irish people, do not support the death penalty, have an inclusive view of Irishness that is far more organic and in keeping with our traditions, do not have a leader that has in the past attended neo-Nazi advocated for dictatorship and (ironically!) the abolition of free speech, nor do their members beat up counter-protesters in public. If you can give me one good reason why all this should be ignored when there are more palatable alternatives available, I'd certainly like to hear it. I have voted for Aontu in elections in the North. But my argument is not about which party is the best or most conducive to Catholicism, but how the mainstream and establishment automatically demonise any right leaning party, organisation or person thus preventing them any chance to express an opinion contrary to the liberal left. In other words to be labelled 'on the right' is deemed to be almost fascist and therefore deserving of disgust and outright opposition. We, at this forum should not ape this tendency. You say that "anyone with any familiarity with Catholicism knows that Communism is evil and why". But is this true? BLM are run by Marxists who proudly declare their Marxism. Yet many so called Catholics like Biden and Pelosi will get on their knees to BLM and George Floyd without a second thought. Can you imagine them taking a knee to an organisation whose leaders called themselves trained fascists? We know the answer to that. You say that "Your complaint that we shouldn't play by the rules ignores the fact that that sort of recklessness is really destructive and can in fact make things even worse." What I am saying is that is a big mistake to blindly accept the rules and narrative created and propagandised by the enemies of Catholicism, that is the Liberal Left. Honest question: how far is too far when it comes to defending groups on the political right? Where do you think is the boundary beyond which such groups are no longer defensible?
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jul 10, 2021 18:31:44 GMT
Assisi, the far left can say whatever they want, but it doesn't mean that we ought to embrace the far-right label and groups like the National Party, especially when there are far more reasonable and stonger alternatives that one can vote for to protect life and family. You are correct about the last two points though. It's more about the tone of the arguments in general, as well as the scope and nuance of the arguments. Sure, Young Ireland, you can call Barrett to task over crass comments and things he wrote about in the past. But it isn't Barrett who is in power, isn't Barrett who is vitriolically anti-Catholic, isn't Barrett who celebrated and toasted abortion. We should be opposing the establishment with at least the same if not much more vitriol than seems reserved for Barrett and the National party. Moreover, we shouldn't follow the mainstream's narrative which seems to include telling us the Fascism is the bogey man while turning a blind eye to the equally barbaric leftism. The public has been programmed to detest Fascism which is fine. But they have also been programmed to have 'far right' or 'alt right' associated with Fascism, a deliberately contrived move which they use to silence and demonise the Right in total. Does the same happen with the left? Do the real extremists who burn buildings, burn books, eradicate history and literature in academia get associated with Stalin and Mao Zedong? By jumping on anything on the right and crying Fascist, debate is killed off straight away. We should criticise the Right as well as the Left. But my gripe is that there is a tendency here to be ultra harsh on the Right for fear of being associated with Fascism and one is therefore playing the game on the rules set by the elite, not as fair and just analysis dictates. Sinn Fein would have a proven history of outrages and opportunism and dodgy policies that would make the National Party blanch. They would probably destroy the Catholic church tomorrow if they could. So critiquing the parties in a general way we could say that, for example, the National Party have some love of tradition, family and Irishness but may have extreme tendencies but are at least theoretically closer to a society we could imagine than Sinn Fein who are internationalist, leftist and anti-God and are a disaster for society. But that sort of nuance is not there in my opinion. The thing is Assisi that you seem to be painting our situation as a binary choice between the National Party on one hand and the mainstream parties on the other, when in fact this is far from the case, in that there are several other parties that we can support that don't have the NP's repulsive tendencies, Aontú being chief among them. As regards your point about the left, anyone with any familiarity with Catholicism knows that Communism is evil and why. This is so obvious that really it ought to go without saying. The only part of the world where your point might apply is South America, but we are in Ireland, and the fact of the matter is that there are several more viable and reasonable alternatives for those who wish to vote with their consciences. I should also add that right-wing regimes like Russia and Hungary have no qualms about collaborating with Communist regimes either, even when they commit genocide as is happening in Xinjiang, only backtracking in the face of massive opposition, so the lines are not as clear cut as you seem to suggest: chinaobservers.eu/the-fight-over-fudan-a-chinese-university-in-budapest-sparks-reckoning-for-sino-hungarian-relations/Your complaint that we shouldn't play by the rules ignores the fact that that sort of recklessness is really destructive and can in fact make things even worse. Finally, can you give me one good reason why the NP is preferrable to say Aontú? Last time I checked, Aontú do not advocate the unilateral revocation of citizenship for non-ethnic Irish people, do not support the death penalty, have an inclusive view of Irishness that is far more organic and in keeping with our traditions, do not have a leader that has in the past attended neo-Nazi advocated for dictatorship and (ironically!) the abolition of free speech, nor do their members beat up counter-protesters in public. If you can give me one good reason why all this should be ignored when there are more palatable alternatives available, I'd certainly like to hear it.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jul 9, 2021 16:24:57 GMT
I'm sure the Liberal left are more than happy to see us argue the bit about who is beyond the pale, or not, in the area of nationalism or on the right. Lets be honest, everyone on this forum would be regarded as 'far right' by the liberal left even if one only declared oneself to be pro life and believe that there are only 2 human sexes, male and female. The liberal West has decided that the Fascist massacres are going to be the touchstone of choice for going forward. The Socialist/Communist example with a history of massacre far outweighing the Fascist one throughout history is given a pass. The reason I think is that it suits the narrative of the liberal elite to use the Fascist example because the elites preferred utopia is more in line with a mechanical socialist one. Instead of being constantly on the defensive and self flagellating, it is better to attack globalism, ironically and justifiably using the type of language they have been using. We should call them out for the following: They are racists. They have targeted white people for censure (white privilege) and have started to promote apartheid in parts of America (Dormitories, graduations ceremonies for Black students only). They support Child Abuse. The promotion of transgenderism for children as young as primary age is child abuse. For a child who is troubled it is utterly cruel for adults to suggest that changing sex is a possible solution. Firstly the child is no way sexually or mentally mature enough to understand the consequences of such a decision on their minds and their bodies should drugs and surgery eventually be used. It is also stealing their innocence during a period of their life when they should enjoy the simplicity of life. They are misogynist. By supporting transgenderism the are saying that male and female are mental or social constructs. So the entire feminist movement is negated in one fell swoop. That would be for starters. Assisi, the far left can say whatever they want, but it doesn't mean that we ought to embrace the far-right label and groups like the National Party, especially when there are far more reasonable and stonger alternatives that one can vote for to protect life and family. You are correct about the last two points though.
|
|
|
China
Jul 6, 2021 22:24:35 GMT
Post by Young Ireland on Jul 6, 2021 22:24:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jul 6, 2021 22:05:24 GMT
He in the previous post is Justin Barrett. I hadn't heard about Michael Quinn's latest development but this is part of an ongoing tragedy. He ran as an orthodox Pro-Life Independent in Dun Laoghaire in 1992 after the X Case and did quite well. He didn't have these views then, but about 10 years ago he was spouting rhetoric in an interview with the SUNDAY WORLD that came very close to incitement. This is a step further down. (BTW a brief search shows that he has in fact pleaded guilty and will be sentenced in October.) This is another reason why pro-lifers should steer clear of far-rightists; such people are often on the lookout for opportunities to ensnare the vulnerable and naive and we ought to work to minimise those opportunities. To be fair, this is a different Michael Quinn, as the perpetrator here is a relatively young man, while the elder Quinn must be nearing his sixties at this stage.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jul 6, 2021 17:12:43 GMT
I think it's ironic that there's all this angst about Justin Barret's past when Aontú's leader was a member of Sinn Féin, a party who upholds the legitimacy of the IRA's "armed struggle". I presume Toibín still subscribes to this view. I wouldn't hold it against him, but I'm being consistent to my own logic. I bet the IRA murdered far more people than German neo-Nazis. That was the very reason why I hesitated to join Aontú before I eventually did. You're right that it is a concern, however 1) they do not have an armed wing and the party is totally constitutional and 2) they have what all the other parties do not - a Dáil seat and three sitting councillors. With these in mind, Peadar's past links with SF, while concerning, are not sufficient enough to stop me supporting them. On the other hand, a National Party member was recently convicted of assaulting a lesbian activist with a flagpole at a demonstration last September: www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/protester-beat-activist-with-tricolour-on-plank-39660339.htmlCan you show me any examples of Aontú members engaging in violence during the period of the party's existence?
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jul 5, 2021 20:25:32 GMT
Joseph Pearce quit politics and has explicitly repented of his racist past. If Barrett had a similar change of heart, I would have no objection to him being welcomed back. The problem is that while Barrett's views have changed to some extent, they are still abhorrent and they would need to change a lot more in order for me to be comfortable working with him. Your position amounts to saying that he is our ally and that an attack on him is an attack on us effectively. The problem with that is that this will scare away many potential pro-life and pro-family voters who find Barrett's brand of ethnonationalism abhorrent. Everything isn't strategy. Some things are principle. I viscerally believe in the principle of freedom of speech and thought. Surely there are better ways to defend that principle than making excuses for someone who has in the past openly argued for that principle to be curtailed?
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jul 5, 2021 17:53:42 GMT
No, it's not guilt by association. wasn't Barrett willingly and knowingly attended NPD rallies since his time in Yoth Defence. He wasn't forced to go, as Pope Benedict was and the NPD position is more toxic than anything to do with Franco. And he wasn't fooled as Maciel did to John Paul II. Nor was he in the position of maintaining a delicate neutrality like de Valera. He was invited to a neo-Nazi rally in Germany, he didn't have to accept and if he was ignorant on his first visit, he knew full well what he was doing on subsequent visits. He only stopped when the attendance became public in this country. I just don't believe in holding people's past against them-- whether it's links with the far-right, some Trotskyist group in college, or even membership of a paramilitary organization. I read Joseph Pearce books even though he was once a member of the National Front. I go by peoples' stated and current beliefs, which seems the most sensible approach. I should repeat that I'm not a supporter of the National Party and I think Barrett is a bit of a jackass. I just think we should resist the endless pressure to push more and more conservative/nationalist/anti-PC viewpoints "beyond the pale". Joseph Pearce quit politics and has explicitly repented of his racist past. If Barrett had a similar change of heart, I would have no objection to him being welcomed back. The problem is that while Barrett's views have changed to some extent, they are still abhorrent and they would need to change a lot more in order for me to be comfortable working with him. Your position amounts to saying that he is our ally and that an attack on him is an attack on us effectively. The problem with that is that this will scare away many potential pro-life and pro-family voters who find Barrett's brand of ethnonationalism abhorrent.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jul 3, 2021 21:41:51 GMT
I think our different perspectives might also have to do with the fact that I don't have any memories of prolife politics of the past. I didn't really have any preconceptions of Justin Barrett when he started the National Party. I personally think the result of the 2018 referendum was inevitable. Ireland did well to hold out as long as it did. We all know prolife politics for the foreseeable future is about persuading individuals not to have one, and perhaps trying to make our abortion regimes somewhat more restrictive. However it should also be plain that supranational institutions have a liberal social agenda, so nationalism is not irrelevant to social conservatism. That's fair. I wouldn't say that it was inevitable, but it was always going to be a formidable task, and the extent of the defeat shocked everyone in the movement. I suppose the way I would look at it is that while you are correct that many supernational institutions are dominated by social liberals, such organisations are only as good as the people who run them. I believe that it is better to influence these groups from the inside, and oppose any harmful specific actions that they promote rather than taking an hostile attitude towards them in principle. Indeed, one effect of Trump's withdrawal of the US from world affairs was the increased influence of China in these bodies, the consequences of which can be felt today. I would also add that there are many on the nationalist side who are anti-life when it comes to ethnic minorities (cf. Richard Spencer's comments on abortion, and don't forget the roots of many abortion providers in the eugenics movement - Margaret Sanger supported the racist Immigration act of 1924 which effectively banned non-white immigration from outside the Americas on the grounds that it would "improve" the quality of the American population). There is also the issue that in order to end abortion in Ireland, we will need another referendum, which will only pass if we can get at least 50% (and preferrably more) of voters to agree with us. This means that we need to strive to be as mainstream as possible (though not to the point of moral compromise obviously) in order to get anywhere. On the topic of immigration/national identity, only 1-2% of the population see that issue as a priority for them in voting, whereas up to 13% of people here were born outside the Republic (many of whom would have Irish ancestry anyway), so we can assume that about 6-7% of the population could be classed as "New Irish". By linking the pro-life movement with anti-immigration politics, we are turning away 6-7% of the population (and more than that, if you include pro-immigration native Irish) to attract 1-2% of the population. I think it's fair to say that in our situation, this is a tactical mistake and therefore the two should not be linked. Now you might say that the media will link us anyway, so what do we have to lose? Well one, it is better to be accused in the wrong than accused in the right and two, we really ought not to be making things easy for the media.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jul 2, 2021 16:49:10 GMT
Catholic Social Teaching is fine during relatively normal times but we are currently undergoing a full frontal anti-Catholic and anti-Nation movement that has the backing of all the powerful secular entities in the Western world. While we are playing by the rules these powers are doing everything in their power, legal or illegal, to destroy us. I agree. You don't have to believe in any Great Replacement Theory to see that the nation is being deliberately undermined in our era and I feel some affinity with anyone who is seeking to defend it. The problem with this mindset is that it can lead to a myopic support for groups that shouldn't be supported, which could actually result in more harm to the pro-life and pro-family cause than benefit. The fact that there are other pro-life candidates who do not have the baggage of Mr. Barrett only tilts the pendulum towards the former. The only way a vote for Mr. Barrett would make sense in this context is if national identity was a higher priority than life or family issues, a view that I don't share to put it mildly.
|
|