|
Post by Young Ireland on Jul 2, 2021 16:43:07 GMT
Last time I checked, describing immigration as "genocidal" and a "genetic" problem is very difficult to square with Catholic social teaching. The same could be said about the party's ethnonationalism (in the Old Testament, there are several examples of inter-racial marriage being referred to positively, such as those of Moses and Ruth). 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. Last time I checked, consequentialism was also contrary to Catholic teaching.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jul 1, 2021 7:55:49 GMT
Well, anything short of supporting Black Lives Matter is racism these days. I've listened to a lot of Justin Barret's National Party speeches and I've never heard him claim one race is superior to another, which I consider the only meaningful definition of racism. I agree ethnonationalism in the genetic sense is incompatible with Catholic social teaching. Indeed my wife would be "paper Irish' by his definition. I don't take this (or whatever references to genocide may have been made) seriously. There will never be a National Party government...open borders are not Catholic social teaching either and there is plenty of room of critique of our country's immigration policy. I reject the idea that ethnic minorities are automatically pro-multiculturalism. Many of them voted for Brexit in Britain. I do want to roll back abortion and gay marriage, and resist euthanasia etc. I also want to resist globalism as far as possible, which I believe is compatible with Catholic teaching-- indeed, even Pope Francis speaks of the "globalization of the polyhedron", as opposed to the sphere... difference, not sameness. If nationalist parties doing well pushes in that direction, good. You don't think this is racist (I know it was his wife that sent the tweet, but it does show that the party is racist)? Regarding ethnic minorities and Brexit, this could just as easily be due to their closer attachment to the Commonwealth than the EU, and the former will only get more important for Britain now that it has left the EU, so I wouldn't necessarily read too much into that.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jul 1, 2021 6:28:48 GMT
In fairness, I think Hibernicus has repeatedly stated why he wouldn't vote for Barrett elsewhere on the forum, as well as providing summaries of the National Way Forward. Also Peadar Laighleis wrote an article for the Brandsma in 2002 critquing the book: fidesetgoedelica.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-national-way-where.htmlIt's not as if there aren't more palatable (and more promising) alternatives - Mairead Toibin of Aontú is the obvious one, though there's also Jacqui Gilbourne and even Dolores Cahill (if you can overlook her pseudoscientific views on Covid). Why waste a vote on somebody whose legacy has been to fashion a rod for our enemies to beat us with? I agree Aontú seem like the best party for faithful Catholics right now. I didn't really see anything in Peadar's review that would make me recoil. It would be interesting to hear an elaboration of the passage on American constitutionalism. The truth is that, at this stage, the Overton window has shrunk so far that being prolife or pro-traditional marriage is just as "far right" as anything Mr. Barrett stands for. I agree that the Overton window has shrunken a lot in this country, however the response should not be to ally with racists and fascists. Doing this would alienate a large constituency that could be sympathetic to our views (many ethnic minorities attend the Rally for Life every year) in return for attracting a much smaller number of people. That doesn't make sense in a context where we need to persuade the majority of the correctness of our views in order to roll back abortion and gay "marriage".
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jul 1, 2021 6:23:21 GMT
In fairness, I think Hibernicus has repeatedly stated why he wouldn't vote for Barrett elsewhere on the forum, as well as providing summaries of the National Way Forward. Also Peadar Laighleis wrote an article for the Brandsma in 2002 critquing the book: fidesetgoedelica.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-national-way-where.htmlIt's not as if there aren't more palatable (and more promising) alternatives - Mairead Toibin of Aontú is the obvious one, though there's also Jacqui Gilbourne and even Dolores Cahill (if you can overlook her pseudoscientific views on Covid). Why waste a vote on somebody whose legacy has been to fashion a rod for our enemies to beat us with? Hibernicus indicated that he would vote for an abortionist before Justin Barrett. The National Way Forward, for what its worth, does not advocate for anything contrary to Catholic social teaching. Although one may (justly) find parts of it distasteful, it is in no way comparable to baby murder. I would really like to understand the rationale here because it is frankly bewildering. Last time I checked, describing immigration as "genocidal" and a "genetic" problem is very difficult to square with Catholic social teaching. The same could be said about the party's ethnonationalism (in the Old Testament, there are several examples of inter-racial marriage being referred to positively, such as those of Moses and Ruth).
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jun 30, 2021 21:50:53 GMT
ALL the Irish MEPS voted for an extremely pro-abortion report in the European Parliament, describing abortion as a human right and inseparable from democracy. Unfortunately, they seem to reflect Irish public opinion - a recent Euro-wide poll found 60% of Irish respondents favoured abortion on demand. Even allowing for how polls can be skewed, I suspect this means something. Like the outcome of Moloch's Plebiscite, I can suggest four sources: (1) Wilful blindness, because facing up to what abortion really is would entail taking action and possibly getting into trouble. Better to go back to sleepand leave the dirty work to the TDs and the professionals. (2) The view that the church is so discredited by its own crimes and blunders that the Truly Modern Person should support whatever it opposes. (3) Nothing Must Interfere With The Sexual Revolution. (4) How dare anyone - except the media influencers - tell me what to do! If you live in Dublin Bay South, cast a pro-life protest vote on the 8th July by-election and transfer as you please. Put the most obnoxious pro-aborts, of whom there is, alas, no shortage - at the very bottom of your list. Speaking personally, I wouldn't even cast a protest vote for Justin Barrett, for reasons familiar to everyone who has followed his career or read his manifesto THE NATIONAL WAY FORWARD. Can you elucidate those reasons? I don't buy into the National Party's brand of nativism but I'm not sure why Barrett is regarded with such exaggerated horror. He's arrogant and seems rather hypocritical when it comes to divorce, but hardly on a par with the legions of pro-abortion anti-family politicians in the mainstream parties. I haven't read his former manifesto, but I've listened to his speeches for the NP and he's sound on many issues. His party is never going to achieve more than a foothold in the Dáil if that. I think it would be all to the good if any or all of the socially conservative parties had a good showing in elections. In fairness, I think Hibernicus has repeatedly stated why he wouldn't vote for Barrett elsewhere on the forum, as well as providing summaries of the National Way Forward. Also Peadar Laighleis wrote an article for the Brandsma in 2002 critquing the book: fidesetgoedelica.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-national-way-where.htmlIt's not as if there aren't more palatable (and more promising) alternatives - Mairead Toibin of Aontú is the obvious one, though there's also Jacqui Gilbourne and even Dolores Cahill (if you can overlook her pseudoscientific views on Covid). Why waste a vote on somebody whose legacy has been to fashion a rod for our enemies to beat us with?
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jun 19, 2021 18:57:34 GMT
I meant global and international homogenization. Homogenisation can take place at the national level too: Many nationalist movements have favoured erasing regional differences in place of national ones, Revolutionary France being one example. This isn't solely caused by the right BTW: the left are quite willing to do so too even if their stated justifications are different. Stalin's mass deportations of ethnic minorities and the concentration camps in Xinjiang are just some examples.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jun 17, 2021 21:48:58 GMT
From my own experience of Germany, I would say Catholicism on the ground is more balanced than the headlines suggest. I do believe that the progressive wing are far more highly represented in Church administration and they make life very difficult for orthodox minded bishops. But it is a common US Conservative narrative to present Germany as wholly secularised and German Catholicism as totally progressive, and neither is the case. For example, religious worship in Germany is higher than most of her neighbours and try doing business in Germany on Sunday (people don't even mow their lawns or wash their cars). My experience is that liturgy in Germany is a lot more dignified and traditionally informed than in the US. And the topic the right of centre US Catholics will always prevaricate on is Catholic social teaching, which is something German Catholics are more serious about. I don't want to diminish the Synodaler Weg. It is bad, but I suspect the German Church leadership is bluffing. Funnily enough, I had the same experience in France (where I attended the OF in French), where despite the liberal reputation of its hierarchy, large parts of the Mass were chanted and the liturgy significantly more solemn than in Ireland.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Mar 23, 2021 23:06:23 GMT
The British webforum UnHerd reports a student activist (I think a student union officer) trying to get Galway SU to no platform representatives of various bodies which he regards as far-right or conspiracy theorist. While some of the groups he lists might reasonably be described as such (one or two, such as the Irish Democratic Party, are actually extinct; others such as the National Green Party I've never heard of) no explanation is offered for the inclusion of these particular groups, and if you read carefully you will see that he wants the SU to add other groupd to the list at its own sweet will. The person who criticises this precious display of academic freedom is a feminist complaining because feminist groups who don't believe sex/gender is a matter of choice are being included in this list along with far-rightists. The activist describes himself as "a socialist" which I suspect means a far-leftist. If being a pro-lifer isn't given as a reason for inclusion on this precious list I suspect it will be. (To repeat - I wouldn't touch some of the groups on the list with a bargepole but I don't like the way this is being done.) unherd.com/thepost/student-unions-are-suppressing-dissent/Anyone want to bet on similar parties on the far-left will be included in the list? I suspect we'll be waiting a while.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jan 30, 2021 18:25:57 GMT
I wouldn't describe Harry TRuman as evil in the sense I mean, no. I would say he did some wicked things (including the use of the A-Bombs on civilian populations; I submit to authority on that one though I have doubts about whether it was so much worse than other things done in modern war) but he was also, I believe, a faithful husband and devoted father, and he attended the funeral of the political "boss" who gave him his start in politics, although he could derive no benefit from attending the funeral and it was in fact politically damaging. Here are a few examples of the sort of people who strike me as wicked in that sense. Of course I am only going on their public record, and leave it to God to judge their inmost soul as known to him alone: The novelist Patricia Highsmith, who seems to have hated absolutely everyone, openly regretted that the Holocaust did not succed in exterminating all Jews, and took delight both in her fiction and in life at corrupting people. (I am not referring specifically to her lesbianism, BTW; if she had confined her predation to men it would still have been evil in exactly the same sense): www.dailymail.co.uk/home/books/article-9148665/Devil-woman-realities-author-Patricia-Highsmith.htmlnewcriterion.com/issues/2021/2/vicious-highsmithMarcial Maciel Degollado, founder of the Legionaries of Christ, who posed as a living saint while using the Legion as a facade to enable, financially and otherwise, his career as a sexual predator (including raping his own children). He refused the last sacraments on his deathbed, which was so terrifying that at one point an attempt was made to have him exorcised: onepeterfive.com/13-years-after-maciel-crimes-revealed-legionaries-of-christ-still-celebrating-his-legacy/www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/vatican-sixty-years-of-keeping-marcial-maciel-secrets/Jimmy Saville. I never understood the Protestant concept of "works righteousness" (i.e. someone who believes they can buy forgiveness for their sins through good works without repentance) until I came across his veiled self-justification (he told interviewers that God would forgive his sins - whose nature he kept under wraps - because of all the charity work he'd done): www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jul/09/plain-sight-jimmy-savile-review-biography-david-hareDavid Irving, the neo-nazi historian, Hitler apologist and holocaust denier. What I have seen of his interviews and writings gives me the impression that he is a man who revels in lying, in the belief that lies and falsehood give him power over others, and who despises even his fellow Nazis: www.historyextra.com/period/second-world-war/holocaust-denial-trial-who-david-irving-deborah-lipstadt-richard-j-evans/ Once again, I am not claiming to know the secrets of these people's souls - and we should note that all these people had miserable childhoods, which in the cases of Maciel and Highsmith included sexual abuse. Leave them to God. I am only saying that to study these people in any depth - and I don't like to do so more than I can help it - gives a sense of a fundamental orientation towards evil which may not be there in people who committed even worse crimes. I'm no fan of Donald Trump, and clearly it was a mistake to uncritically cheerlead him to the extent that many conservatives did, but I do think it's unfair to lump him in with pedophiles and Holocaust deniers. I don't doubt that Trump has seriously narcissistic tendencies and seems to view other people (especially women) as objects to further his own purposes, but while those actions are deeply distasteful to put it mildly, they're not in the same level of evil as the actions of the other individuals you mention.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jan 14, 2021 22:21:49 GMT
By the way, anyone who needed Trump to explain to them that big tech and the mainstream media control the narrative and most mainstream parties dance to a corporate tune must have been sleeping longer and more soundly than Rip Van Winkle. But the point is that Trump will push against it like nobody else in a prominent position does. The very fact that he made Twitter ban him and called out mainstream media so openly, calling them fake news in press conferences etc., gives him a unique position and credibility here. Just by refusing to back down even one iota he makes it abundantly clear how near-totalitarian they are, and he encourages others. Just think how heartening it must be to millions of Americans to see the Trump rallies and realize that the media gas-lighting is just that, and that plenty of other people feel totally disenfranchised in the corporate-globalist-secular dispensation. That does not justify his recklessness though. Two wrongs do not make a right. (FWIW, I think an outright ban was rather harsh in Trump's case, though not entriely undeserved.)In all honesty, I feel personally vindicated by a lot of what is happening in the world right now, especially with the internet purges that we are seeing. Anyone who goes through the archives of this forum, especially the threads on political correctness, the Alt Right (of which I am not a supporter but whose freedom of speech I absolutely support), and the thread on antisemitism and misogyny etc., will see me insisting on the paramount danger of political correctness and the need to push against it with as much force as possible-- that it would be Milo Yiannapolous in 2016 but the rest of us very soon. I encountered considerable resistance, scepticism and whataboutery. To be honest, some of my fears about your attitude back then (that it would lead to a "my enemy's enemy is my friend" attitude) appear to be well-founded in retrospect.I think Trump is the greatest political figure of my lifetime. Greater than Reagan? Walesa? Thatcher? Seriously? I would not vote for him reluctantly but with enormous enthusiasm. Sometimes I find his ruthlessness towards former allies excessive (I'm thinking of Steve Bannon rather than Pence, who I won't shed any tears for) It should be remembered that it was Pence who was the impetus behind much of the outgoing administration pro-life and religious freedom policies, while Bannon's focus was mainly on immigration and isolationism., but you have to remember the whole premise of his administration: Drain the swamp. He wasn't going to be deterred by personalities or cliques, and he wasn't. Except his own personality cult, that is. And let's not exaggerate matters. This is not 1930's Russia and he was not having former allies executed, or anything like it. No, just setting mobs on them calling for them to be hanged. I think Trump is the world's greatest hope to defend freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, religious freedoms, the sovereignty of the nation state, and so forth-- whether it's in a second Presidential term or simply as a political force in the background. Even after he incited a mob to storm the Capitol? If so, rather than anticipating Trump's relection, we ought to brace ourselves for decades of Democrat Presidents, with all that entails, since Trumpism is as of last week a dead duck. I hope what Donald Trump Jr. said is true and the Republicans are Trump's party now. Given the way he threw Pence under the bus, and Mitch McConnell's flotation of the possibility of him voting to convict Trump, that really hasn't aged well. I'm praying they don't slide back to a Tea Party, globalist, make-the-world-safe-for-McDonald's outlook. Better for America to be a major player on the world stage for all its faults rather than leave a gap that will inevitably be plugged by the Chinese and the Russians. I'm praying Trumpism becomes the American equivalent of Gaullism and the legacy outlives the man.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jan 1, 2021 20:08:47 GMT
Meanwhile back here in Ireland, RTE has outdone itself in including a blasphemous "comedy" skit as part of its New Year's Eve programming, which implied that God raped Our Lady and was now being arrested for it. Not only is this patently false (indeed Our Lady is venerated BECAUSE she said Yes to God's will, consent which by definition is absent from rape), but I can imagine that if a similar skit was shown about Muhammad's marraige practices, there would be uproar and calls to boycott Ireland in the Middle East and the like. Not only that, but it trivialises the issue of sexual abuse by treating it as a laughing matter. Fortunately, this has not gone unnoticed and Archbishop Eamonn Martin has denounced the broadcast and caled for it to be removed from the RTE player: www.independent.ie/irish-news/archbishop-hits-out-at-rte-over-blasphemous-new-years-eve-skit-39922165.html
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Dec 4, 2020 22:13:39 GMT
I don't think that this has all been centrally planned by the World Economic Forum. If it was, I would expect that Russia, Poland and Hungary and others would opt for herd immunity (in reality they have all imposed lockdowns) as an act of defiance, while Sweden (which is as "woke" and as liberal as you can get) would have one of the world's strictest lockdowns. In fact the opposite has happened, which begs the question how the conspirators could get the former on board without much issue yet utterly fail to convince the Swedish to follow suit. What actually happened is that in the spring, there was a major propaganda push by the Chinese to legitimise lockdowns as an appropriate response to a pandemic: www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/china-covid-lockdown-propagandawww.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/29136/why-china-s-coronavirus-propaganda-campaign-has-come-up-shortGiven China's influence in the WHO, it wasn't difficult to persuade it to endorse China's strategy. (Remember that Tedros was China's candidate for Director-General, and that China has a lot of economic influence in East Africa, including Tedros' native Ethiopia). Also noteworthy here is that Italy, the first major country in Europe to be affected, is a partner in China's Belt and Road Initiative (as is Victoria, where the lockdown was notoriously harsh to the point to arresting pregnant women for incitement), which is a key vehicle for Chinese economic influence abroad. What's really worrying about this, and I fear that many people on all sides are missing the point here, is that this pandemic has exposed the naivety of much of the Western ruling class (primarily but not exclusively on the left) towards the CCP, which is wrongly seen as a benign global power with an interest in bettering the world as a whole. Some of this is motivated by trade (as is the case here), some by anti-Americanism (particularly in Latin America) and some even by sheer dislike of the Trump administration on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend (in the US). The relative silence over human rights abuses and worse in Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Tibet and elsewhere is an utter embarrasment to the West and a much harder line needs to be taken here. What China cannot explain however is why Ireland has taken such an overly harsh approach compared to the rest of Europe. This, I believe is due almost exclusively to domestic factors, namely: 1. The weakness of the caretaker government in the early stages of the pandemic. This led the now Tanaiste to defer to NPHET and the CMO in particular for most policy decisions in relation to the pandemic. The problem now is that Dr. Holohan got used to his Ludendorffian powers over the country and pressured the current Government into a completely unnecessary lockdown, when Level 3 and the ban on household visits would have yielded the same results with much less damage. 2. The disparity of incentives for NPHET. It is not in their interests to advocate loose measures, since this would a) leave their competence open to question if they underestimated the prevalence of Covid and b) risk exposing the state of the health service (for which many in NPHET are responsible for over the last 20 years). Similarly, as public servants, they will not suffer any personal loss as a result of lockdowns, so therefore tend to underappreciate the economic damage of their recommendations. 3. The extreme centralisation of decision-making in this country. When power is concentrated in a small number of individuals, it is very easy for an interest group to seize control of the decision-making apparatus, which is what has happened in this case. 4. A desire to be the "best in the class", a holdover from the days of austerity. This in turn comes from an inferiority complex that means that Irish people tend to look to outsiders for affirmation. 5. Groupthink, related to point 4 in that said inferiority complex results in a need for tribal solidarity and an intolerance for dissenting voices. This, I suspect, is why medics have effectively been sacked in this country for daring to disagree with NPHET while similar stances in other countries have in most cases been met with eye-rolls at worst. When coupled with point 3, it can have an effect out of all proportion with the size of the group making decisions. 6. The dependence of the media on Government support. This is obviously most relevant for RTE, which has been lobbying for an increase in the licence fee for years, and because the Government sets the fee, it has little reason to annoy the powers that be and an awful lot to lose. Even the privately-owned newspapers are not immune, particularly as before the pandemic, they were looking for Government funding to offset the losses incurred as a result of the decline in print media. And of course there is the lucrative revenue stream that is Covid-related advertising from Government. With reduced revenue streams as a result of the pandemic, media outlets are more dependent on Government funding for their very survival. Why endanger their existence by rocking the boat? I think we can all agree that the handling of the pandemic thus far sets a worrying precedent which we all need to guard against. I just don't think that this is due to a conscious and deliberate decision on the part of the global elites to remodel society in their own image, but rather it is the result of opportunism by people in this country and abroad.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Nov 10, 2020 19:08:19 GMT
For many years I have had a serious problem with what Lucia said the vision of Our Lady of Fatima said to her when asked if Amelia was in heaven. Lucia said the vision told her she will be in Purgatory until the end of time. For me this read that Our Lady told Lucia not to bother praying for her friend's soul in Purgatory that she would not benefit from any such prayers. Now as Catholics well know we are now in the month of offering up prayers for the souls in Purgatory, even being offered by the Church the opportunity of getting a plenary indulgence for souls. Did you also know that after the consecration in the Trent Latin Mass the faithful are asked to pray for two named souls in purgatory? Now one Mass is infinitely more pleasing to God that a million rosaries. Yet, according to Lucia Our Lady told her not even a million masses would get her friend out of Purgatory one day earlier. Now I have asked this question on Catholic forums and all you get is a made-up theology on Purgatory with made up reasons why this young friend of Lucia's Amelia has to stay in Purgatory till the end of time. Perhaps someone could explain this chaotic Fatima story to me and how poor Amelia cannot benefit from the countless times faithful Catholics have prayed for her release from Purgatory while other, we are told by the Church, are released. Please make references to Church teaching when trying to explain the dilemma. . I'll have a go. Two points that might be relevant: Firstly, no apparition, even Fatima, is part of the Deposit of Faith. Consequently, any apparition needs to be interpreted in light of Church teaching. Also, it's highly unlikely that Our Lady specifically said that no amount of Masses would shorten Amelia's time in Purgatory, given that temporal punishment is by definition finite. I think it's more likely that these and certain visions of Hell and Purgatory are not meant to be a definitive guide like the Catechism so much as to highlight the gravity of sin and exhort the reader to repentance and conversion. Secondly, certain meanings can be lost in translation between languages. It's possible that "the end of time" is a Portuguese idiom for a very long time, in the same way that the French refer to everyone as "all the world", even though that is not literally what is meant. That could be the case here as well.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Sept 12, 2020 18:38:50 GMT
Not sure if anyone has been following the controversy surrounding Netflix's latest atrocity. A film that supposedly highlights the premature sexualisation of young girls in inner-city Paris, instead actually glamourises it in the worst way possible. From the awful title - "Cuties" - to the promotional material, and I am hearing that the film is actually even worse, this actually serves to mainstream pedophilia in the most blatant way possible in the last 30 years or so. Worse, the images are being inadvertently spread around social media those who are (quite rightly) opposed to this, compounding the damage even further. A few thoughts come to mind regarding this:
1. There is a serious problem in France where underage girls, particularly in the banlieues, get caught up in prostitution and the sex industry, which has been quietly tolerated by French society for decades. The stated purpose of this film was to highlight this appalling practice, which in itself is fair enough, but it does so in the most graphic and in-your-face way that it actually encourages it.
2. This whole episode highlights the fine line between exposing the evil of the sex industry and inadvertently compounding the damage by corrupting innocent minds in the process. There was absolutely no need to show the images or give graphic descriptions of the incidents in that movie: it should suffice to say that glamourising pedophilia is egregiously wrong and those who sexually exploit underage children (as was done here) should have the book thrown at them hard. It might be argued that this tactic is similar to the display of abortion imagery; I disagree, since abortion imagery generally does not titallate.
3. I fear that while Netflix will retreat this time, the Rubicon has been crossed, and we can expect more frequent and less subtle hints from certain sections in society that "pedophiles are unjustly vilified" or "it's not wrong if the child wants it". Slowly but surely, "anything goes between two consenting adults" is being turned into "anything goes between two consenting individials, regardless of age".
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Aug 3, 2020 20:57:42 GMT
Your prayers are requested for the repose of the soul of John Hume, who died today. His efforts in bringing peace to our country will never be forgotten. Perhaps he could be a candidate for canonisation in a few decades time... Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
|
|