|
TFP
Jun 30, 2020 22:15:13 GMT
Post by Young Ireland on Jun 30, 2020 22:15:13 GMT
I have come across a few statements from the TFP-linked Lepanto Institute recently in which they equate the Black Lives Matter protestors with Satan and his rebellion and hail the police and the civil authorities (or at least those of them who resist BLM, notably President Trump) as doing the work of God - it is recalled that St Michael is the patron saint of policemen. Now this seems to me an example of a reasonable point - Black Lives Matter do have all sorts of dodgy agendas, and the mass destruction of historic monuments (including statues of abolitionists, the wreckers not being able to tell the difference) and historic figures who committed vile crimes but also made great contributions to America and to human betterment reflects a sort of Maoist urge for absolute power through destruction. At the same time I am certainly not going to equate policemen shooting or beating an unarmed black to death (and it does happen, the George Floyd video speaks for itself) with St Michael. Where there are historic injustices, divine justice demands that they be remedied, and sacralising the status quo is as idolatrous as proclaiming the Revolution as the work of the Holy Spirit. I think that all this trouble and violence was easily avoidable if the issue of police brutality and Confederate statues had been settled earlier (by Obama as well as Trump; remember that the issue really began to come to light under his watch and truth be told he did nothing concrete to ease tensions apart from reassuring words). I get the impression that many white Americans are either unwilling or unable to acknowledge that racism remains a serious problem post-Civil Rights era - look at the amount of abuse Colin Kapernick (whatever you might think of him, and some of his other politics are indeed highly questionable) got for daring to kneel during the national anthem. Couple that with the extreme polarisation of American politics, where admitting that you opponent might have a point is considered to be a weakness (which again applies to both sides here) and the result is like puring petrol over a fire. I think John F. Kennedy's observation that those who make peaceful reform impossible make violent revolution inevitable is very relevant here. Re the Lepanto Insitute - while I'd imagine they would be ideologically similar to TFP, I haven't come across anything to suggest that they are directly related. Perhaps there's some detail I'm missing?
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on May 4, 2020 14:08:17 GMT
The problem with Dr. Jones' "analysis" is that it is full of overt antisemitism and totally ignores the fact that there are not an insignificant portion of Jews who oppose the trends he describes (one might wonder for instance what he thinks of the anti-pornography campaigner Dr. Gail Dines, who is Jewish). It's depressing to see that man being treated as a prophet in Irish alt-right circles. I agree that he should counterbalance more the Jewish influence, showing the good and the bad. My main liking for him and his work is his attempt to spell out the influence (or lack of it) of Logos in history. By Logos I mean concepts like order, truth and natural law, all ordained by God. As he has written about a wealth of different subjects such as music, literature, movies, history, economics and philosophy I find his work mixes the old and the new and gives a new perspective that you won't find anywhere in mainstream media. I don't think you can separate the antisemitism in Dr. Jones' work that easily, Assisi, as it is so fundamentally central to his worldview. He believes that because of the Crucifixion, the Jews are an accursed people perpetually conspiring to undermine the Christian order. I've heard his apologists say that he only wants them to convert, but in that case, why does he refer to Jewish Catholics like Dawn Eden, Simcha Fischer (who is a cradle Catholic btw) and others as "conversos", a highly loaded term dating back to the Spanish Inquisition which implies that they are a fifth column in the Church? Why does he engage in scandalous outreach to the likes of Willis Carto, David Duke and other Nazi sympathisers? Somebody who refers to the Holocaust as an excesive overreaction to the excesses of “the Jewish/Bolshevist takeover of Russia and large segments of Eastern Europe, which in turn set up the mechanism of reaction against that reign of terror, namely, National Socialism under Hitler" should not be touched with a bargepole, even if a stopped clock is right twice a day.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on May 3, 2020 22:14:19 GMT
What are your own thoughts on Medjugorje, Annie? I have become a fan of E Michael Jones over the last years or so, mainly due to his historical perspective on usury and the degeneracy of our times (from his book Degenerate Moderns). But I don't necessarily agree with everything he has said. I don't know enough about Medjugorje to have an opinion. One of the reasons I don't look too deeply into it is because much of the arguments for and against are mixed up with the politics of the Balkans and the relatively recent ethnic violence there. I am sure that many people have returned to their faith after visits there, and this is a good thing. But that alone is not sufficient argument for the validity of Medjugorje. I know my Mum visited it years ago and had nothing bad to say about it. Unfortunately at the time she visited I didn't have the wit to talk to her at length about it. The problem with Dr. Jones' "analysis" is that it is full of overt antisemitism and totally ignores the fact that there are not an insignificant portion of Jews who oppose the trends he describes (one might wonder for instance what he thinks of the anti-pornography campaigner Dr. Gail Dines, who is Jewish). It's depressing to see that man being treated as a prophet in Irish alt-right circles.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Apr 9, 2020 23:35:13 GMT
Anyone else exasperated by the way in which Easter is marketed to children as Easter Bunny Festival? The Cross and Resurrection are about the triumph of Jesus over suffering - suffering is acknowledged to be transcended. Teaching children that suffering doesn't exist and they can just hoover up the chocolate is a great way to create adolescent death-metal fans and Lovecraft wannabes in 10-15 years time, and of course they can then be sold Easter Chthulu T-shirts and similar accessories. Of course I don't mean by this that suffering is good - it isn't - or that it shouldn't be minimised. Nor am I suggesting that we should disregard the measures our government prescribes to save lives; sneering at them is another form of denial. Let me add that the sight of governments which have legislated for the martini approach to abortion (i.e. any time, any place, anywhere) issuing cute proclamations about the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy makes me want to vomit. At least Herod didn't follow up the Massacre of the Innocents by posing as Santa Claus. Ironically, this is as good a time as ever to remind people of the meaning of suffering. I also hope that this newfound appreciation of human life on the part of our Government might slowly lead them to reconsider their position on abortion and euthanasia, even if that hope is rather faint. What a pity such concern was missing during the referendum...
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Apr 6, 2020 19:24:31 GMT
Please pray for Boris Johnson, who is now in intensive care. People in ICU with Covid-19 have a 48% death rate, so he needs all the prayers he can get.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Mar 17, 2020 9:15:21 GMT
I did see one mediaevalist stating somewhere on a blog that there are in fact precedents for closing churches in time of plague, though specific references were not given. I would say that taking precautions is an act of charity. Not helpful IMHO are the following responses I have come across online. (1) Evangelical/Pentecostal: "Faith will preserve you from the virus". Nuff said. (2) Eastern Orthodox - "Those who think it possible to be infected by the Elements at Communion are heretics who don't believe in the Real Presence!" This may be linked to their interpretation of the Real Presence, which is slightly different from our concept of transubstantiation, in which the "accidents" which remain when the substance is changed presumably include the ability to transmit infection. I wonder how this view copes with the more or less well-authenticated cases of people being poisoned through the Elements by particularly disgusting and sacrilegious enemies in the mediaeval and renaissance era? (3) Trad Catholic "St Charles Borromeo didn't take precautions against plague beyond prayer and fasting". St Charles was a saint, and what is sanctity in him might be presumption in us. Besides, medicine in his era was often more dangerous than the disease. (4) (Mentally) Adolescent Nones - "HEy - let's all head off to the nearest pub/nightclub, get drunk, hot and sweaty and post selfies of ourselves in a big crowd!" As seen in Temple Bar a few days ago, and in various places in the US. Words are not sufficient to describe this idiocy. In relation to the "Trad Catholic" objection above - St. Charles actually DID take precautions - he closed the churches in Milan and held masses outside their doors so that the townspeople could watch from their balconies. I've also heard some traditionalists make the EO objection in relation to Communion in the hand. As regards the broader issue of Covid-19, I completely agree that we all need to take precautions to curb its spread, though I am concerned that some countries, including potentially our own, seem to be taking the Chinese approach of forced collective quarantine rather than the South Korean approach of mass testing and targeted quarantines of people who actually have the virus, which is better suited to a democracy: www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/03/italy-south-korea-differ-tackling-coronavirus-outbreak-200313062505781.htmlThere is also the problem of how long these measures are sustainable. Long-term lockdowns will take their toll on supply chains and we could see the introduction of rationing as a result. This is bearable though compared to a possible sharp rise in depression and suicide as people without social contact turn in on themselves, or potential civil disorder as people lose patience with their lives essentially being taken away (the Gardaí seem to anticipate the latter with the creation of a dedicated Public Order Unit). I really hope and pray that the Government know what they are doing and that this will all pass soon.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Dec 8, 2019 22:24:01 GMT
A commentator for whom I had and still have some respect (not least because they took on the responsibility of a large family and have faced the sadness of seeing children lose their faith) recently stated that the action of the doctors in the Savita case was correct and that it is never allowable to induce a child before viability to save the mother's life, even if the alternative is that both mother and child will die. This is IMHO quite horrifyingly ignorant of basic Catholic moral theology (not least the principle of double effect) and risks unnecessary deaths. (I agree that women should in some instances be willing to risk their lives for the sake of their child, but this should not be made harder than necessary. Remember St Gianna Beretta Molla was canonised for showing HEROIC - that is extraordinary - virtue.) Now the same commentator is arguing that Natural Family Planning should not be used for family limitation, and that poverty is not a good reason to have fewer children because doing so shows lack of trust in Providence. It should be borne in mind that parents have responsibilities towards the proper upbringing of their existing children, and that prudence is a cardinal virtue and presumption is a sin against the Holy Ghost. I am not naming the commentator out of respect, but I wish they would stop making such pronouncements - they are undercutting their own true and courageous statements on other matters by this excessive and dangerous rigorism. If the person I am referring to is the same person as you are, it's ironic that they quote Casti Connubii, when that encyclical specifically permits NFP in all but name. See here: "Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved." In fairness, I think the commentator has a point that NFP *can* be abused and that simply treating it as "Catholic contraception" is not the right approach, the problem is that it is taken way too far and they end up condemning NFP per se, which is clearly not the mind of the Church.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Nov 23, 2019 12:16:32 GMT
The Phoenix Annual also has an extraordinary comment in a hostile review of the new biography of Peter Sutherland, THE GLOBALIST. In the course of denying that Sutherland was a liberal crusader, it claims that his role in the Pro-Life Amendment was to attempt strengthen the wording so that "the equal right to life of the mother" would not interfere with laws against abortion. The reader with no previous knowledge would assume from the way this is stated that Sutherland wished to reduce or eliminate the right to life of the mother. In fact what he wanted was to remove any positive affirmation of the right to life of either mother or child and reduce the amendment to a guarantee that the courts would not rule laws against abortion unconstitutional. This may have been "stronger" in the sense that it would probably have prevented the X Case (though the ability of judges to find that black is white and 2+2=5 should never be underestimated) but it was rejected by most pro-lifers because it left open the possibility that abortion could be legalised by the Dail. Goldvulture's choice of words here is either unbelievably careless or a deliberate attempt to smear Sutherland in the eyes of younger Repeal voters so as to discredit his socio-economic views by association. (I have my doubts about some of said socio-economic views, but honesty should matter in debate.) Whatever his intentions were, his globalizing tendencies effectively undermined the right to life, and indeed, all socially conservative legislation, since international institutions such as the E.U. and the U.N. are hostile to life, the family, and Christianity. The only socially conservative legislation which was repealed under pressure from Europe (and at that the ECHR, not the EU) was the ban on homosexuality. Everything else was undermined by ourselves. Institutions are only as good as the people running them and the problem is not the institutions themselves, but the fact that they have been hijacked by ideologues with their own agenda. Don't forget as well that Westphalianism leaves minorities with no recourse to outside support, since other nations are reluctant in such a scenario to intervene in another nation's affairs. This would have worrying implications for Christian minorities in Muslim-majority or Communist countries, and is one reason why the nations clamouring the most for absolute sovereignty are also generally the ones that the most authoritarian (and ironically, many of these are Marxist). I agree that the UN has failed spectacularly to address the persecution of Christians, but that doesn't mean we should abandon Christian minorities to their fate (which is what Westphalianism amounts to).
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Nov 22, 2019 18:38:00 GMT
What do you think of the acronym for the Blessed Virgin Mary? I've always disliked it and found it disrespectful. I'm surprised when Catholics use it. I don't necessarily agree that it is disrespectful. The initials IHS are commonly associated with the tabernacle and the Blessed Sacrament without any disrespectful connotation. The same could be said about INRI, YHWH, the use of X (chi) to represent Christ, alpha and omega to represent the Trinity. Indeed, I have often seen BVM carved onto Marian grottos. As these mainly date back to the Marian Year, I think we can safely say that no disrespect is intended.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Nov 8, 2019 19:04:38 GMT
To be honest, Maolsheachlann, I don't think you are doing yourself or your literary career any favours by continuing to write for a website whose editor has endorsed scientific racism.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Oct 30, 2019 20:00:52 GMT
As you probably know, the Government are planning to reform the laws on incitement in the wake of the attacks on the Ryan family last month. While the current situation is undesirable, I fear that any new laws will not only target racism and sectarianism, as they should, but will likely be used to curtail criticism of homosexual activity or gender theory. Instead, I believe that the laws in existence at present are adequate, and the issue can be solved by stronger enforcement of these laws rather than making new ones. What do others here think?
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Oct 6, 2019 19:19:00 GMT
Depending on the candidate, I might give them a protest vote to frighten the mainstream parties (and indeed I might AS A PROTEST VOTE even if, say, "Calvinist" were substituted for "Catholic"), but I would be extremely wary of them - especially if they had any chance of real power- for the following reasons: (1) To start with the elephant in the room, we are way past the point at which a political party on its own can uphold or enforce these things (assuming for the sake of argument that they are all desirable). It would need a much wider cultural and spiritual revival to begin with. (2) How are these things to be enforced? Most of the population would not co-operate, and law enforcement and judicial personnel certainly wouldn't. What exactly does "illegal" mean in this context - a small fine, or public stoning on the Iranian model? How could "positive depiction of homosexuality" be made illegal, given that international media are accessible for anyone with a satellite dish or an internet connection? Who defines what constitutes blasphemy? What does "inherently anti-Catholic" mean, given that any non-Catholic religion can be described as "inherently anti-Catholic" (and don't think there haven't been some Catholics who haven't taken exactly that view)? What happens if the bishops (who are a non-negotiable part of the church) declare that this party is unCatholic? (3) What other policies does this party have? How are they to persuade the electorate that these measures are part of a wider worldview which if implemented would make their lives better? If this party comes to power, are the voters to be allowed to criticise how it runs the country, or vote it out at the next election if they don't like it in practice? This reads like somebody daydreaming about being a Catholic dictator and imposing a reign of virtue by force alone. Some people have daydreams of this sort in early adolescence, but if they don't grow out of them extremely fast they are dangerous. It's a recipe for spiritual and political suicide bombers who think Margaret Atwood's Gilead is meant as a description of paradise on earth. Pray and do good works instead, and try learning how to think. Hibernicus, unfortunately is a liberal atheist. Not sure the motive of his question, but just so you know. So basically he's trolling us?
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Oct 6, 2019 17:41:22 GMT
In fairness, the Provos were not exactly exempt from advocating liberation theology either, even if it was of a greener variety than the Stickies. Also, the fact that as you say the Officials graduated from liberation theology to Marxism-Leninism and being the puppets of the USSR demonstrates the pitfalls of the former and why the Church was right to clamp down on it.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Oct 6, 2019 17:37:31 GMT
I've been paying much attention to the National Party lately, they are one of the more dynamic organisations on the political scene at the moment. Justin Barrett is an interesting figure, too. I found it rather striking when on a recent live-stream he advocated against outlawing pornography, adopting a very moral relativist, libertarian approach to the issue. With his descent into moral degeneracy he seems to have abandoned the high ideals of his youth. And while I have a degree of sympathy for Irish ethnonationalists, I think their philosophy is overly-simplistic and generally incoherent. Many people from time to time have essayed the difficult task of setting down in black and white a definition of Nationality and they have not succeeded to any great extent. Some have gone to great pains in their effort to dissect Nationality and label it's elements and component parts, but they were dealing with the spiritual, the mysterious, the elusive; and the more diffuse and explanatory they became, the more involved and confused were their confusions and explanations. One might as well try to describe and explain the soul of man by dissecting the human body. Nationality, in fact, is something that can be understood, but cannot be accurately or minutely defined. Pearse lays this out concisely in 'The Spiritual Nation'. I would argue that it is the NP's dynamism that make them dangerous. Don't forget as well that Mr. Barrett is the only active far-rightist to have any past experience in leading a party or interest group. I'm rather surprised that Barrett would defend pornography: I wonder could it be something to do with the fact that it is rampant among the alt-right subculture from where his party appears to draw most of its younger recruits. I wouldn't say he has abandoned all or even most of his ideals; much of the core elements (pro-life, ethno-state, contempt for democracy) are still present, even if the overt Catholicism has been jettisoned. I agree that nationality is difficult to define accurately, you only need to see the discussions between myself and Maolsheachlann on this to figure that out! This is one reason I tend to err on the side of caution and define it as broadly as possible (though not so broadly as to argue that some American whose great-great-great-grandmother was from Ireland is Irish).
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Sept 30, 2019 21:40:34 GMT
There is a line in the Tenebrae service where Jesus reproaches the Apostles for falling asleep in the GArden of Gethsemane while Judas is wide awake and labouring to betray Him to His enemies. This is brought to mind by last Saturday's Nuremberg Rally, aka March for Choice, in Dublin. The current legislation is not bad enough for them - they won't be satisfied until they have removed every last restriction however nominal which suggests that abortion involves a moral issue, and silenced every criticism of abortion. One of the persons behind it had a piece in the IRISH TIMES last week calling for the total suppression of conscientious objection on the grounds that it infringes the so-called "universal right" to abortion, which we are informed in said piece the majority voted for enthusiastically last year.. As Abraham Lincoln put it in reference to the slave states' demands that the free states must uphold the continued existence of slavery by returning refugees and suppressing denunciations of slavery: "A nation cannot long endure half slave and half free - it must be all one or all the other." THAT is what the majority voted for, in the hope that it would make the issue go away and let them go back to sleep. www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2019/0928/1078837-abortion-march-in-dublin/A few points: (1) This will help the pro-aborts to keep their cohorts mobilised. Failure to do so after the 1983 referendum was our biggest mistake. (2) These marchers were allowed to use Merrion Square and not shunted off to the Northside as the last March for Life was. Expect officialdom, encouraged by the RTE-IRISH TIMES axis, to treat the least whisper from the pro-aborts as louder than our loudest shouts as we tell the truth. (3) Note in one of the photos accompanying the RTE story, the sign reading YOU DON'T NEED AN UTERUS TO SUPPORT FREE SAFE AND LEGAL ABORTION. So much for the canard that only women are qualified to speak on abortion, which these people repeated at every opportunity so long as it was useful to them. I still think they use that canard, only that they just apply it to *pro-life* men. Even then, when confronted by the sight of pro-life women, their response is to dismiss her as a relic of a bygone age. An adage about having your cake and eating it comes to mind...
|
|