|
Post by Young Ireland on Jul 8, 2019 20:34:04 GMT
(Incidentally, when Thomas Davis - quoted on their leaflets - said "Ireland for the Irish" I don't think he meant what the NP means by it; for one thing Davis's own father was Welsh not Irish.) What do you believe the Nationalist Party's stance is on Irishness? What is your opinion based on? I've listened to a lot of National Party videos and speeches by Justin Barrett and I've never heard anything to suggest that, from their point of view, having a non-Irish parent would disqualify you from Irishness. Indeed, it's no secret that Justin Barrett idealizes and models himself on Patrick Pearse, who had an English father. It's fine to criticize anybody's opinion or views, but we should be fair in doing so, and not caricature it. As for the historical understanding of Irishness, it's hard to escape the view that the natalist view was simply taken for granted for the great majority of Irish history. Indeed, this is still the tacit assumption everybody makes, not only in Ireland but elsewhere-- we all use terms like "Irish", "Mexican", "Hispanic" etc. precisely to mean ancestry and descent. The fashionable view of nationality seems quite similar to the fashionable view of gender-- everybody still IN PRACTICE treats masculinity and femininity as a reality, despite paying lip service to gender as a social construct. Similarly, even the most determined cosmopolitan still treats ancestry as the defining reality of a person's ethnic identity, for good or bad, in their everyday conversation. The lecture "The Necessity for De-Anglizing Ireland" by Douglas Hyde was seen as one of the catalysts of the Irish-Ireland movement. Hyde is seen even now as a moderate and a rather irenic figure. But this is from that lecture: We must set our face sternly against penny dreadfuls, shilling shockers, and still more, the garbage of vulgar English weeklies like Bow Bells and the Police Intelligence. Every house should have a copy of Moore and Davis. In a word, we must strive to cultivate everything that is most racial, most smacking of the soil, most Gaelic, most Irish, because in spite of the little admixture of Saxon blood in the north-east corner, this island is and will ever remain Celtic at the core, far more Celtic than most people imagine, because, as I have shown you, the names of our people are no criterion of their race. On racial lines, then, we shall best develop, following the bent of our own natures. The only point I'm making is that such rhetoric was entirely uncontroversial and not at all "problematic" until the day before yesterday. One might accuse Justin Barrett and the National Party of many things, but I don't think it's fair to say their Irish nationalism is anachronistic and un-historical. To be fair, they do try and get around the speed bump of Irish revolutionaries having foreign parents by claiming that "Nationality is something you inherit by blood and affirm by sacrifice." Also, Thomas Davis specifically denied that Irishness was an ethnic identity and claimed that "It is not blood that makes you Irish but a willingness to be part of the Irish Nation", something the NP vociferously deny. BTW, for the same reason, their adoption of the "All for Ireland" motto is rather ironic considering that the man behind the movement with that name, William O'Brien, was very much a liberal and would likely have deplored the NP exploiting his legacy for their own ends. He and Canon Sheehan (another AFIL supporter) must be turning in their graves!
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 8, 2019 21:59:34 GMT
I'm afraid I didn't make myself clear. My point was that the NP are implying that Davis supported their version of who is Irish, which I understand to mean that only people of fairly longstanding descent are Irish (I read their call to "reverse the current trend of mass immigration" as implying that migrants already here should be encouraged to leave), whereas Davis was a civic nationalist who believed that Irish identity was created by a series of invaders who could be accepted as Irish if they gave allegiance to Ireland: Here came the brown Phoenician The man of care and toil Here came the bold Milesian A hungering for spoil And the Firbolg and the Cymry And the hard,enduring Dane And the iron lords of Normandy With the Saxon in their train. [This view is not of course invented by Davis - It can be found in Geoffrey Keating in the C17 and in the BOOK OF INVASIONS much earlier.] In other words, the NP are invoking someone who by their standards was not Irish and who disagreed with their view of Irishness. I am not saying Davis was necessarily right about everything, but quoting in support of your views someone who disagreed with you - as the NP are doing - suggests a defective understanding. I must say their literature strikes me by its vacuousness; it reminds me of an ad for Irish spring water. (I know the established parties produce such ads, but this is because they already have access to power and because the public has an idea however vague of what they stand for.)
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 9, 2019 9:08:59 GMT
But I don't see any evidence that Justin Barrett or the National Party would consider a person with one non-Irish parent to not be Irish on that grounds. As I've said, their veneration of Patrick Pearse seems like clear evidence to the contrary.
Such arguments seem like caviling to me, anyway-- similar to the way people challenge Nigel Farage with the fact that he has a German wife. I've listened to a great deal of commentary from the populist right and the caricature of Voldemortian pure-bloodism is just that, a caricature. Of course they accept there is such a thing as intermarriage, mixed ancestry, etc. There is all the difference in the world between that and mass immigration/multiculturalism.
I've spent a lot of time, also, reading the writings of Irish nationalists of the past and looking for some indication as to what they would think of our current situation-- the situation the National Party is addressing. I've come to the conclusion that the Irish nationalist tradition never even contemplated the possibility of mass immigration/multiculturalism of the sort we have today. The tacit assumption seems always to have been that the ethnic composition of Ireland would remain much as it was, and that the idealization of Gaelic culture (all arguments of historicity aside) would remain the unifying cultural vision. I think it's fair to say that the civic nationalism of people like Thomas Davis was an attempt to overcome divisions between Gael, Saxon and Norman (for want of better terms)-- I'm not familiar with Davis's writings but I doubt he would have actually seen the Viking and Norman invasions, and the plantations of Ulster, as a good thing, although some revisionists now seem to go that far.
The teaching of the bishops and recent Popes on immigration is quite clear-- as a Catholic I accept that, though with considerable misgivings. But I do think it's important not to caricature populists in general and the NP in particular. I don't actually like Justin Barret much-- he idolizes Pearse but shows none of Pearse's warm humanism. All the same, I think the National Party are actually quite clear and coherent in their principles (the application of principles is another matter).
Despite all the talk of "dialogue" these days, nobody seems interested in a dialogue with populism-- it seems dialogue is only ever leftwards. After Brexit and Trump, there was some acknowledgement (even on the left) that political correctness had gone too far and was creating a backlash, but I rarely heard anyone taking the desire of ordinary people to preserve their national cultures and heritage seriously. This was seen as simply a displaced unhappiness rooted in more bread-and-butter problems ("blaming immigrants", etc.). Which is quite insulting to the man in the street, as though he could only ever really care about his pay-cheque.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2019 16:30:01 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'.
|
|
|
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 maolsheachlann on Oct 6, 2019 19:05:54 GMT
I agree that nationality cannot be precisely defined. I'm increasingly inclined to define it as a culture, a tradition.
I get fatigued by the extremes on both sides...one extreme to whom the last word on nationalism is the Nazis, the other extreme for whom the last word on multiculturalism is Yugoslavia. And yet it seems to me that nationalism and multiculturalism have pretty much been present everywhere.
My anxiety for national cultures is that national customs, traditions, and cultures which were once protected by barriers of distance and geography will no longer have this protection, in this era of the internet and economic globalization. We will have to intentionally preserve them, if we wish to preserve them. I do not understand, for instance, how more people are not upset by the process of language death.
I don't like Justin Barett and I think Pearse would be horrified by his defence of pornography. I haven't heard it, but he was probably defending it on the grounds of free speech. In the era of political correctness I can understand the reaction to libertarianism, but I don't accept it.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 6, 2019 20:51:48 GMT
Yugoslavia used to be held up as a cultural and economic model in the 1970s and 1980s by certain people, including Desmond Fennell. Not surprisingly, he doesn't reprint any of his lucubrations on this subject in his "autobiography". I occasionally come across pro-Serb far-rightists online who claim that the Serbs in 1990s Yugoslavia were premature anti-Muslims and that the trouble was that ethnic cleansing of Muslims was not taken far enough. Are these what you mean by people who equate Yugoslavia with the perils of multiculturalism? (In an ideal world it would not be necessary to state that proponents of such a view are monsters, but I am saying it anyway in case anyone misunderstands me.) Based on what I have seen and heard of Justin Barrett's public statements, the man couldn't argue his way out of a paper bag. Instead of engaging in calculated deniability he says or does something outrageous, then tries to deny he said or did it when everyone can see that he did (cf his denial that the NPD conference he attended was neo-nazi even when a video of its imitation-nazi rituals was being broadcast in parallel with his denial). The mythical ostrich hiding its head in the sand was rational and far-seeing compared to Justin Barrett; he's on an ego trip and nothing more. The big problem with him is that he will cause trouble and dissension among pro-lifers, lead a few maniacs to cause trouble, and be used by the other side to damage us even more. The danger is that he will be a drummer preparing the way for more skilful demagogues.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 6, 2019 20:56:37 GMT
Padraic Pearse, whatever you think of him in general, was a gifted teacher and was capable of eloquence. Justin Barrett couldn't teach his way out of a paper bag because he is incapable of sensing his audience's likely reponse, and his speeches are to rhetoric what the poetry of the fictional Vogons from HITCH-HIKER'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY was to the sublime: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogon
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Oct 7, 2019 8:48:52 GMT
I occasionally come across pro-Serb far-rightists online who claim that the Serbs in 1990s Yugoslavia were premature anti-Muslims and that the trouble was that ethnic cleansing of Muslims was not taken far enough. Are these what you mean by people who equate Yugoslavia with the perils of multiculturalism? (In an ideal world it would not be necessary to state that proponents of such a view are monsters, but I am saying it anyway in case anyone misunderstands me.) That seems a rather extreme interpretation of what I said. I'm talking about people who point to Yugoslavia as an example of the conflict and tension which is inherent to multiculturalism. But it seems to me that some kind of multiculturalism has existed in most polities since total cultural and ethnic homogeneity is rare. A more realistic assessment to be would be: 1) Yes, national loyalties can lead to conflict but history tells us they exist anyway and it's ridiculous to see the cost of everything and the value of nothing. 2) Yes, multiculturalism comes with tension, but it seems to be an inherent feature of human society, since populations overlap and people move to find jobs, etc. Better learn how to live with both and reconcile them in some way. Incidentally Justin Barrett disagreed with me on Twitter on this and said: "You can't accommodate globalisation into nationalism. It's either/or." By the way, I disagree with you about Barrett; I don't think he is the contemptible figure you hold him to be, and I actually do think he is a fine orator. I just don't like him because I think he is a fanatic and lacks humanity. But what he is saying obviously speaks to many people in Ireland now, and how could it fail to, considering the globalist propaganda and conditioning they are bombarded with every minute or every day?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 7, 2019 19:11:03 GMT
Just to be clear, Maolseachlainn, I didn't mean to imply that you personally held the views on Yugoslavia which I mentioned, and which I have encountered in the loonier reaches of the internet. Apologies if I gave that impression. Yugoslavia as an example of multiculturalism is an odd choice, given that all the major groups are indigenous (the bosnian Muslims are Slavic-speakers, the Albanians were already there before the Ottoman Turkish invasions). How do these people suppose the region is to be handled if not by some form of multiculturalism?
I really don't get your view that Justin Barrett is a fine orator. Any recordings of him that I have heard display a flat, droning delivery and a total inability to "work" the audience (a skilled speaker like Charlie Haughey or Ian Paisley can pickup the audience's mood and respond to it). His book THE NATIONAL WAY FORWARD, which I read when it came out, is less readable than MEIN KAMPF, and that's saying a good deal.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Oct 8, 2019 9:58:04 GMT
Yugoslavia as an example of multiculturalism is an odd choice, given that all the major groups are indigenous (the bosnian Muslims are Slavic-speakers, the Albanians were already there before the Ottoman Turkish invasions). How do these people suppose the region is to be handled if not by some form of multiculturalism? That's my point exactly! We have all lived in multicultural societies all our lives. There's nothing strange about it. Even Catholic nationalist Ireland was multicultural in the sense that it had Protestant and Jewish and Traveller minorities.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Oct 8, 2019 12:37:49 GMT
Just to be clear, Maolseachlainn, I didn't mean to imply that you personally held the views on Yugoslavia which I mentioned, and which I have encountered in the loonier reaches of the internet. Apologies if I gave that impression. Yugoslavia as an example of multiculturalism is an odd choice, given that all the major groups are indigenous (the bosnian Muslims are Slavic-speakers, the Albanians were already there before the Ottoman Turkish invasions). How do these people suppose the region is to be handled if not by some form of multiculturalism? I really don't get your view that Justin Barrett is a fine orator. Any recordings of him that I have heard display a flat, droning delivery and a total inability to "work" the audience (a skilled speaker like Charlie Haughey or Ian Paisley can pickup the audience's mood and respond to it). His book THE NATIONAL WAY FORWARD, which I read when it came out, is less readable than MEIN KAMPF, and that's saying a good deal. No need to apologise, Hibernicus, I just didn't know what you meant. I'm surprised you haven't encountered the Yugoslavia example. Perhaps I spend more time interacting with the populist right than you do. I agree Justin Barrett has a grating voice, but I also listen to almost all his speeches on YouTube. He actually has something meaningful to say, whether you agree with it or not; there's a coherent political philosophy, at least as far as first principles go. I don't really know how he works a room as I have never been in his presence, and I've never read The National Way Forward.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 2, 2020 21:22:31 GMT
The National Party is contesting several seats at the 2020 election. Their website looks much more professional than anything I've seen from that quarter so far, and their candidates in several instances have records of community activism including but not confined to pro-life work. They seem like good people, which is why it pains me to say, as I must, that I would not vote for them even if they were standing in my area. I can and will vote for candidates with whom I differ on certain issues, but Justin Barrett has just got too much baggage, and some of the rants on their page which claim to be policy articles (attributed to "a NP member" rather than named authors) reinforce my suspicions. I won't link to their webpage, though you should be able to find it easily enough. I recommend Aontu (bear in mind that they need 2% of first preferences to get funding), what is left of Renua, though I suspect this is their last hurrah, and other suitable pro-life candidates - if all else fails, vote tactically to keep out the worst. Information on candidates' positions HERE: prolifecampaign.ie/main/general-election/
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jul 6, 2022 21:56:58 GMT
As is now the norm, the National Party were out in force again for the Rally for Life, with their youth wing handing out leaflets declaring that "Ireland's Families are Ireland's Future". What was different this time is that a month earlier, one of the NP's official accounts had published a tweet defending the practice of eugenics in principle:
As a result, I asked a number of the leafleters it this was actually NP policy. One waved me away, saying that he did not want to get into a debate, while another referred me to a third individual, who confirmed that the NP were indeed pro-eugenics. When I pressed him on how eugenics is leading to the mass abortion of Down Syndrome babies, and historically to sterlisations of those deemed "unfit", he did say that the party did not support these, which I fully accept. Instead, he said it was about good nutrition and exercise.
This may well be the case, but these practices are called living a healthy lifestyle, and is good regardless of its effects on the "race". Calling it eugenics, which has a much darker history, will only lead to confusion, and gives the impression that the likes of Marie Stopes and Margaret Sanger had the right ideas, but went about it the wrong way.
ADDENDUM: I should also add that when questioned whether or not those not meeting the ideal would be considered "inferior", the NP member said no, of course not.
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Jul 17, 2022 10:02:00 GMT
As is now the norm, the National Party were out in force again for the Rally for Life, with their youth wing handing out leaflets declaring that "Ireland's Families are Ireland's Future". What was different this time is that a month earlier, one of the NP's official accounts had published a tweet defending the practice of eugenics in principle: As a result, I asked a number of the leafleters it this was actually NP policy. One waved me away, saying that he did not want to get into a debate, while another referred me to a third individual, who confirmed that the NP were indeed pro-eugenics. When I pressed him on how eugenics is leading to the mass abortion of Down Syndrome babies, and historically to sterlisations of those deemed "unfit", he did say that the party did not support these, which I fully accept. Instead, he said it was about good nutrition and exercise. This may well be the case, but these practices are called living a healthy lifestyle, and is good regardless of its effects on the "race". Calling it eugenics, which has a much darker history, will only lead to confusion, and gives the impression that the likes of Marie Stopes and Margaret Sanger had the right ideas, but went about it the wrong way. ADDENDUM: I should also add that when questioned whether or not those not meeting the ideal would be considered "inferior", the NP member said no, of course not. As an aside, I read Helen Joyce's remarks and there is nothing about eugenics in it. She has deliberately been misconstrued by the rainbow brigade in order to close her down. Joyce is a very articulate advocate against the idea of men becoming women just because they feel it, and she is against their push to compel us all to validate and celebrate their fantasies. Joyce is Irish, one of her brothers was captain of Ireland cricket team. She is an atheist, her analysis is very good but she fell in my opinion when she criticised Matt Walsh's recent video 'What is a woman'. She said that it was a good video but marred by the fact that Walsh is a conservative Catholic and therefore a sexist because he has criticised feminism. A pretty big assumption to make and one that doesn't help her logic as she herself (rightly) rails against being misrepresented.
|
|