The White Between the Green and Orange

Irish nationalism, in some quarters at least, seems to have evolved into some internationalist white supremacy movement. Gone seem to be are the days when calling oneself an old school “Irish Catholic Nationalist” used to be the common self-description in nationalist circles in Ireland.

We all know what happened to Sinn Fein and their myriad of splinter groups when they moved away from the ideologies of the founding fathers of the Irish State i.e. the ideas of Pearse, Connolly, Collins et al. During the 1960s influential elements within Sinn Fein (and subsequently several dissident offshoots that emerged later) embraced Marxism and the Gramscian strategy of a “march through the institutions” infecting every facet of 'Irishness' with post-modern existential nihilism like positing a diseased carcass in a water well. Eventually the more traditional republicans in the movement were either ousted, won over or demoralised to such an extent that Marxism became the dominant ideology in republican circles. It was no longer “an Ireland united” but “workers of the world unite”. Rather than focusing on the notion of true liberty for the expression of 'Irishness', Globalist Marxist Sinn Fein instead cultivated Stalinist tyranny and the annihilation of all things Irish.

'Irishness' to the Marxists would be reduced to arbitrary and meaningless dicta. Anyone can be Irish, anyone can be male, female or whatever they choose. They can be allowed confuse sex with love and “do it” with anyone, anything and in groups, if that’s what rocks your boat. You can also, and at the same time, campaign for “the Catholic community” up north while destroying the “Catholic community” down south, then destroy the “Catholic community “up north to finish the whole strategy off using the very people you vowed to protect to do it for you; a win-win. You can lobby for fundamental rights but deny the most vulnerable the most fundamental of all rights- the right to life. You can demand the tricolour to be hoisted on Government buildings in the North of Ireland but welcome its lowering down the south for a rainbow, UN and a host of other flags.

In times past Irish republicans dreamed of an United Ireland and celebrating its unique heritage and culture. Eulogising the rarity of its people  and morality was soon substituted by screaming in joy at the prospect of thousands of babies butchered by the State, or exhibiting pride at witnessing semi naked men in sado-masochistic leather attire gyrate in front of innocent children in the streets of our cities and towns. Unfortunately, too many of the Sinn Fein legions are either in a collective denial or complicit in this treachery to the nation, far too brainwashed to care about the damage they continue to perpetuate. When culture is gone, it is near impossible to get it back.

It is bad enough to see the communists who were once pro-Irish engage in self destruction. It is altogether more worrisome that a burgeoning movement to defend Ireland and its culture and people is meandering to a different, albeit similar, self-destruction and with it any hope for the survival of the Irish nation.

I would argue it is a major mistake to embrace the white supremacy model of defence as it plays directly into the hands of the opposition. What better way for the majority of the Irish to be deceived into darkness by being told to fear the dark. The progressives and communists both own and harness the tools of manipulation and persuasion to ensure the masses remain unenlightened. The opposition achieve this in two steps.

Step one: Reframe your opposition by labelling them with accusations that the populace has been already inculcated to despise e.g.” Racist” etc

Step two: Rely on herd mentality to ensure that renegades will yearn to conform or fear social isolation and ostracization.

And what is the response by some nationalists? They perform as predicated by creating and twist their own noose upon which to be hung. Napoleon Bonaparte knew what he was saying when he uttered “never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake” and the opposition sit back and let it unfold.

The serious mistake made by some nationalists is to be deceived into using the very means by which the enemy wish their foe to succumb. Irish nationalists don’t have to resort to embracing 'white supremacism' to succeed. To the contrary, such a tactic will hasten defeat and destroy the movement from its inception.

Irish men and women do not need to promote that they, as Irishmen and women, are superior to any Nigerian or Pakistani but rather that they are in their own uniqueness equally justified in surviving as an indigenous acephalous tribe in the deepest jungles of the Amazon. It is kind of ironic as progressives always aspire to ensure the survival of primitive tribes but not their own? Any rational human being that has an interest in true diversity would find it injurious to lose a rich culture such as what we have in Ireland as they would in seeing Persian culture disappear. The problem lies not with "diversity" but the reinterpretation of "diversity". True diversity requires the unique manifestations of diversity to survive. Blending those diverse manifestations into a new whole destroys diversity, not promote it.

That is not to say all cultures exhibit the same objective value in terms of accolade. I am not promoting a relativist notion of culture. I am saying that our focus should be on the uniqueness of our people, our nation, our culture, our heritage and to the exclusion of others but not by reference to others. A person can say they love their mother by not comparing her with their neighbour’s mother. One can proudly exclaim “my mother is the best in the world!” without knowing the quality of every other mother that exists in the world.

Granted, usually the subject of an evaluation is set against or compared with a particular or average equivalent. Often I can only adduce that my team is the best in the county because the other teams in the county are inferior to it. However, to make such an assessment is based on the ambiguity of the word “ best”. When most proud patriots consider their country to be the best in the world they tend to do so from a point of limited reference as a mark of high esteem for the prized familiar rather than a side to side comparison. Every patriot doesn’t know for a fact that Ireland, say, is better than Canada  in terms of scenery because such a claim is a subjective value judgment. It is no different to saying “I prefer chocolate flavoured ice cream over strawberry”. It is a matter of subjective preference based on subjective experience and with such preferential experience no external proofs are necessary, it becomes a brute, albeit subjective, fact.

Similarly, I can say “ I love my nation, to the exclusion of all others” and not having to resort to saying “ I therefore have to hate other nations to love my own” or, indeed reflect “ I am a proud Irishman” without saying “ I am proud of being Irish and therefore I consider all other non-Irish persons inferior.” It is quite simply enough to say “ I am Irish and I am proud of being such” and by extension I want to preserve 'Irishness' and its distinct qualities. To adopt the language of white supremacy, and its pretensions is merely playing into the hands of the opposition.

Let me be clear, to be Irish is not subject to the mere issuance of a certificate of citizenship. There is a distinct quality to the notion of Irishness that is quintessentially Caucasian and ethnically European. However, I can also say that the quality of a white grape is particularised to its form or shape, colour, texture, smell and taste. By doing so is not an entirely qualitative act but rather identifying by classification, difference. A white grape fails to remain a white grape if it looks, tastes, feels etc like a plum. Labelling a plum, a white grape, may suit the irrationality of a  post modernist but it  still won't make  it real. The plum will retain all the hallmarks of the plum, and the grape its indicia.  Saying that a bullet shot from a gun hurtling towards your head is, in your opinion, a white grape will be equally futile, as you, and your splattered brain will soon discover.

Look at it this way, the heroes of 1916 didn’t have to clarify what 'Irishness' meant, at least not to the absurdities of today. It was intuitively known. To try and reduce the concept of “ Irishness” beyond the obvious ( European ethnicity and Caucasian) to some scientific formula becomes nonsensical.  Take evolution for example. Current science tells us about how humanity evolved from the plains of eastern and central Africa and how those peoples migrated north to Europe, interbred with Neanderthals where their phenotypes ( hair, eye colour etc) adapted and mutated to suit the harsher climate the further they travelled north eventually becoming, what we now consider to be ( or did) modern Europeans. Therefore, so the logic goes, Africans should be thought as the original Europeans because they were the original humans, but they blindly mutated to survive by reasons of adaption to a particular climate.

To follow this reasoning we end up with absurdities Why? Well from where, according to the theory of evolution, did humans evolve? Primates, therefore should be considered the original Europeans because homo sapiens evolved from primates. Do we have to tolerate or even embrace the arrival of hordes of primates to Ireland through mass migration now too?  Or go further back, as far as amoeba or other single cell organisms in the evolutionary ladder. Are amoeba therefore the original Europeans?

The entertainment industry, not shy in trying to promote an agenda over the quality of a story, have been attempting to reimagine history. Some activists even try to tell the world that Dickensian London was full of Africans. This is patently false. All one has to do is watch Pathe news from the early 1900s to realise how ethnically homogenous Europe had been. This of course doesn't stop the careful selection of African actors to play European heroes on stage and screen. The activity is simple propaganda in an effort to demoralise the indigenous Europeans. It also manages not only to reframe history as inaccurately "diverse" but to goad nationalists into reaction. When the understandable hostile reaction occurs, the " racist" card is pulled and dissent is conditioned with the opprobrium already hiding  in the tall grass, with a single accusation from a progressive or communist activist ready to activate the avalanche of condemnation online , tipped like the first domino to cause the tsunami of public reproach. The result is anticipated, with it either: causing social isolation or evoking a grovelling apology. We shouldn't  fall for it. 

We don’t have to appeal to DNA or evolution or science at all. Not all knowledge is empirically observable. Logical inductive conclusions for example are themselves not observable even if the data upon which they rely on were compiled through observation. Although the collation of data through the scientific method in of itself is mediated through unreliable senses the reasoned conclusion derived from such analysis of data, is a metaphysical activity. We should remind ourselves that sensory perception can be deceiving ( look at any optical illusion). Bare in mind we also perform daily actions without conscious thought through intuitive knowledge. For example, not touching something hot, or not walking into a door frame is intuitive knowledge in action. We didn't have to consciously look at a hot stove to conclude it would be hot to the touch, we simply act unconsciously and avoid the touching. Now, the memory of a burn or warning may have been learnt, and such conditioning will result in the unconscious avoiding of future experienced actions but in the present the action is a result of intuition, not cognition or thinking about it. A Priori Knowledge, another form of intuitive knowledge needs no justification at all, it exists independently of observation. All bachelors are unmarried is a prime example. You don’t have to empirically prove that all bachelors are unmarried because it is self-referencing or, to put it plainly, a married bachelor would cease to be a bachelor if he became married. Same with 'Irishness', it is intuitively known and requires no empirical data to proof its true form.

According to celebrated historian Arnold Toynbee “Civilizations die from suicide not murder”, and as much as the progressives and communists seek the death of Western civilisation ( especially Ireland), they do so with the unwitting complicity of nationalists who fall for their deception. The well-intentioned but calamitous motives of nationalists who pursue a suicidal route of white supremacy will  accelerate the demise of our nation not  lead to its resuscitation. 

By Bosco