Home

Irish Nationalism and Catholicism (E.g. The National Party).

roc_abilly

Member
It is indeed striking how in the NP, Catholicism plays a central role.

"Romantic Ireland's dead and gone. It's with O'Leary in the grave."

Of course John O'Leary was an Irish Nationalist whose vision of Nationalism was opposed to the existence of religious biases in Irish public life. (This of course made him very unpopular with the Catholic Church).

Whereas what was the Nationalism we got in the end? It was a Nationalism built on Catholic institutional ideals shaping Irish education, ethics, and morals, including conceptions of human liberty etc.

It was a Nationalism that refused to tolerate any relegation of the Church to any comparatively marginal position in Irish public life.

And in fact, once the Irish Catholic church allied itself with Irish Nationalism after Catholic emancipation, the secular Nationalist tradition was continually condemned even as a form of terror in the Nationalist propaganda (they based this claim on the French Revolution and Nationalists’ and Republicans’ curtailment of the Church’s educational influence throughout Europe at the time).

Anyway, Yeats' John O’Leary saw religion as the primary factor in creating the two rival Nationalisms, and the denominational education that transpired from it. Whereas he sought to create an Irish public opinion that was ‘kindly Irish of the Irish', not sectarian, inclusive of everyone.

(As I have pointed out before, to hold an opinion ‘kindly Irish of the Irish' is not a function of skin colour or religion, or any externality like that, it is more a function of relating to the Irish mindset which I believe is primarily found in the idioms of our national language, and in the "tools" that Irish offers you to express what you see, what you think, what may exist or not exist of reality; and that are markedly different to the "tools" of English and more modern languages. It is a public opinion regarding of our old books, the old rhythms of our language, the complex, subtle, nuances of the Gaelic mind as opposed to the English mind etc...)

Whereas parties like the odious "National Party" insist on putting sectarianism and Catholicism front and centre - never mind their lowborn and divisive emphasis on externalities like skin colour or what they call "race" etc.

Has not sectarianism and catholicism done enough damage to this country already? I.e. From our Catholic schooling and our Catholic institutions; to the abuses that occurred under same; to the partition that the two rival nationalisms inevitably created; to DeValera's Ireland of twitching windows; and the incompetence, dishonesty and cutehoorism that being in thrall to the institutions of the church and parish pump engendered?

Yet it continues. Anyone who joins with or supports the NP need a good kick up the hole.
 
Technically it isn't possible to have such a thing as a 'catholic republic' because (a) the very model of the republic does not and should not have a protected place for any religion over another (b) there is no such thing as a 'catholic republic' because a 'catholic' state recognises the authority of Europe's last absolute dictator in Europe and that is incompatible with the republic model and demos as in a republic ultimate authority comes from the people, not some absurd metaphysical king in Rome.

Barrett and his eejits either don't understand what a republic is or what catholicism is or else they do and are just talking bollocks.
 
"Romantic Ireland's dead and gone. It's with O'Leary in the grave."

Great post, good thread.

If we can keep this one separate yet still tied to the 'Open Letters' thread, then we have a deadly balance of two horrors at once.

Very good for the front page of the site.
 
Technically it isn't possible to have such a thing as a 'catholic republic' because (a) the very model of the republic does not and should not have a protected place for any religion over another (b) there is no such thing as a 'catholic republic' because a 'catholic' state recognises the authority of Europe's last absolute dictator in Europe and that is incompatible with the republic model and demos as in a republic ultimate authority comes from the people, not some absurd metaphysical king in Rome.

Barrett and his eejits either don't understand what a republic is or what catholicism is or else they do and are just talking bollocks.

Funny that the Irish people in general are now less afraid of Roman Catholicism as they are of Islam.

There's a cruel irony in that.
 
The National Party are an ethno-nationalist party - not Christian nationalist. In fact, Barret himself is not a Christian.
 
The National Party are an ethno-nationalist party - not Christian nationalist. In fact, Barret himself is not a Christian.
I agree he's not a Christian. He's a fundamentalist bigoted Catholic entirely opposed to Christ's message.

If you read his book "Mein Kampf - 'The National Way Forward' he espoused a “Catholic Republic”, where immigrants would not be permitted, divorce and abortion banned, and his own conceptions of a spurious "patriotism" elevated to the highest of public virtues.

His party is the party of demented and bigoted Catholic leprachauns, that's the truth of the matter, and your silly phrases like "ethno nationalist" don't pull the wool over anyone's eyes, at least anyone with two brain cells to rub together.
 
I agree he's not a Christian. He's a fundamentalist bigoted Catholic entirely opposed to Christ's message.
A Catholic is a Christian, he is neither.

If you read his book "Mein Kampf - 'The National Way Forward' he espoused a “Catholic Republic”, where immigrants would not be permitted, divorce and abortion banned, and his own conceptions of a spurious "patriotism" elevated to the highest of public virtues.
I was talking about the National Party.

Barrett, interviewed (as leader of the National Party), said that he couldn't call himself a Catholic. So it's from the horse's mouth, Barrett is neither a Catholic nor a Christian.

His party is the party of demented and bigoted Catholic leprachauns, that's the truth of the matter, and your silly phrases like "ethno nationalist" don't pull the wool over anyone's eyes, at least anyone with two brain cells to rub together.
No idea why you think that's a "silly phrase"
 
A Catholic is a Christian, he is neither.
No, I do not see much Christian about a certain type of Catholic, and he personifies it.

I was talking about the National Party.
So am I.

Barrett, interviewed (as leader of the National Party), said that he couldn't call himself a Catholic. So it's from the horse's mouth, Barrett is neither a Catholic nor a Christian.
Read his book. Here is a brief review:


In it he rants about liberalism and "immorality", most of all about the introduction of divorce in Ireland, and the gays (well putting aside his bigoted ideas about the foreigners).

As for this interview, most probably he has developed a touch of that "the field rodent" poster who thinks the current pope is some Satan sort, or of that Jew obsessed "Gollum" idiot, who yearns for the unmitigated bigotry and patriarchal authority of the church before the reforms of Vatican two.

No idea why you think that's a "silly phrase"
Because you hear it in the mouths of twerps who have no experience of life except the stupid websites they trawl day after day picking up those sort of phrases. To everyone else it is a redundant concept, discarded by history, particularly by the history of the twentieth century.
 
No, I do not see much Christian about a certain type of Catholic, and he personifies it.
He is not a Catholic - he's said as much

No you weren't

Read his book.
Exactly, you were talking about his book (supposed) from 25 years ago. The National Party isn't even a quarter of that age.

In it he rants about liberalism and "immorality", most of all about the introduction of divorce in Ireland, and the gays (well putting aside his bigoted ideas about the foreigners).
Liberalism is moral syphilis, "bigoted ideas about foreigners", don't know what you're talking about (I presume you are a liberal)

As for this interview, most probably he has developed a touch of that "the field rodent" poster who thinks the current pope is some Satan sort, or of that Jew obsessed "Gollum" idiot, who yearns for the unmitigated bigotry and patriarchal authority of the church before the reforms of Vatican two.
Because you hear it in the mouths of twerps who have no experience of life except the stupid websites they trawl day after day picking up those sort of phrases. To everyone else it is a redundant concept, discarded by history, particularly by the history of the twentieth century.
Nonresponsive. If you would like to have another go at why you think that ethno-nationalism is a "silly phrase", then feel free. Although I think I should probably just put you on Ignore. You seem to be an actor of bad faith (and not very bright).
 
You're talking shite, my friend.

It can only be that Barrett was and is the most fervid Catholic, as it is obvious that he rifles through Catholic doctrine to take his party's most significant positions.

Sure, "ethnic nationalism" may currently figure in the hodge podge of those positions, it may even be the most central one currently.

(Just to make a brief note here about how 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").

But as for Barrett, it is clear what formed him, it is clear from what doctrine he takes many of his party's positions, such as on abortion, divorce, gay people, and so on.

But you're telling us he has some new faith now, has had some Damascus conversion or other, while retaining all these doctrinal elements of fundamental Catholicism, but deciding this so called "ethnic nationalism" is the central thing to organise around?

By all means, document this conversion for readers on here to lend your laughable claims a shred of credibility, back up what you are saying, but the fact is, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, looks like a duck, then it must be a duck.
 
Liberalism is moral syphilis
I see you're parrotting an Englishman described as a "cult Internet figure" in the far-right.


Quelle surprise. Well I was clearly on the mark about trawling stupid websites. Not that anyone couldn't smell you out in less than a minute.

But funny thing that, we had another NP supporter on here previously, "English James" he was variously known as, and he also was taking his ideas from the exact same sources.

He wasn't the first, either.

Makes a mockery of your claims to this "ethnic nationalism", more often than not, it turns out to be just a British or American import.

And as for "not very bright", it is striking that is exactly the observation Izzy Kamikaze made about the goons in the far right parade when she was attacked with the 2x4 wrapped up in the Irish flag. Succinct and to the heart of the matter, the blow to the head had the side effect of opening up that key intuition.
 
Last edited:
Quelle surprise. Well I was clearly on the mark about trawling stupid websites. Not that anyone couldn't smell you out in less than a minute.

But funny thing that, we had another NP supporter on here previously, "English James" he was variously known as, and he also was taking his ideas from the exact same sources.

He wasn't the first, either.
I.e. Where did you get your current beliefs?
Mostly from the internet. There was little to no influence on my personal beliefs by people I met in person. I read multiple sources of information from all ideologies and decided that my current one is most correct.

From link: Payton Gendron Manifesto. (2022 Buffalo mass shooting)
 
You're talking shite, my friend.

It can only be that Barrett was and is the most fervid Catholic, as it is obvious that he rifles through Catholic doctrine to take his party's most significant positions.

Sure, "ethnic nationalism" may currently figure in the hodge podge of those positions, it may even be the most central one currently.

(Just to make a brief note here about how 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").

But as for Barrett, it is clear what formed him, it is clear from what doctrine he takes many of his party's positions, such as on abortion, divorce, gay people, and so on.

But you're telling us he has some new faith now, has had some Damascus conversion or other, while retaining all these doctrinal elements of fundamental Catholicism, but deciding this so called "ethnic nationalism" is the central thing to organise around?
I'm telling you that in an interview I saw with him he made it fairly clear that he wasn't a Catholic. You can believe that he was lying or I am, if you so wish.

By all means, document this conversion for readers on here to lend your laughable claims a shred of credibility, back up what you are saying, but the fact is, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, looks like a duck, then it must be a duck.
Your problem with the National Party appears to be based on religion.

I remind you that religion is a protected characteristic and what you're saying could be considered hate speech.
 
I see you're parrotting an Englishman described as a "cult Internet figure" in the far-right.


Quelle surprise. Well I was clearly on the mark about trawling stupid websites. Not that anyone couldn't smell you out in less than a minute.

But funny thing that, we had another NP supporter on here previously, "English James" he was variously known as, and he also was taking his ideas from the exact same sources.

He wasn't the first, either.

Makes a mockery of your claims to this "ethnic nationalism", more often than not, it turns out to be just a British or American import.

And as for "not very bright", it is striking that is exactly the observation Izzy Kamikaze made about the goons in the far right parade when she was attacked with the 2x4 wrapped up in the Irish flag. Succinct and to the heart of the matter, the blow to the head had the side effect of opening up that key intuition.
I quote a nationalist, you quote a civic "nationalist" (Thomas Davis) but when I do it, it's "trawling stupid websites" - lol
 
I.e. Where did you get your current beliefs?
Mostly from the internet. There was little to no influence on my personal beliefs by people I met in person. I read multiple sources of information from all ideologies and decided that my current one is most correct.

From link: Payton Gendron Manifesto. (2022 Buffalo mass shooting)
I don't know what point you're trying to make here. If someone commits an act of terrorism because of their political beliefs, then they are a terrorist. And?
 
Your problem with the National Party appears to be based on religion. I remind you that religion is a protected characteristic and what you're saying could be considered hate speech.
Tell that to the judge when you eventually get your ass hauled up there for all that "anti-white" incitement bullshit you're attempting to import, and your posts emulating the thought of sad sap mass killers etc.

You think even in front of a jury comprised wholly of Catholics I couldn't make the case that the little leprachaun in charge of the NP trawled their precious holy bible and religion to ferret out all its negative and inhumane aspects, its fanatic and discriminatory aspects, to shore up the bigotry his party is clearly about?

I would say to such a Jury that of course I have no problem with anyone who looks to their Holy book and religion for positive insights and wisdom into how to be a good person and live a good, worthy life.

But I do have a problem with the kind of fucker who does the former? And tell me under what article said fucker or his stupid party is a member of any named protected group?

Try again.
 
Tell that to the judge when you eventually get your ass hauled up there for all that "anti-white" incitement bullshit you're attempting to import, and your posts emulating the thought of sad sap mass killers etc.

You think even in front of a jury comprised wholly of Catholics I couldn't make the case that the little leprachaun in charge of the NP trawled their precious holy bible and religion to ferret out all its negative and inhumane aspects, its fanatic and discriminatory aspects, to shore up the bigotry his party is clearly about?

I would say to such a Jury that of course I have no problem with anyone who looks to their Holy book and religion for positive insights and wisdom into how to be a good person and live a good, worthy life.

But I do have a problem with the kind of fucker who does the former? And tell me under what article said fucker or his stupid party is a member of any named protected group?

Try again.
Does anyone know WTF roc is talking about? 🤔

Religion is a protected characteristic, what don't you understand? It's not up to you to decide whether that religion is good or bad.
 
Of course religion has to be a 'protected characteristic' to some. Mainly because it never stands on its own merits, is a form of science for intellectual midgets and natural servants and is a bit like kicking kittens through a Sunday barbeque. Easily done but it makes stupid people uncomfortable and we can't be having that.
 
Of course religion has to be a 'protected characteristic' to some. Mainly because it never stands on its own merits, is a form of science for intellectual midgets and natural servants and is a bit like kicking kittens through a Sunday barbeque. Easily done but it makes stupid people uncomfortable and we can't be having that.
Of course you misunderstand why religion is a protected characteristic or indeed why anti freedom of speech laws are being enacted.

I would say with considerable confidence that it's not to go after or shut up bigoted anti-Catholic (juvenile) atheists like you.
 
Top Bottom