|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Sept 22, 2021 17:00:46 GMT
Well, I continue to disagree with singling out Anglicans, which you said you'd stop doing. Can you delete that line?
I do like the idea of a restored Gaelic nobility, but it also seems like pure fantasy. Nothing wrong with that in itself, but I'm struck by how so many on the right base all their aspirations on the assumption of power, and quite an authoritarian sort of power. It seems so "all or nothing".
|
|
|
Post by connacht4096 on Sept 22, 2021 18:27:41 GMT
Well, I continue to disagree with singling out Anglicans, which you said you'd stop doing. Can you delete that line? I do like the idea of a restored Gaelic nobility, but it also seems like pure fantasy. Nothing wrong with that in itself, but I'm struck by how so many on the right base all their aspirations on the assumption of power, and quite an authoritarian sort of power. It seems so "all or nothing". I suppose it's because, It is so much easier to do exactly what you want when you take that kind of power. were I to do it, I would try to make it what I call "self-embracing absolute power", or an unlimited power that will be used to make radical changes; but when those have set in, will be relinquished. Actually you could consider Eamon de Valera in the 1936-1938 period of Irish history to have held self embracing absolute power, at least theoretically; he did not use that power much, if at all, other then to introduce a new constitution which eliminated that power. I also sometimes make the more extreme and radical proposals I can to make more moderate proposals aimed at the same end seem more reasonable; if you demand a loaf of bread at the start, you can compromise your way down to half a loaf; but if you start by demanding a quarter of a loaf, you can compromise your way down to crumbs. I am unsure how formalized a particular policy which I probably will not discuss again here should be anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Sept 22, 2021 22:04:04 GMT
Well, I continue to disagree with singling out Anglicans, which you said you'd stop doing. Can you delete that line? I do like the idea of a restored Gaelic nobility, but it also seems like pure fantasy. Nothing wrong with that in itself, but I'm struck by how so many on the right base all their aspirations on the assumption of power, and quite an authoritarian sort of power. It seems so "all or nothing". I suppose it's because, It is so much easier to do exactly what you want when you take that kind of power. were I to do it, I would try to make it what I call "self-embracing absolute power", or an unlimited power that will be used to make radical changes; but when those have set in, will be relinquished. Actually you could consider Eamon de Valera in the 1936-1938 period of Irish history to have held self embracing absolute power, at least theoretically; he did not use that power much, if at all, other then to introduce a new constitution which eliminated that power. I also sometimes make the more extreme and radical proposals I can to make more moderate proposals aimed at the same end seem more reasonable; if you demand a loaf of bread at the start, you can compromise your way down to half a loaf; but if you start by demanding a quarter of a loaf, you can compromise your way down to crumbs. I am unsure how formalized a particular policy which I probably will not discuss again here should be anyway. Fair enough. That was a quite Chestertonian reply!
|
|
|
Post by connacht4096 on Sept 23, 2021 2:15:44 GMT
I suppose it's because, It is so much easier to do exactly what you want when you take that kind of power. were I to do it, I would try to make it what I call "self-embracing absolute power", or an unlimited power that will be used to make radical changes; but when those have set in, will be relinquished. Actually you could consider Eamon de Valera in the 1936-1938 period of Irish history to have held self embracing absolute power, at least theoretically; he did not use that power much, if at all, other then to introduce a new constitution which eliminated that power. I also sometimes make the more extreme and radical proposals I can to make more moderate proposals aimed at the same end seem more reasonable; if you demand a loaf of bread at the start, you can compromise your way down to half a loaf; but if you start by demanding a quarter of a loaf, you can compromise your way down to crumbs. I am unsure how formalized a particular policy which I probably will not discuss again here should be anyway. Fair enough. That was a quite Chestertonian reply! Chestertonian? what does that mean?
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Sept 23, 2021 8:26:49 GMT
Fair enough. That was a quite Chestertonian reply! Chestertonian? what does that mean? Presuming you are not pulling my leg, "Chestertonian" is an adjective referring to the English Catholic convert, novelist, columnist, poet etc. etc. called G.K. Chesterton, and you almost exactly echoed a passage in his book What's Wrong with the World: For the present chaos is due to a sort of general oblivion of all that men were originally aiming at. No man demands what he desires; each man demands what he fancies he can get. Soon people forget what the man really wanted first; and after a successful and vigorous political life, he forgets it himself. The whole is an extravagant riot of second bests, a pandemonium of pis-aller. Now this sort of pliability does not merely prevent any heroic consistency, it also prevents any really practical compromise. One can only find the middle distance between two points if the two points will stand still. We may make an arrangement between two litigants who cannot both get what they want; but not if they will not even tell us what they want. The keeper of a restaurant would much prefer that each customer should give his order smartly, though it were for stewed ibis or boiled elephant, rather than that each customer should sit holding his head in his hands, plunged in arithmetical calculations about how much food there can be on the premises. Most of us have suffered from a certain sort of ladies who, by their perverse unselfishness, give more trouble than the selfish; who almost clamor for the unpopular dish and scramble for the worst seat. Most of us have known parties or expeditions full of this seething fuss of self-effacement. From much meaner motives than those of such admirable women, our practical politicians keep things in the same confusion through the same doubt about their real demands. There is nothing that so much prevents a settlement as a tangle of small surrenders. We are bewildered on every side by politicians who are in favor of secular education, but think it hopeless to work for it; who desire total prohibition, but are certain they should not demand it; who regret compulsory education, but resignedly continue it; or who want peasant proprietorship and therefore vote for something else. It is this dazed and floundering opportunism that gets in the way of everything. If our statesmen were visionaries something practical might be done. If we ask for something in the abstract we might get something in the concrete. As it is, it is not only impossible to get what one wants, but it is impossible to get any part of it, because nobody can mark it out plainly like a map. That clear and even hard quality that there was in the old bargaining has wholly vanished. We forget that the word “compromise” contains, among other things, the rigid and ringing word “promise.” Moderation is not vague; it is as definite as perfection. The middle point is as fixed as the extreme point.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Sept 23, 2021 9:23:08 GMT
I don't mean to threadjack here, but I'm also curious regarding peoples' attitude to an honour system such as they have in the UK-- CBE, MBE, OBE, and all that. I see no earthly reason we shouldn't have our own. Think of the fun we could have coming up with the titles. We could, for instance, have orders of "ollamh", "file", and "saoi" (which Aosdána uses already). The media would love it. Republics are no fun. An honour system would be great. The problem now would be every other weirdo/ degenerate would be getting honoured.
|
|
|
Post by connacht4096 on Sept 23, 2021 14:58:59 GMT
Chestertonian? what does that mean? Presuming you are not pulling my leg, "Chestertonian" is an adjective referring to the English Catholic convert, novelist, columnist, poet etc. etc. called G.K. Chesterton, and you almost exactly echoed a passage in his book What's Wrong with the World: For the present chaos is due to a sort of general oblivion of all that men were originally aiming at. No man demands what he desires; each man demands what he fancies he can get. Soon people forget what the man really wanted first; and after a successful and vigorous political life, he forgets it himself. The whole is an extravagant riot of second bests, a pandemonium of pis-aller. Now this sort of pliability does not merely prevent any heroic consistency, it also prevents any really practical compromise. One can only find the middle distance between two points if the two points will stand still. We may make an arrangement between two litigants who cannot both get what they want; but not if they will not even tell us what they want. The keeper of a restaurant would much prefer that each customer should give his order smartly, though it were for stewed ibis or boiled elephant, rather than that each customer should sit holding his head in his hands, plunged in arithmetical calculations about how much food there can be on the premises. Most of us have suffered from a certain sort of ladies who, by their perverse unselfishness, give more trouble than the selfish; who almost clamor for the unpopular dish and scramble for the worst seat. Most of us have known parties or expeditions full of this seething fuss of self-effacement. From much meaner motives than those of such admirable women, our practical politicians keep things in the same confusion through the same doubt about their real demands. There is nothing that so much prevents a settlement as a tangle of small surrenders. We are bewildered on every side by politicians who are in favor of secular education, but think it hopeless to work for it; who desire total prohibition, but are certain they should not demand it; who regret compulsory education, but resignedly continue it; or who want peasant proprietorship and therefore vote for something else. It is this dazed and floundering opportunism that gets in the way of everything. If our statesmen were visionaries something practical might be done. If we ask for something in the abstract we might get something in the concrete. As it is, it is not only impossible to get what one wants, but it is impossible to get any part of it, because nobody can mark it out plainly like a map. That clear and even hard quality that there was in the old bargaining has wholly vanished. We forget that the word “compromise” contains, among other things, the rigid and ringing word “promise.” Moderation is not vague; it is as definite as perfection. The middle point is as fixed as the extreme point.exactly, of course; I forgot about him for a second; but now I remember, I myself like to establish unrealistic goals but then figure out the most realistic way to accomplish them; I consider myself an idealist on the ends, but a pragmatist on the means; it is also good to remember that historical figures who think that way have many times managed to change what's perceived as possible, some of them for better, and some of them for worse
|
|
|
Post by connacht4096 on Sept 24, 2021 19:01:25 GMT
more details will come soon, and on that I will appreciate input at a certain stage
|
|
|
Post by connacht4096 on Sept 25, 2021 16:04:06 GMT
as a sneak peak of a more detailed proposal I am working on, I think the nobility of a restored Gaelic monarchy should include the title of "Cunta" (that is the intended form of the title in both english and Irish, though it translates as "count"); this may seam minor to some people, but the reason I think counts should be included amongst the ranks of the nobles is for symbolism of having something the british peerage lacks
|
|
|
Post by cato on Sept 25, 2021 19:31:57 GMT
as a sneak peak of a more detailed proposal I am working on, I think the nobility of a restored Gaelic monarchy should include the title of "Cunta" (that is the intended form of the title in both english and Irish, though it translates as "count"); this may seam minor to some people, but the reason I think counts should be included amongst the ranks of the nobles is for symbolism of having something the british peerage lacks I may have a depraved mind but I would advise you to use another term 😉 given the amount of profanities in the English vernacular.
|
|
|
Post by connacht4096 on Sept 25, 2021 20:33:40 GMT
as a sneak peak of a more detailed proposal I am working on, I think the nobility of a restored Gaelic monarchy should include the title of "Cunta" (that is the intended form of the title in both english and Irish, though it translates as "count"); this may seam minor to some people, but the reason I think counts should be included amongst the ranks of the nobles is for symbolism of having something the british peerage lacks I may have a depraved mind but I would advise you to use another term 😉 given the amount of profanities in the English vernacular. oh, so that's why the title of "count" never caught on in English speaking countries (vampires notwithstanding); you objection is worth considering though I think I will ultimately reject it, anyway the reason for using the word "cunta" is simple; all ranks of the restored Gaelic nobility should be referred to using Irish Language names for what they are; for example, a "baron" in the restored native nobility would be referred to as "Barún", never "baron", in both English and Irish (and maybe ulster scots as well); this policy should apply across the board. I should add that many British historical figures names not only sound like Irish language profanities, but in many cases the etymological root of the swear word is the name. the surname of the British Royal Family is banned from TG4 for that reason, that it is also a very serious profanity in Irish. So I think it being the Irish word overrides any concern about sounding like a profane word in English; plus it could be argued that it would give some of the nobility a stake in restoring Irish as the primary language of the nation to have their titles sound perfectly fine in Irish, but like profanities in English. P. S. the thing about the British historical figures is serious, but the one about restoring Irish is partially a joke.
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Sept 27, 2021 8:42:46 GMT
I may have a depraved mind but I would advise you to use another term 😉 given the amount of profanities in the English vernacular. oh, so that's why the title of "count" never caught on in English speaking countries (vampires notwithstanding); you objection is worth considering though I think I will ultimately reject it, anyway the reason for using the word "cunta" is simple; all ranks of the restored Gaelic nobility should be referred to using Irish Language names for what they are; for example, a "baron" in the restored native nobility would be referred to as "Barún", never "baron", in both English and Irish (and maybe ulster scots as well); ...etc....... It might become a quirk of history if counts and countesses become fashionable in Britain following Beatrice's connection-through-marriage to Italian aristocracy. I suppose it's quirky of me to include this thought?
|
|
|
Post by Tomas on Sept 27, 2021 10:58:17 GMT
oh, so that's why the title of "count" never caught on in English speaking countries (vampires notwithstanding); you objection is worth considering though I think I will ultimately reject it, anyway the reason for using the word "cunta" is simple; all ranks of the restored Gaelic nobility should be referred to using Irish Language names for what they are; for example, a "baron" in the restored native nobility would be referred to as "Barún", never "baron", in both English and Irish (and maybe ulster scots as well); ...etc....... It might become a quirk of history if counts and countesses become fashionable in Britain following Beatrice's connection-through-marriage to Italian aristocracy. I suppose it's quirky of me to include this thought? In that connection one could also suggest the Swedish favourite pastime (many openings to wordplay both pastian and other) namely the word/s for having coffee either at a café or at home or at office breaks. The particular word is the same as substantive and verb. But not to mention abroad in the South. In Rome you must do as the Romans, not Swedes, do in this case! Sorry for bringing up equivoke mischief.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Sept 27, 2021 11:18:24 GMT
It's a pity you're not opening the nobility to ethnic minorities, because in that case we might have our own Irish Cunta Kinte!
(Apologies for the levity. It's contagious!)
|
|
|
Post by connacht4096 on Sept 27, 2021 14:25:43 GMT
It's a pity you're not opening the nobility to ethnic minorities, because in that case we might have our own Irish Cunta Kinte! (Apologies for the levity. It's contagious!) I said "the inclusion or exclusion of other ethnic minorities will be decided on a case-by-case basis (as well as if such groups have a suitable person)." so they are not being excluded a priori.
|
|