|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Jan 28, 2020 12:51:16 GMT
Maolsheachlann has an interesting but somewhat melancholic (at least at the end)article on The Burkean website on Leftists and Irish culture. I would go a little father and ponder why almost all artists/writers/ musicians who comment on public matters toe the leftist globalist party line. As a group they are ironically, given their self identification as free thinkers exceptionally, CONFORMIST. They are rare exceptions but I recall being struck during the Repeal debate the virtually all the celebrity types were pro the killing of the unborn. I have encountered some of the ultra woke Gaeligoiri , some of whom belittle conservatives who don't have an intimate grasp of Irish or the appropriate blas. In my opinion it's rather sad that people who have abandoned every other vestige of Irishness cling to the repellent elitist snobbery of the past to dismiss other Irish people. That snobbery is a rare relic of the old Ireland but they , credit were credit is due keep it alive and thriving. Mocking those not as fluent as they are is a tactic to shut their critics up. They tend not to like criticism. They tend to shut people up a lot. We used to call that censorship and the liberal arty lot used to oppose that. I recall a book by John Carey the English literary critic on the hostile attitudes of elites towards the general population. Many of the most woke are well heeled , wealthy and university educated. In a word the most privileged people of all. Perhaps Maolsheachlann could repost that article here as it is well written and thought provoking? Certainly, Cato. Here it is. Thanks for asking-- I hesitate to post my own stuff here, not wanting to seem self-promoting. (Although sadly, we all have to be somewhat self-promoting in today's world.) www.theburkean.ie/articles/2020/01/27/why-do-we-let-the-left-own-irish-cultureI got into a debate with some Catholics on Facebook who were highly critical of Irish populism, John Waters, The National Party, etc. I actually agreed with them that "Ireland for the Irish" is not, as far as I can see, a tenable position for a Catholic to take. My argument was that we've never really had a discussion about how openness to immigrants is going to impact Irish (or perhaps "Gaelic") culture, the efforts to revive it (hard enough before the new dispensation), the dangers of cultural homogenization, and so forth. I always want to be explicit that I am talking about cultures, traditions, and not people-- I'm not anti-anybody. Yes, we are all human, we are all children of God.
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Jan 28, 2020 21:20:05 GMT
Maolsheachlann has an interesting but somewhat melancholic (at least at the end)article on The Burkean website on Leftists and Irish culture. I would go a little father and ponder why almost all artists/writers/ musicians who comment on public matters toe the leftist globalist party line. As a group they are ironically, given their self identification as free thinkers exceptionally, CONFORMIST. They are rare exceptions but I recall being struck during the Repeal debate the virtually all the celebrity types were pro the killing of the unborn. I have encountered some of the ultra woke Gaeligoiri , some of whom belittle conservatives who don't have an intimate grasp of Irish or the appropriate blas. In my opinion it's rather sad that people who have abandoned every other vestige of Irishness cling to the repellent elitist snobbery of the past to dismiss other Irish people. That snobbery is a rare relic of the old Ireland but they , credit were credit is due keep it alive and thriving. Mocking those not as fluent as they are is a tactic to shut their critics up. They tend not to like criticism. They tend to shut people up a lot. We used to call that censorship and the liberal arty lot used to oppose that. I recall a book by John Carey the English literary critic on the hostile attitudes of elites towards the general population. Many of the most woke are well heeled , wealthy and university educated. In a word the most privileged people of all. Perhaps Maolsheachlann could repost that article here as it is well written and thought provoking? Certainly, Cato. Here it is. Thanks for asking-- I hesitate to post my own stuff here, not wanting to seem self-promoting. (Although sadly, we all have to be somewhat self-promoting in today's world.) www.theburkean.ie/articles/2020/01/27/why-do-we-let-the-left-own-irish-cultureI got into a debate with some Catholics on Facebook who were highly critical of Irish populism, John Waters, The National Party, etc. I actually agreed with them that "Ireland for the Irish" is not, as far as I can see, a tenable position for a Catholic to take. My argument was that we've never really had a discussion about how openness to immigrants is going to impact Irish (or perhaps "Gaelic") culture, the efforts to revive it (hard enough before the new dispensation), the dangers of cultural homogenization, and so forth. I always want to be explicit that I am talking about cultures, traditions, and not people-- I'm not anti-anybody. Yes, we are all human, we are all children of God. I'm not sure we can adopt Catholic social teaching on face value here. We are not dealing with immigration in a controlled and prudent manner, we are talking about a secular authority socially engineering the nation in a way that is antithetical to the good of the nation and those who live in it. The question is what is the Catholic reaction to such severe social engineering, particularly engineering that wishes to destroy Catholicism? The mass immigration, in my opinion is aimed at achieving several things: the destruction of the Christian culture and the imposition of a globalist dumbed down deracinated population who will be consumerist and devoid of spiritual meaning. A cheap source of labour. And a new voting bloc who can be depended on to vote for the secular parties that allowed them in. Lets face it, the secular parties have no love for either the native Irish or the immigrant newcomers. If things carry on as they are then all residents, the native Irish and newcomers, will all suffer. So maybe we should view this as Catholics combating willfully harmful social engineering and take our starting point from there.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Jan 29, 2020 11:08:48 GMT
Certainly, Cato. Here it is. Thanks for asking-- I hesitate to post my own stuff here, not wanting to seem self-promoting. (Although sadly, we all have to be somewhat self-promoting in today's world.) www.theburkean.ie/articles/2020/01/27/why-do-we-let-the-left-own-irish-cultureI got into a debate with some Catholics on Facebook who were highly critical of Irish populism, John Waters, The National Party, etc. I actually agreed with them that "Ireland for the Irish" is not, as far as I can see, a tenable position for a Catholic to take. My argument was that we've never really had a discussion about how openness to immigrants is going to impact Irish (or perhaps "Gaelic") culture, the efforts to revive it (hard enough before the new dispensation), the dangers of cultural homogenization, and so forth. I always want to be explicit that I am talking about cultures, traditions, and not people-- I'm not anti-anybody. Yes, we are all human, we are all children of God. I'm not sure we can adopt Catholic social teaching on face value here. We are not dealing with immigration in a controlled and prudent manner, we are talking about a secular authority socially engineering the nation in a way that is antithetical to the good of the nation and those who live in it. The question is what is the Catholic reaction to such severe social engineering, particularly engineering that wishes to destroy Catholicism? The mass immigration, in my opinion is aimed at achieving several things: the destruction of the Christian culture and the imposition of a globalist dumbed down deracinated population who will be consumerist and devoid of spiritual meaning. A cheap source of labour. And a new voting bloc who can be depended on to vote for the secular parties that allowed them in. Lets face it, the secular parties have no love for either the native Irish or the immigrant newcomers. If things carry on as they are then all residents, the native Irish and newcomers, will all suffer. So maybe we should view this as Catholics combating willfully harmful social engineering and take our starting point from there. I think there's a lot to be said for that viewpoint. It's hard not to see a sinister agenda behind all the social engineering; it seems premeditated. Between Ireland 2040, the hate speech laws, and the endless lobbying of the NGO's, I do get the very strong impression that the powers that be are actively seeking "a globalist dumbed down deracinated population who will be consumerist and devoid of spiritual meaning". I guess (for Catholics) the question is how far submissiveness to the Pope and bishops should extend. I'm tending to be more docile than I have been, fearing my own ability to go wrong. I find myself wondering how I can resist globalism (and consumerism, dumbing-down, etc.) without going against the Pope and the majority of bishops on the question of immigration. Is that a cop-out? I hope not. My own preference is for a world of ethno-states ("ethno" being undestood in a cultural, not a racial sense). As far as I can see such a preference doesn't seem to be on the table for a Catholic-- at least, the preference doesn't seem to be an adequate reason to restrict immigration. Barring this, I am asking myself how we can preserve cultural differences and not just collapse into homogenization.
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Jan 29, 2020 14:11:48 GMT
I'm not sure we can adopt Catholic social teaching on face value here. We are not dealing with immigration in a controlled and prudent manner, we are talking about a secular authority socially engineering the nation in a way that is antithetical to the good of the nation and those who live in it. The question is what is the Catholic reaction to such severe social engineering, particularly engineering that wishes to destroy Catholicism? The mass immigration, in my opinion is aimed at achieving several things: the destruction of the Christian culture and the imposition of a globalist dumbed down deracinated population who will be consumerist and devoid of spiritual meaning. A cheap source of labour. And a new voting bloc who can be depended on to vote for the secular parties that allowed them in. Lets face it, the secular parties have no love for either the native Irish or the immigrant newcomers. If things carry on as they are then all residents, the native Irish and newcomers, will all suffer. So maybe we should view this as Catholics combating willfully harmful social engineering and take our starting point from there. I think there's a lot to be said for that viewpoint. It's hard not to see a sinister agenda behind all the social engineering; it seems premeditated. Between Ireland 2040, the hate speech laws, and the endless lobbying of the NGO's, I do get the very strong impression that the powers that be are actively seeking "a globalist dumbed down deracinated population who will be consumerist and devoid of spiritual meaning". I guess (for Catholics) the question is how far submissiveness to the Pope and bishops should extend. I'm tending to be more docile than I have been, fearing my own ability to go wrong. I find myself wondering how I can resist globalism (and consumerism, dumbing-down, etc.) without going against the Pope and the majority of bishops on the question of immigration. Is that a cop-out? I hope not. My own preference is for a world of ethno-states ("ethno" being undestood in a cultural, not a racial sense). As far as I can see this doesn't seem to be on the table for a Catholic-- at least, the preference doesn't seem to be an adequate reason to restrict immigration. Barring that, I am asking myself how we can preserve cultural differences and not just collapse into homogenization. I am uncomfortable with going against the Pope and most of the Bishops. But there is no reason why the Pope should be correct in political decisions, even those political decisions that entail a moral element. Surely he could be a lot more nuanced. For example he seems to abhor the rise of populism and the primacy of the nation state, yet only a fool would assume that the rise of empires (e.g. U.S.A, China and the E.U.) is going to be a guaranteed bringer of peace when empires in the past have been prime examples of internal wars and conflict as well as wars with external entities. I also think the Pope avoids facing certain realities. After an Islamic massacre somewhere I recall him saying that Catholics do bad things too! This type of answer is pure deflection. I would suggest the methods we use to counter Social Engineering are protests and non-cooperation. Non cooperation would mean medical staff not working on anything to do with abortion; parents protesting their kids being sexualised at school. I do think that non-cooperators need to be organised in groups, as individuals can be bullied and chased out of work easily. It's harder to dismiss a large group of workers or parents. Ally this to reporting on the corruption of the decision makers and a start could be made.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Jan 29, 2020 14:54:47 GMT
I am uncomfortable with going against the Pope and most of the Bishops. But there is no reason why the Pope should be correct in political decisions, even those political decisions that entail a moral element. Surely he could be a lot more nuanced. For example he seems to abhor the rise of populism and the primacy of the nation state, yet only a fool would assume that the rise of empires (e.g. U.S.A, China and the E.U.) is going to be a guaranteed bringer of peace when empires in the past have been prime examples of internal wars and conflict as well as wars with external entities. Not only that but multiculturalism itself, it might be argued, has been a fertile breeding ground for conflict, tension, violence, and war. Just look at our own experience in Ireland.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Aug 11, 2020 13:19:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Aug 12, 2020 12:21:01 GMT
Reminds me of another ditty my father comes out with sometimes "...bless deValera and Sean McEntee for giving us brown bread and a half pint of tea..." Excellent piece,of course. St Claire's feast this week had already brought a few things to mind that happen to tie in (a bit)....her patronage of television comes to the forefront this year as many Christians,like the Claire legend,have connected themselves with Mass and ritual through watching on a screen. Or perhaps the hungry St Peter of the Acts passage would be an even better patron- not even Attenborough has ever got ALL the world's animals on one screen? But what struck me about her feasts' Office Reading (ordinary form, Letter to St Agnes of Prague) today was how unafraid she was to use imagery of the worldly and transitory to meet the deeper things: to a woman who had,like herself, given up an aristocratic lifestyle- "look into the mirror daily....ever study therein your countenance....adorn yourself(with all manner of virtues)and clothe yourself with the flowers and garments that become the daughter of (the most high) King. They had both given up a real chance of viceregal marriage and yet Clare is unafraid to call her follower "queen of the (heavenly) King",and then,to someone consecrated to virginity, quotes the most sexualised part of scripture,Song of Songs,also paraphrasing as a prayer one of the most romantic lines: "bring me into the wine cellar until your left hand be under my head and your right hand happily embrace me and you kiss me with the kisses of your mouth" The common image of Francis embracing the Crucified Christ while standing on a globe of the world is said to symbolise his attitude towards the world- neither kicking it away nor making it his centre, but using it to reach the height of something greater. It looks like Claire was at the very least as good at this. Several modern saints,and cultural warriors of other types, have engaged in media, but usually in a type of battling or reactionary way to secularism,and good for them,but maybe Claire of Assisi's tv patronage is more fitting than it would seem at first. Which doesn't in any way answer questions such as you've asked,but even aside from Christianity, it's good to find precedents that lead us in thinking about how many of the flashing lights around us can become something culturally deeper.
|
|
|
Post by kj on Aug 12, 2020 15:26:09 GMT
So-called "pop culture" really is the only culture now.
The pre-modern age's cultural realm was shaped like a triangle with those fortunate to be close to the apex forming and enjoying culture, if by that we mean very simply literature, music, painting etc. It was generally concurrent with power.
With modernity and the subsequent rise in global population both culture and power was disseminated downward. We now have a very broad spread of culture and power (at least in the nominal sense of representative democracy), but the cost of that is an inevitable thinning and shallowness. It appears to be an unavoidable structural necessity of both mass populations and mass politics.
However, although one may be 'conservative' or whatever term one likes, we should be grateful that if one has internet access, one has access to just about any aspect of high culture one wants.
|
|