|
|
Post by kj on Sept 29, 2020 10:36:48 GMT
I was having some random rubbishy thought this morning on the kind of globalism peddled by Fintan O'Toole that I felt like inflicting on someone.
A few years back he ran one of his major series in the IT on the metamorphosis of Irish identity given our very large number of non-nationals.
I think I read only three of the five articles before fatigue kicked in.
Anyway, as I recall the main thrust, predictably enough, was that Irish identity must bend for the sake of the newcomers. We could no longer be what we were, so Catholicism and Republicanism had to go by the board.
The main way to overcome any 'nativist' resistance, from what I could gather, was to encourage even more immigration. Thus nativist views would become untenable due to numbers.
I was thinking earlier that in spite of the hatred of Fintan and co for Catholicism, his brand of thinking is heavily steeped in Christian frameworks and is actually a form of secular kenosis.
As you all probably know kenosis is the term for Jesus's emptying of himself to do God's will and the subsequent sacrifice that redeems humanity.
Fintan wants Ireland to empty itself of Irishness in the name of Global Liberalism. Its self-emptying and the ascension of Irishness to the Cross of Liberal sacrifice will act as a beacon to the nations and serve as an example for the future of the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Sept 29, 2020 10:55:23 GMT
I was having some random rubbishy thought this morning on the kind of globalism peddled by Fintan O'Toole that I felt like inflicting on someone. A few years back he ran one of his major series in the IT on the metamorphosis of Irish identity given our very large number of non-nationals. I think I read only three of the five articles before fatigue kicked in. Anyway, as I recall the main thrust, predictably enough, was that Irish identity must bend for the sake of the newcomers. We could no longer be what we were, so Catholicism and Republicanism had to go by the board. The main way to overcome any 'nativist' resistance, from what I could gather, was to encourage even more immigration. Thus nativist views would become untenable due to numbers. I was thinking earlier that in spite of the hatred of Fintan and co for Catholicism, his brand of thinking is heavily steeped in Christian frameworks and is actually a form of secular kenosis. As you all probably know kenosis is the term for Jesus's emptying of himself to do God's will and the subsequent sacrifice that redeems humanity. Fintan wants Ireland to empty itself of Irishness in the name of Global Liberalism. Its self-emptying and the ascension of Irishness to the Cross of Liberal sacrifice will act as a beacon to the nations and serve as an example for the future of the world. I'm always struck by how NEGATIVE progressivism is. I mean negative in the literal sense-- it always seems to be advocating the removal, abolition, deconstruction or debunking of something. It never seems to offer anything tangible or positive, simply the negation of the pre-existing, or the negation of an existing ideal. |
|
|
|
Post by kj on Sept 29, 2020 11:33:01 GMT
Yes, dare I say it, but it's very Hegelian. "Progress" comes by negating the given and setting up something new, which in its turn is subsequently negated, until....
I think it ties in well with your excellent recent blog post on thinness, Maolsheachlann. The kind of liberal progressivism espoused by Fintan et al becomes wafer thin, as it cannot attribute and value or goodness to the past. We get a kind of perpetual present and far away golden future.
I'm also reminded of the late Christopher Hitchens' statement that an English culture that was not based on the KJV Bible was likely to be very thin indeed.
|
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Sept 30, 2020 17:15:05 GMT
Yes, dare I say it, but it's very Hegelian. "Progress" comes by negating the given and setting up something new, which in its turn is subsequently negated, until.... I think it ties in well with your excellent recent blog post on thinness, Maolsheachlann. The kind of liberal progressivism espoused by Fintan et al becomes wafer thin, as it cannot attribute and value or goodness to the past. We get a kind of perpetual present and far away golden future. I'm also reminded of the late Christopher Hitchens' statement that an English culture that was not based on the KJV Bible was likely to be very thin indeed. It seems to me that progressivism is not a proper political or ideological stance. It really only seems to assert that doing something, anything at all, is the only prerequisite for progressivism. In other words progressivism is 'motion' and this motion is a substitute for truth and a vision. For example, gay marriage is followed by transgenderism, which in turn will be followed by pederasty and that in turn will be followed by something else (incest?). Now, ask yourself, what is the stated philosophy of all this? What vision does it fulfil? What political ideology does it adhere to? Have Fine Fail, Sinn Fein, Fine Gael, Labour parties, Democrats in the U.S. outlined the objective or the philosophy? There is no answer. If, for example one of their stated philosophies was to allow people to act out their fantasies (man becomes woman, white man becomes black, old man becomes child again etc.) and have these fantasies legalised and recognised by government then at least we would be aware of exactly what they want and they could be challenged on that basis. But in reality there is no coherence to their policies. For example if sex/gender is a completely social construct that can be changed on the spur of the moment, then women and men as fixed identities or groups don't exist and never really did exist. All those years of feminist struggles and suffragettes has been a useless mirage; toxic masculinity can't be wholly real nor can the patriarchy be a solid thing since many of those patriarchs and males may have been wannabe females and that would confuse things a little. So doing lots of things, manic motion, seems to be the hallmark of the current set of progressives. It matters not a jot that the things they enact make no coherent sense and that these actions will ultimately dehumanise mankind (abortion, euthanasia etc). The Progressives need to paint the past in as dark a light as possible so their addiction to motion seems positive. Their only underlying coherence is one of destruction. They wish to destroy every vestige of western civilisation. What comes after that is not so important to them, it is secondary, and has not really been thought through. They are godless and troubled people who need to lash out at order and virtue, to appease their demons. |
|
|
|
Post by cato on Oct 1, 2020 10:43:00 GMT
Yes, dare I say it, but it's very Hegelian. "Progress" comes by negating the given and setting up something new, which in its turn is subsequently negated, until.... I think it ties in well with your excellent recent blog post on thinness, Maolsheachlann. The kind of liberal progressivism espoused by Fintan et al becomes wafer thin, as it cannot attribute and value or goodness to the past. We get a kind of perpetual present and far away golden future. I'm also reminded of the late Christopher Hitchens' statement that an English culture that was not based on the KJV Bible was likely to be very thin indeed. It seems to me that progressivism is not a proper political or ideological stance. It really only seems to assert that doing something, anything at all, is the only prerequisite for progressivism. In other words progressivism is 'motion' and this motion is a substitute for truth and a vision. For example, gay marriage is followed by transgenderism, which in turn will be followed by pederasty and that in turn will be followed by something else (incest?). Now, ask yourself, what is the stated philosophy of all this? What vision does it fulfil? What political ideology does it adhere to? Have Fine Fail, Sinn Fein, Fine Gael, Labour parties, Democrats in the U.S. outlined the objective or the philosophy? There is no answer. If, for example one of their stated philosophies was to allow people to act out their fantasies (man becomes woman, white man becomes black, old man becomes child again etc.) and have these fantasies legalised and recognised by government then at least we would be aware of exactly what they want and they could be challenged on that basis. But in reality there is no coherence to their policies. For example if sex/gender is a completely social construct that can be changed on the spur of the moment, then women and men as fixed identities or groups don't exist and never really did exist. All those years of feminist struggles and suffragettes has been a useless mirage; toxic masculinity can't be wholly real nor can the patriarchy be a solid thing since many of those patriarchs and males may have been wannabe females and that would confuse things a little. So doing lots of things, manic motion, seems to be the hallmark of the current set of progressives. It matters not a jot that the things they enact make no coherent sense and that these actions will ultimately dehumanise mankind (abortion, euthanasia etc). The Progressives need to paint the past in as dark a light as possible so their addiction to motion seems positive. Their only underlying coherence is one of destruction. They wish to destroy every vestige of western civilisation. What comes after that is not so important to them, it is secondary, and has not really been thought through. They are godless and troubled people who need to lash out at order and virtue, to appease their demons. The role of (often state funded) NGOS in pushing a progressive agenda should never be underestimated. Many activists depend financially on constantly pushing an agenda further and further. There is no end point when we can say we have achieved full minority rights or total diversity. It's never in any campaigning groups interest to admit they have succeeded in their aims and to gracefully retire. There is a large group of people who pay for all this nonsense usually the taxpayer. They are responsible for providing for the growing rights of minorities but their rights to question progess and to freely express their own opinions are being steadily eroded. I don't believe in a progressive master plan but it is amazing to see how long standing taboos are rapidly over come and how yesterday's bizarre joke can become today's sacred dogma. As I write this Trans groups are attacking the few media outlets who have reported the disturbing case of Barbie Kardashian a trans woman who has threatened to rape and violently attack family members. Legally in Irish law Barbie is a biological man who failed to impress psychologists who assessed him as basically faking his gender dysphoria but in law he self declared he was a she. And that's that. And if you think that's not ok you are a transphobe. |
|
|
|
Post by kj on Oct 1, 2020 14:41:16 GMT
Yes, the money aspect is often overlooked. Lobbyists were previously considered a very American thing, but it seems plausible that they are now mushrooming in the Irish and English speaking worlds as well. If someone is reliant on peddling this stuff for their bread and board, then there will be, there cannot be any end to it.
We see something similar happening with the government's recent announcement that they were contemplating hiring 'influencers' to spread their messages to the young on social media. Imagine that: being paid to sit around all day tweeting your rubbish by the powers that be.
The Orwellian/Huxley vision is becoming more real by the day. Not even the biggest cynic or sceptic - as I was previously - can surely deny it now.
|
|
|
|
Post by cato on Oct 1, 2020 15:19:36 GMT
Does anyone remember a former major pro life and indeed conservative (on rare occasions)Irish political party which promised the electorate it would create a bonfire of quangos? I think in power it actually presided over their greatest expansion but none of our lazy journalistic hacks would ever follow up a story like that.
|
|
