We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
It seems that Sinn Fein & the DUP are in a state of furious agreement… I found this amusing…
Sinn Fein also pushed back against Mrs Foster’s claims their supporters could turn to the DUP over the issue of abortion. A [Sinn Fein] spokesman told Sky News: “The issue of abortion is not a Unionist versus Nationalist issue.”
So as the DUP have said anti-abotion Catholics who usually support Sinn Fein might vote DUP due to the issue of abortion, it would appear that the DUP and the Sinn Fein spokeman both agree with the contention that “The issue of abortion is not a Unionist versus Nationalist issue.” 🤣
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Sinn Feign (damned autocorrect) have long seemed very keen on post-natal abortion (ballot box and Armalite etc.), unlike the DUP.
This post reminds me of the comment that (I think) decided Perry to invite me to join this blog.
Back in the 80s, a (southern) Irishman told a friend of mine, “We have three parties: social democrat, social democrat and social democrat. There is also ‘Sinn Fein’ and ‘Sinn Fein The Workers Party”: one’s fascist, the other’s communist.”
However, let noone on this side of the Irish sea mock anyone on the other. In today’s UK politics, it’s easy to decide whom to vote against, but deciding whom to vote for is less pleasant.
As the Sage will no doubt point out, many people in Ulster have principles, good or bad, that drive their decisions and actions, unlike many, if not most in Great Britain and Eire. Putting principles first and working forwards from them might well result in some apparently odd bedfellows.
Btw Niall, that whole thread is morbidly fascinating.
Errr .. isn’t that why we make Irish jokes?
This reminds me of that splendid send-up of history teaching ( as understood by schoolboys of earlier generations) ” 1066 And All That” on the Irish Question. ” Every time Mr Gladstone answered the Irish Question, the Irish changed the question.” Something similar seems to be happening today in the negotiations with the EU over the Irish border!
The modern history curriculum is light on facts – especially facts about British History – and keen on something called ” skills”. So ” 1066 & All That” stopped being funny. The process is described in a booklet by Chris Mcgovern, an experienced former headmaster, ” Generations Betrayed – Cutting the Roots of National identity in Schools” , which is available in PDF in the publications ( pamphlets) section on http://www.campaignforanindependentbritain.org.uk
The “Sage” will indeed point that out Mr Ed – and if I lived in Northern Ireland (and given the humid climate and overcrowding of the south east of England, I often wish I did live in Northern Ireland) I would have no problem voting for the Democratic Unionist Party – “but Paul they do not support laissez faire capitalism” neither does my own Conservative Party. “But Paul they are all Presbyterians and you are Anglican” – err no, some DUP voters are Anglican (including the leader of the DUP). I remember walking through the little town of Kells (between Antrim and Ballymena) and there were indeed many Presbyterian halls and so on, but there was also a large Church of Ireland (Anglican) Church – I would be hardly landing on the planet Mars.
Roman Catholics and the IRA (“Sinn Fein”).
“Sinn Fein” (the IRA) is a hard left movement – they would eat babies (not “just” abort babies) if they could, talking to them is insane (which is why the Belfast Agreement was and is madness – there is something I would argue against the DUP on). The British government (I think DELIBERATLY) plucked defeat from the jaws of victory with the accused Belfast Agreement – the IRA was on its knees (they were losing) and now they look set to take over Ulster.
Why do so many Roman Catholics vote for a bunch of Marxist atheists – partly tribalism (Green versus Orange) trumping religion. But also because many Roman Catholics are not really Roman Catholics any more.
I think the decline, the decline of the Roman Catholic Church, started with the election of Pope John XXIII in 1958 – but it really gathered pace in the 1960s (under Pope Paul VI – anyone ever seen a photo of Pope Paul in which he does not appear to be in anguish? the man clearly hated what was going on in the Catholic Church but felt powerless to stop it). They do not even teach Latin any more – or (mostly) conduct the Latin Mass – how can one have a “universal church” without a common language?
There was a revival under Pope John Paul II – but it was an emotional revival (not really an intellectual revival – and that matters). I had hopes that Pope Benedict would restore the intellectual foundations of the Roman Catholic Church – but for whatever reason (most likely a conspiracy against him) he gave up and resigned. The child abuse horrors were not the fault Benedict (they really go back to the collapse of internal discipline in the Catholic Church in the 1960s), but they were used against him – even though Pope Francis has actually been far WEAKER on fighting child abuse than Benedict was.
It is certainly not bigoted to point out that Pope Francis is a joke – no one takes him seriously as a theologian or religious leader. The media love him (which tells everyone else all they need to know about him). For example, how did Pope Francis respond to the vote in the Republic of Ireland for ABORTION ON DEMAND (for that is what it really was – make no mistake about that).
Did Pope Francis finally do something? Did he, for example, excommunicate the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland (the ardently pro abortion campaigner). No, of course Francis did no such thing, Pope Francis was too busy organising yet another conference on “climate change” to bother his head about the collapse of the moral authority of the Roman Catholic Church and the prospect of lots of babies being cut to pieces. So the answer to the question of “why do so many Roman Catholics vote for “Sinn Fein” IRA” is a simple one – their voters are NOT really Roman Catholics at all. The Roman Catholic Church is in terrible trouble in Ireland (and elsewhere). If a pro abortionist can say “I am a Catholic” and not get excommunicated, then the Church stands for nothing (see the American Church – which is very rich in money, but dirt poor in faith).
A Protestant or an Anglican (not the same thing) or an Orthodox Christian is not tied to earthly leaders – I can say (and often do say) that the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury is a complete idiot (I would not dream of taking moral or theological advice from the human leaders of my own church). But it is much harder for a Roman Catholic. Serious Roman Catholics (and there are many in the world) know that Pope Francis is a joke – but they also “know” that he was picked by the Holy Spirit moving the Collage of Cardinals.
Think about that – really think about it. Are we saying that God (for the Holy Spirit is part of the Trinity) is a prankster – and picked a joke to be Pope (to have the final say on “faith and morals”). I do not envy any Roman Catholic who faces this terrible intellectual problem. The best one can do is to say that Pope Francis has been sent “as a test of faith”, but that is not really an adequate solution to the intellectual (theological) problem. There may be a way out of this (I do not deny that) – but only by a fundamental re-examination of the Papacy in relation to doctrine (with doctrine being held to be more important any earthly man). In the Roman Catholic case a respectable case can be made for the idea of a Great Council of the Church (not a single individual) having the final say – with formal “Papal infallibility” only going back as a formal doctrine to the 19th century (it is as recent as that) and, even from then, only if formally asserted (it is NOT the case that a Roman Catholic has to follow every foolish word that comes out of the mouth of a particular Pope) – serious Catholics (and, I repeat, there are many) have to formally state what Roman Catholic Church believes (basic doctrine) and have the moral courage to KICK OUT people who do not believe in Church doctrines.
“But Paul, then the Roman Catholic Church would be much smaller – especially in Western Europe and North America” – better a smaller (and materially poorer) Church than a big and wealthy – but spiritually barren – Church.
People in a Church (any Church) must always be read to say……
“We do not want your money – be off with you, before you feel my boot up your backside, and do not darken the doors of God’s house again – unless you come in repentance. Unless you repent, you are DAMNED TO HELL!”
It’s possible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jus3BE9mdfI
I don’t see it as an intellectual problem. It is clear from the history of the Papacy that if God exists he doesn’t much involve himself with the selection of the Pope or any of the cr*p that goes on behind closed doors in Rome (especially not in some of the rented apartments).
At best he’s provided a steady hand over the long haul where doctrine is concerned, and while this idiot of a Pope may attempt to shred or weaken it, over time it will either correct itself, or our choices will destroy it.
It’s not a matter of kicking out the people who don’t believe–after all the example of Jesus was to *lead* people to the truth, not (well, other than the money changers) to beat and drive away those who didn’t “get it”.
There is also room in *some things* for disagreement and dispute.
I do believe that the Church should take a harder line on those who don’t follow the rules, but since I’m one of them that they would take a harder line with, I guess I don’t really have room to insist.
(I was raised Catholic and while I agree with most of the doctrine I have some fundamental disagreements on minor issues like the nature/existence of God, which is kind of a big problem since the Profession Of Faith starts off “We believe in God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial one in Being with the Father. Through him all things were made.”)
There’s Atheist Jews, can one be an Agnostic Catholic?
But abortion law in NI is determined by the UK Parliament, and AFAIK there is no chance of Parliament reinstating abortion prohibition. So whatever position Sinn Fein may have taken on the referendum is irrelevant as regards NI – of no significance to a voter there.
Though to be sure SF voters are a strange breed, voting as they do for candidates who are pledged not to attend Parliament. (Is that still true?) Since they cast their votes purely for symbolism, some of them might decide that symbolically they should vote anti-, not pro-abortion.