Ériu was one of the queens of Ireland at the time of the coming of the Milesians (Goidelic Celts). She made a deal with the poet Amairgin that her name would be remembered as the principle name for Ireland.

I would like to take this opportunity to talk about Gaelicism, something which we have neglected to touch upon on this site so far (and have even lost sight of it seems). I (and others hopefully, although some of my opinions differ considerably from my fellow posters) will attempt to go some way to defining what Gaelicism is and of its purpose.

While it is true that Gaelic values are not currently upheld by any streams of political thought, and arguably never has been (except perhaps in the distant past, in Traditional societies), the fullest interpretation of Gaelicism is probably best expressed in the writings of Padraig Pearse. Thus far, Gaelicism has no definition, no common vocabulary, no parameters, very few of its own literature, as well as no hierarchy or leadership. We must firstly define who we are if we are to overcome the present confusion which we find ourselves in.

Gaelicism and the Gael

I will say this right from the beginning; Gaelicism is not the equivalent of nationalism, or of any other form of similarly tribalist philosophy. Gaelicism may be seen an extension of Traditionalism, roughly on the same level as Aryanism. Both are types of Traditionalism suited specifically toward Celto-Germanic peoples, who have historically favoured semi-egalitarian, semi-democratic meritocracy over the strict caste system and monarchy of other Aryan cultures.

Tribalism: attitude of in-group altruism and out-group indifference

Gaelicists in essence believe that one can overcome natural tendencies and transform into an image of perfection through effort (Arya – the way of Nobility). This is the purpose of a Gaelicist nation. We reject the arguments of both the left and the right who believe this is not possible or refuse to understand it.

Arya: (Geography) the proto-Indo-European root word for Éire. (Gaelicism) The path of nobility; overcoming natural tendencies and transforming into an image of perfection; the purpose of a Gaelicist nation.

To put it simply, we believe that Gaels are people that cultivate noble traits within themselves to the extent of their ability to do so; they behave and act as a ‘good person’ by overcoming their lower nature while also assuming a leadership role in their community with the goal of helping others to overcome this nature also. We acknowledge that each Gael has their own unique personality and special nature, and that each is suited in their own way to advance our cause. We guarantee each Gael the freedoms that parallel with his particular function and station within the folkish nation. We value each Gael as a complete equal with another, and we consider ourselves a folk or folk nation (as opposed to a tribe or clan), each united on the path of nobility, helping our fellow-Gael in times of distress and difficulty. We reject the notion that this is only applicable to one race or ethnic group, or that one group has a monopoly on nobility over another. We urge all people who are capable to partake in self-betterment and spiritual renewal, and to aspire to their particular race-ideal. (which differs only in name, but not in value, between races/cultures)

Spirit over Blood, Blood over Water

Gaels (in the sense of a race-ideal) are not a race, nation, tribe, or clan. Being a Gael is not dependent on being related by birth within a race, tribe, nation, clan. (GEN, Latin; to beget, produce. NATAL, Latin; belonging to ones birth). Gaelicists have some reservations about thinking in wholly racial terms, as quality of character is preferred along with the embodiment of values such as universals, honor, justice, truth etc. The fact that a person is of a certain ethnic group/belongs to a certain nation can tell us nothing of the quality of the character of the individual, nor does it qualify him/her for anything whatsoever, yet alone tell us his worth and position within society. Race should not be the standard of fitness for any Gaelicist organisation as it does not give us insight into the worthiness of the potential neophyte, nor does highlight his commitment or understanding. Espousing the need for quality may bring us into conflict with parts of the rightist movement but it will enable us in the future to embody a truly dedicated, radical, untied front against the forces of dissolution, and for the first time in many decades, present a real alternative to the current status quo.

Gaelicism was and is Folkism, and Gaels are a Folk. Gaels are the heirs of the ‘Blood sacrifice‘ of 1916, an act & an interpretation of divine order that arguably has a much longer history. This has much symbolic meaning. The blood of the folk is sacrificed for the greater good, in pursuit of the superior ideal, which is not racial in character, instead existing in an elevated state  and in a quality of purity that it may only be described as an immutable spirit. Thus the blood of the race, and race itself, is used as a vessel or is ‘traded’ /sacrificed for something which is far superior in value, essence and meaning. Therefore Gaels will describe themselves collectively as ‘ A Folk’.

Folk: people in a nation who advance the purpose of the nation

Folkism: prioritization of folk over non-folk

Non-folk: people in a nation who do not advance the purpose of the nation

Idealism: argument by appeal to nobility as a source of moral authority

Rationalism: reliance upon logical knowledge

How does one get an idea of what Gaelicism actually is and of its values? I believe that one only has to read the works of Yeats, our Bardic praise poetry or our mythology, or still yet the political ideals of Pearse or other of our revolutionaries to begin to assimilate an understanding of the higher forms, symbols, images and archetypes of the Gael. Looking into the past itself, not only in the form of our history, but to our symbols and images, and to their meaning, can provide initiatory elements required for a more complete understanding. Yet there is by no means a comprehensive base of works with I can recommend, except those that in all forms are inspired by Tradition (Traditionalism) and the fruits of our own rich Tradition, which I’m sure I have no need to elaborate on here.

But most of all, the Gaelic spirit is most evident in our most precious possession; our own people.

On Multiculturalism

In stating the above, none should mistake the nature of Gaelicism, and it is in line with this nature that the Gael opposes Irish multiracial society, as a form of slavery, appeals neither to idealism, rationalism, nor a sense of nobility. Yet we do not blame or scapegoat any of the various peoples that compose this society simply because they happen to inhabit this abnormal society, as such a society is not of their making, nor did they cause it’s imposition in Ireland. Those who are actually responsible have been far more subtle and conniving than we may like to admit in producing the  phenomenon that is multiracial Ireland; yet it by no means happened by accident. Multiculturalism as a policy was meant to fail, and so in this way it has been a success for these who chose to implement it; who are evidently those who push for total world uniformity and their own world financial/governmental hegemony (which can be consider one of the causes of multiracial society in Ireland). Those who promote extreme-globalisation correctly deduced the result of bringing assorted peoples together from across the globe to form a multiracial society, and it has been devastating for those contained within them.

Neither racism nor anti-racism is the way of the Gael; instead we promote universalism (i.e. non-racism) as both preferable and admirable. It can be seen that these kinds of racism and ‘reverse racism’ only serve as a ‘divide and conquer’ mechanism for a common enemy of all races, as it is a  terrifying thing for this enemy to contemplate all races turning against them all at the same time (which can only come about when logical conclusions about globalized civilisation have been realised by whatever method). Thus they have continued playing one group off the other for centuries, with disastrous results for the peoples of the world who always fail to comprehend the fact. Each group then asserts that various ‘international forces’ and ‘all other groups/races/nations’ have combined and allied against them, and they alone now fight against them all for survival.

Universalism: (Gaelic) attitude of compassion towards all beings as morality is independent of group affiliation

Particularism: (non-Gaelic) attitude where ‘good’/morality is defined as what is good for one’s own tribe

For instance, Europeans feel that they are being singled out particularly by ‘the globalists’ as well as having to fend off the aggressions of Africans, Chinese, and Muslims at the same time. If you asked an African, he would tell you exactly the same thing from his perspective. It is simply an illusion, as is the often repeated lie that their objective (or as a result of it) is to ‘make Europeans a minority in their own homelands’. The reality is that they do not need to carry out this to achieve their objectives, and certainly not by importing people (such as Muslim peoples) who are far more aware of what they are doing than are most Europeans. This would be counter-productive from their perspective. Besides anyone with open eyes can see why Muslims are being given access into Europe (and then why they are subsequently vilified).

The question of interracial cooperation has still to be discussed in full, and to what extent, if any, this cooperation will take place, including its desired outcomes. It must be admitted that Gaelicists are going to be working within (and not directly against) multiracial society for the foreseeable future and must therefore adapt to this situation. Failure to do so will mean that we can never present a real alternative to status quo organisations & parties and their agenda will be allowed to progress unhindered.

Ireland did not arrive at the stage we are in now through a shortage or lessening of Irish people or of a weakening of the blood, but because of a lessening of the Irish Gaelic spirit, a decline in virtue and an internal code of ethics. These things were once the centrepiece of our civilisation. To say that an Ireland, minus most/all immigrants, is the solution, or the better part of that solution, while every faculty of the state is currently deigned to assist the processes of trading and commerce in what is the ‘Corporation of Ireland’, is pure fallacy. The bankruptcy of  today will still remain. Gaelicism’s ambition is to promote a restoration of the above, along with the education of all in our true folk identity. We can only do this by correcting the processes of the State, thereby directing them into the uplifting of our Folk, and so depriving the current benefactor of the legal & financial lifelines it needs to exist.

The complete fulfilment of our full national freedom can, however, only be won when we are fit and willing to win it. Can we claim that we are yet fit and willing? Is not our country still filled with men and women who are unfit and unwilling? Are we all yet educated to be free? Has not the greater number oF us still the speech of the foreigner on our tongues? Are not even we, who are proudly calling ourselves Gaels, little more than imitation Englishmen?

But we are free to remedy these things. Complete liberty—what it stands for in our Gaelic imagination—cannot be got until we have impregnated the whole of our people with the Gaelic desire. Only then shall we be worthy of the fullest freedom.

- Michael Collins

Unity through Nobility!

‘Unity through tribalism’ as the ‘national alternative’ affirm, is as sinister of a doctrine as is ‘Unity through diversity’ – as the proponents of a multiracial Ireland proclaim. Both concepts present ripe opportunity for the most despicable people to rule over the least despicable, and indeed this is virtually assured, as they make no requirements of quality or to the inherent character of the person who takes high office, and thus power.

I suggest the term (as found on similarly minded sites) ‘Unity through Nobility’. This is a very intelligible, logical, solid credo that anyone can understand – and one which we can harbour no allusions to in regards to its meaning & intention. It is upright and absolute, and requires very little explanation. Gaelicists should march forward with the same uprightness and with these words loud on their tongues; they are the glimmer of the sword of light, ‘Freagarthach’ (‘The Answerer’ – which only speaks truth) , delivered to us from far away horizons.

The overemphasis on race and the misguided attempt to factually educate people on ‘the importance and reality of race’, (if we also consider the abundance of material already on the web on this subject) is not the answer to our problem, and is actually having the opposite effect in many cases [as these things have ever only been understood by a small minority or an elite]. A Gaelicist think-tank/organisation may well be an effective means of transferring the initiative from the Gentile and the ignoble elite, to the Gaels themselves – given the right efforts. One of the first of these efforts will be establishing a common vocabulary, a political language, which I will come to in my next post.

[The portion of this language I have used in my post are highlighted in italics; see glossary]

Online Etymology Dictionary:

Nation

c.1300, from O.Fr. nacion, from L. nationem (nom. natio) “nation, stock, race,” lit. “that which has been born,” from natus, pp. of nasci “be born” (Old L. gnasci; see genus). Political sense has gradually taken over from racial meaning “large group of people with common ancestry.” Older sense preserved in application to N.Amer. Indian peoples (1640s). Nation-building first attested 1907 (implied in nation-builder).

Little known outside of Scandinavia, Pentti Linkola is a voice that deserves a wide audience. Revered amongst radical environmentalists for his uncompromising stance on a variety of issues and for his works that show the breadth of his vision.

Linkola shows that “progressive” and humanistic dogma in collaboration with aggressive capitalism is leading the whole planet toward inevitable destruction. Greed and consumerism, the opiates that (for many) mask the sheer banality of much of what constitutes modern life, are leading us into the abyss. There has to be another way. Rather than obsessing on “the Rights of Man”, Linkola underscores the duty that man has to Life in its entirety. In doing so, he offers pointers to a more authentic and fulfilling mode of existence – one in harmony with the whole biosphere and, therefore, the natural order of things.

Thus, we are treated to original and rigourous critiques of modern society’s obsession with soul-less technics, the acquisition of non-essential consumer goods, uncontrolled human fecundity and population growth, and other activities ruinous not only to the environment as a whole but also to the actual quality of human life itself.

To those effectively brainwashed by the contemporary “Cultural Dictatorship of the Left” (ironically sponsored by big business and the mass media) which virtually deifies the freedom of humans to do anything they wish regardless of the long-term consequences, much of his thinking is likely to be considered ‘offensive’. However, when one considers what is at stake, to leave these things unsaid is more offensive still.

Even left-wing conservationists (an obvious contradiction of terms when one comes down to it) may not like Linkola’s conclusions as he eschews most of the inanities of Political Correctness – implicitly demonstrating the dangers of this modern day pseudo-religion. Indeed, Linkola once famously said “The composition of the Greens seems to be the same as that of the population in general — mainly pieces of drifting wood, people who never think.”

Perhaps Linkola is not always right, but he most usually is. Nevertheless, because of the gravity of the issues which he addresses, his thoughts (and those of others like him) certainly deserve more attention. We ignore them at our peril.

Ideas and Quotations:

What to do, when a ship carrying a hundred passengers suddenly capsizes and there is only one lifeboat? When the lifeboat is full, those who hate life will try to load it with more people and sink the lot. Those who love and respect life will take the ship’s axe and sever the extra hands that cling to the sides.”

“A minority can never have any other effective means to influence the course of matters but through the use of violence.”

“Any dictatorship would be better than modern democracy. There cannot be so incompetent dictator, that he would show more stupidity than a majority of the people. Best dictatorship would be one where lots of heads would roll and government would prevent any economical growth.”

“The most central and irrational faith among people is the faith in technology and economical growth. Its priests believe until their death that material prosperity bring enjoyment and happiness – even though all the proofs in history have shown that only lack and attempt cause a life worth living, that the material prosperity doesn’t bring anything else than despair. These priests believe in technology still when they choke in their gas masks.”

“That there are billions of people over 60kg weight on this planet is recklessness.”

“Alternative movements and groups are a welcome relief and a present for the society of economic growth.”

“We will have to…learn from the history of revolutionary movements — the national socialists, the Finnish Stalinists, from the many stages of the Russian revolution, from the methods of the Red Brigades — and forget our narcissistic selves.”

“A fundamental, devastating error is to set up a political system based on desire. Society and life are been organized on basis of what an individual wants, not on what is good for him or her…Just as only one out of 100,000 has the talent to be an engineer or an acrobat, only a few are those truly capable of managing the matters of a nation or mankind as a whole…In this time and this part of the World we are headlessly hanging on democracy and parliamentary system, even though these are the most mindless and desperate experiments of the mankind…In democratic coutries the destruction of nature and sum of ecological disasters has accumulated most…Our only hope lies in strong central government and uncompromizing control of the individual citizen.”

“If the present amount of Earths population is preserved and is reduced only by the means of birth control, then:
- Birthgiving must be licenced. To enhance population quality, genetically or socially unfit homes will be denied offspring, so that several birth licences can be allowed to families of quality.
- Energy production must be drastically reduced. Electricity is allowed only for the most necessary lighting and communications.
- Food: Hunting must be made more efficient. Human diet will include rats and invertebrate animals. Agriculture moves to small un-mechanized units. All human manure is used as fertilizer.
- Traffic is mostly done with bicycles and rowing boats. Private cars are confiscated. Long-distance travel is done with sparse mass transport. Trees will be planted on most roads.
- Foreign affairs: All mass immigration and most of import-export trade must stop. Cross-border travel is allowed only for small numbers of diplomats and correspondents.
- Business will mostly end. Manufacture is allowed only for well argumented needs. All major manufacturing capacity is state owned. Products will be durable and last for generations.
- Science and schooling: Education will concentrate on practical skills. All competition is rooted out. Technological research is reduced to extreme minimum. But every child will learn how to clean a fish in a way that only the big shiny bones are left over.”

Can Life Prevail?

The actors involved herein are an aged and sagacious Professor who teaches philosophy, physics and naturalism at an old and prestigious university. The second actor is the Little One who is a young and beautiful girl of 12 who often visits the professor for conversations, through which she tries to satiate her insatiable curiosity for life and the Universe; she is a clever one, with a bright future ahead of her.

The Professor and Little One are sitting in the Professor’s garden. The season is summer and the weather is fine.

Professor: Would you like a cherry?

Little One: Yes.

The Professor and Little One walk to an old cherry bush which has abundant fruit. The Professor plucks a cherry from a twig and hands it to the Little One.

LO: That’s quite delicious.

P: Yes, I always look forward to this time of year when the cherries are ripe.

LO: Let’s sit down. I have been thinking about things again.

P: That’s hardly a surprise, after all, you are a clever one.

LO: Yes, yes.

P: Anyway, be more specific and tell me what you were thinking about.

LO: Leaders. More specifically, the sort of leader which I would like to see in charge.

P: In charge of what?

LO: Our country. I was trying to figure out what traits would make a good leader and what traits would make a bad leader.

P: And how far did you progress along this line of thought?

LO: Well, I didn’t get very far because I fell asleep not long after starting to think.

The Professor laughs.

P: Were you tired?

LO: Yes, it was about 2 in the morning.

P: Well, let’s see if I can bring my life experience to bear on the question.

LO: Yes, let’s. May I have more cherries?

P: Help yourself. Firstly, it is obvious that typical people do not make good leaders due to their level of intelligence. While their intelligence may suffice for everyday challenges it does not suffice for running a state.

LO: You put that very politely. You could have just said that ordinary people are too dumb to run a country.

P: Yes, but that would be rude and manners are important to me. So, ideally a leader should have above average intelligence.

LO: Maybe even higher than that?

P: Perhaps, intelligence is useful after all. The more intelligence a person has the less errors they will make. Generally intelligent people make better judgements than less intelligent people.

LO: So intellectual giftedness would make a man a good leader.

P: Ok. And far-sightedness too. All people can think into the future to some degree but I think, rather, I feel, that a leader should be gifted in their ability to see into the future.

LO: That would be good because far-sighted allows us to prevent or mitigate future problems by taking action in the here-and-now.

P: Precisely.

LO: Someone who is community minded would be a good leader, which would rule out liberals as they only care about themselves.

P: Yes, and the quality of altruism would make a man a good leader. An altruist who has the gift of far-sightedness and a strong sense of community would be ideal as such a person would, as a matter of course, contemplate what can be done in the here-and-now to improve the future for our children and grand- children. That thought brings something to mind; if only past and present leaders were more far-sighted then we would not have the treat of race wars hanging over our heads in the present.

LO: Courage. Courage to go against the tide of opinion. Courage to honour truth and stand by one’s principles even if one is to get hurt in some way by doing so.

P: Yes. So, the ideal leader must be gifted in a number of ways. Firstly, he must be gifted in intelligence. Secondly, he must be gifted in far-sightedness. Thirdly, he should have a strong sense of community.

LO: Fourthly, he must be an altruist and fifthly…

P: But perhaps not lastly.

LO: …but perhaps not lastly, he must be especially courageous.

P: Yes. So do you think any of our leaders have this bundle of ideal traits?

LO: No. I think most of them are dumb, short-sighted, self-interested and cowardly.

P: I agree with your appraisal.

LO: Perhaps we should implement some kind of system to test people for our bundle of ideal traits before they are allowed to run for office?

P: That is a good idea and it has crossed my mind before. So, if we did that, come election time the citizenry would know that all politicians in the running for office would make fairly good leaders. I don’t quite know how we could test for all these traits with reliability and validity except for intelligence. Psychologists can easily test intelligence and they have been refining such techniques for about a century now and believe their tests to be highly reliable and valid. So at the very least we could have the State test the intelligence of all people who wish to lead the country. I think if this was the only test we administered then the quality of leaders would increase drastically.

LO: Testing for intelligence would actually test for far-sightedness too.

P: Really?

LO: Yes, really. I was reading about intelligence and found out that there is a relationship between intelligence and far-sightedness – intelligent people tend to be far-sighted.

P: Now that you mention it, it is obvious.

LO: It would be great to test people so directly for leadership traits as right now we have no idea who we vote for on polling day.

P: Yes, definitely.

LO: Oh no! Here comes the rain.

P: Let’s get inside quickly.

The Eric-Fine of Lugh

THE chiefs of the Tuatha De Danaan thronged round Lugh on the Hill of Usna. Lugh stood on the summit, and the Sword of Light was bare in his hand: all the hill below him shone with a radiance like white silver.

“Chiefs,” cried Lugh, “behold the Sword! Ye should have three great jewels to match it.

Where are the Spear of Victory, the Cauldron of Plenty, and the Stone of Destiny?”

The Tuatha De Danaan bowed their heads and veiled their faces before Lugh, and answered:

“The Fomor have taken the Cauldron of Plenty and the Spear of Victory from us. Ask the Earth of Ireland for the Stone.”

Lugh whirled the Sword till it became a glancing wheel of light, and cried:

“O Earth of Ireland, sacred and beloved, have you the Lia Fail, the Stone of Destiny?”

A strong sweet music welled up from the earth, and every stone and every leaf and every drop of water shone with light till all Ireland seemed one vast crystal, white and shining. The white light changed to rose, as it had been a ruby; and the ruby to sapphire; and the sapphire to emerald the emerald to opal; the opal to amethyst; and the amethyst to diamond, white and radiant with every colour.

“It is enough! ” cried Lugh. “I am well answered: the earth of Ireland has kept the Stone.”

“O Chiefs,” he said, “raise up your foreheads. Though ye have not the jewels ye have the scars of battle-combat, and ye have endured sorrow and hardship for ye have known what it is to be exiles in your own land. Let us swear brotherhood now by the Sword and the Stone that we may utterly destroy the Fomor and cleanse the world. Hold up your hands and swear, as I and those who came with me from Tir-nan-Oge will swear, and as the Sacred Land will swear, that we may have one mind and one heart and one desire amongst us all.”

Then the De Danaans lifted up their hands and swore a great oath of brotherhood with the Earth and with the hosts of the Shining Ones from Tir-nan-Oge. They swore by the Sword of Light and the Stone of Destiny; by the Fire that is over the earth; and the Fire that is under the earth; and the Fire in the heart of heroes. They swore to have one mind, one heart, and one desire, until the Fomor should be destroyed. Lugh swore the same oath, and all his shining comrades from Tir-nan-Oge swore it. The hills and valleys and plains and rivers and lakes and forests of Ireland swore it–they all fastened the bond of brotherhood on themselves.

“Let us go hence,” said Lugh, when the oath was ended, ” and make ready for the great battle.”

At his word all the chiefs departed, each going his own road.

……….

The Great Battle

…………..

THE coming of the Fomor was terrible. They were multitudinous as grains of sand; multitudinous as waves in a sea-storm. A wind of death went before them and darkness covered them. The Tuatha De Danaan drew brightness to themselves and went into the battle. Lugh did not go into the battle, because it was known that Balor of the Evil Eye would not fight till near the end.

Lugh waited for Balor. He sat on a great hill, and below him the hosts contended. He saw the spears of the Tuatha De Danaan fly like fiery rain, and those of the Fomor like hissing sleet; and in the hissing sleet and fiery rain the demons of the air screamed and fought. At times the Fomor drove back the Tuatha De Danaan. At times the Tuatha De Danaan prevailed against the Fomor: it was so until the night came and put an end to fighting.

There was no brightness on the Tuatha De Danaan when they drew themselves out of the conflict: they were wounded and weary, and Airmid, Diancecht, and Miach, went among them with herbs of healing. It was vexation of spirit to look on the grievousness of their wounds.

Suddenly a delicate sweet music sounded in the air and the Tuatha De Danaan saw Brigit coming to them. She towered to the heavens and her mantle swept the ground like a purple mist. Her hair was plaited in nine loosened locks, and in each lock of the nine a star glittered. Wrapped in a corner of her mantle she held a crystal ball, clear as a dew-drop.

“Hail, Brigit, the Battle-Queen! ” cried the warriors, but those who were wounded and nigh to death, cried:–”Hail, Dana, the Mighty Mother! Brigit smiled, and a soft radiance filled the night. “I bring you a gift,” she said, and she shook the crystal drop from her mantle. When it touched the earth it became a deep clear lake.

It is a lake from Tir-na-Moe,” said Brigit, and there is healing in it for all weariness and

all battle-wounds–it will even give back life to the dead.”

The Tuatha De Danaan bathed in the lake and rose out of the water joyous and radiant. At day-break they leaped to the battle, and as they went they drew down little fleecy clouds from the sky, and the clouds became shining helmets of protection to them. Terrible was the battle that day. The Fomor transformed themselves into huge serpents and scaly dragons and shapeless abominations writhing in poisonous spume. The Tuatha De Danaan drove in on them like fire that is fanned by tempest. They stabbed the twisting monstrosities as light stabs darkness–yet they could not utterly destroy them, and the battle swayed uncertain till night came.

Through the night the Tuatha De Danaan rested and bathed in the lake from Tir-na-Moe. Strength and healing came to them. At dawn they leaped to the battle. Stupendous was the conflict. Twice the Fomor broke before the Tuatha De Danaan. Once the Tuatha Dc Danaan broke before the Fomor. They were like waves contending–like Fire and Water striving for mastery. Terrible was the devastation, and in the midst of it a shout went up:

“Balor! Balor! Balor Beimann! Balor of the Mighty Blows!”

Balor heaved himself against the horizon, a mighty bulk, and the Fomor gave their strength to him and their fierceness so that no power remained in them, and because of that Balor towered to the heavens and his shadow darkened half the sky.

The Tuatha De Danaan cried aloud on Lugh.

“Lugh! Lugh! Lugh Lauve Fauda! Strike for us, Long-Handed son of Cian! Strike, Ildana!”

Lugh leaped to his feet. The Tuatha De Danaan gave him their strength and their fierceness so that he towered to the heavens, and his brightness was more terrible than the brightness of the sun at noonday.

Swift was the advance of Lugh, the Sun-Hawk. Swift was the advance of Balor, the Hooded Vulture of Night. Lugh shouted in a voice that echoed exultant to the stars. Balor shouted in a voice that shook the depths of the Abyss. Lugh gathered his strength and the strength of the Tuatha De Danaan into the Spear of Victory which he held in his hand. Balor gathered his strength and the strength of the Fomor into his mighty death-dealing Eye. He raised the baleful lid, but before the gleam that could destroy the world shot forth from it, Lugh hurled the Spear. It struck and entered the Evil Eye as fire enters a dark cavern. The strength of Lugh and all the gods of light went with it. Balor trembled the strength that was bound up in him loosened; his huge bulk wavered and became a shadow, and the shadow melted and became a shapeless gloom.

In the shapeless gloom something glittered. It was the Sword of Tethra, the Great Sword of the Abyss. Lugh swooped upon it, and as he lifted it the Tuatha De Danaan pressed behind him and before him and about him and scattered the darkness and drew into themselves the fierceness and might of the Fomor so that they were girt with the powers of Night and Day.

The Sword of Tethra, the Great Sword of the Abyss, was given to Ogma. He drew it from its sheath. The sunshine ran along the blade like a river of light, and the spirits that live under the sliding green waves of the sea and the spirits of the storm-wind shouted for joy. Ogma held the Sword aloft, and thunderous music broke over the earth and died away among the stars. Then Brigit, the Mor Reegu, the Battle-Queen that is called Dana, cried out to the hills and lakes and rivers and woods and valleys and plains of

Ireland the news of victory. This is the Peace-Chant she made:—

“Peace up to Heaven,
Heaven down to Earth;
The Earth under Heaven
Strength to every one.”

About Lughnasadh:

Lughnasadh (August 1st) , also known by its medieval Christian name of Lammas, marked the beginning of the harvest season, the Harvest of Grain (Bread), the ripening of first fruits (usually berries), and was traditionally a time of community gatherings, market festivals, horse races and reunions with distant family and friends. Among the Irish it was a favored time for handfastings — trial marriages (“Tailltean marriages”) that would generally last a year and a day (or until the next Lammas), with the option of ending the contract before the new year, or later formalizing it as a more permanent marriage.

THe holiday is named in honor of the Celtic god Lugh, a name which means “light” or “shining.” Although somewhat confusing, we are not celebrating the death of Lugh, but rather the funeral games that Lugh hosted to commemorate the death of his foster mother, Taillte, who died of exhaustion after clearing the plains of Ireland for agriculture. The first location of the Áenach Tailteann gathering was at Telltown, located between Navan and Kells. Historically, the Áenach Tailteann was a time for contests of strength and skill, and a favored time for contracting marriages and winter lodgings. A peace was declared at the festival, and religious celebrations were also held. The festival survived as the Taillten Fair, and was revived for a period in the twentieth centry as the Telltown Games.

On mainland Europe and in Ireland many people continue to celebrate the holiday with bonfires and dancing. The Christian church has established the ritual of blessing the fields on this day. In the Irish diaspora, survivals of the Lá Lúnasa festivities are often seen by some families still choosing August as the traditional time for family reunions and parties.

On August 1, the national holiday of Switzerland, it is traditional to celebrate with bonfires. This practice may trace back to the Lughnasadh celebrations of the Helvetii, Celtic people of the Iron Age who lived in what is now Switzerland.

In Northern Italy, e.g. in Canzo, Lughnasadh traditions are still incorporated into modern 1 August festivities.

The village of Morvah, Cornwall, U.K, was prior to the 20th century the home of the Morvah Fair (held on August 1 every year) which has been described as the biggest Lughnasadh celebrations outside Ireland.

Extracts from Celtic Wonder Tales by Ella Young

“The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: “Workers of the world, unite!”

“Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment’s thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?

“I think I can safely assume that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and the carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be.

“If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life “in harmony with society,” as they say.

…

“The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: “I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace.

…

“Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan ‘I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient,’ he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth.

…

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

Personal Rights

Article 40

1. All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law. This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function.

This principle codified in our Constitution is a Nationalist principle, a common sense and just principle, and it is one which runs somewhat contrary to liberalism which, while seeking to espouse the noble goal of equality of people before the law, does not recognise the inherent differences among people. Liberalism is guilty of confounding equity with equality of moral, cognitive and other differences between people.

Liberalism is also guilty of treating the noble principle of equity as an absolute, which, is foolish. Common sense dictates that the principle of equal treatment of people must be be limited, not only for reasons of practicality but for the reason of self-interest; we as a nation must limit our moral sphere for our own good. Alas, leftists believe that we should extend our nobility to all of humanity. But human affairs are far too complicated for absolutes for one absolute is bound to conflict with another; the best we can do is strive to uphold principles with the knowledge that our principles must sometimes be put aside or sometimes restricted or whatever the case may be.

We are inundated with anti-Hitler propaganda in the Western media; Hitler, Nazism, it is suggested, is the most evil frenzy that ever griped humans. However, there has been worse if we are measuring evil by death toll. For example, from 1945 – 1991 the U.S.S.R killed 22,400,000 people; those people were “class enemies”, repatriated Soviet nationals, dissidents, and national minorities [1]. Let’s compare the death toll of the Communist Soviet Union to that which was totted up during Hitler’s period in power. One figure for the death toll of German Fascism during that period is 10,500,000 [2].

Gripped by Communist thought, the Soviet Union killed almost twice that of Hitler and yet, one would be forgiven for concluding, by viewing Western media, that Hitler was the most evil man in history. And let us not forget that human history is a litany of inter-group violence in which rivers of blood have been spilled. Why then are we inundated with references to the evils of Hitler, Nazism and nationalism and not the evils of communism from which modern liberalism has sprung? Is it, I wonder, to create an association between nationalism and evil in the public mind-set? Given the dominance of liberalism among elites, I would not be surprised if an anti-nationalist agenda was indeed being pursued.

[1] http://www.genocidewatch.org/aboutgenocide/genocidespoliticides.html
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_disasters_by_death_toll

“Thus is born Nihilism, the abysmal hatred of the proletarian of higher form of every sort, of culture as its essence, of society as its upholder and historical product. That anyone should have “form,” master it, feel comfortable with it, whereas the common person feels fettered by it and unable to move freely under it; that tact, taste, a sense for tradition, should be things that belong to highly cultivated beings by inheritance; that there are circles in which a sense of duty and renunciation are not absurd, but lend distinction: all this fills the Nihilist with a dull fury which in earlier times crept away into corners and there foamed at the mouth in the manner of Thersites, but is now widely diffused in the white nations as an actual world-outlook. For the Age has itself become vulgar, and most people have no idea to what extent they are themselves tainted. The bad manners of all parliaments, the general tendency to connive at a rather shady business transaction if it promises to bring in money without work, jazz and Negro dances as the spiritual outlet in all circles of society, women painted like prostitutes, the efforts of writers to win popularity by ridiculing in their novels and plays the correctness of well-bred people, and the bad taste shown even by the nobility and old princely families in throwing off every kind of social restraint and time-honoured custom: all of these go to prove that it is now the vulgar mob that gives the tone.

But while one half of the world smiles at the well-bred forms and ancient customs, because it no longer regards them as inherently imperative and does not suspect that it is a question of “to be, or not to be,” the other half is unchaining the hatred that burns to destroy, the envy of everything that is not available to all, that is prominent and must be pulled down. Not only tradition and custom, but every kind of refinement – beauty, grace, taste in dress, easy good manners, elegance of speech, control of one’s limbs, education and self-discipline – irritate the vulgar soul till its blood boils. A finely formed face, the light and dainty step of a slim foot on the pavement, are contradictions of democracy. The preference of otium cum dignitate to boxing matches and six-day races, the appreciation of fine arts and poetry, even the delight in a well-kept garden of flowers and rare fruits are things to be burnt, smashed, or stamped out. Culture, because of its superiority, is the enemy. Its creations cannot be understood or inwardly assimilated; because they are not available for all they must be annihilated.

Such is the trend of Nihilism. It occurs to no one to educate the masses to the level of true culture – that would be too much trouble, and possibly certain postulates for it are absent. On the contrary, the structure of society is to be levelled down to the standard of the populace. General equality is to reign, everything is to be equally vulgar. The same way of getting money and the same pleasures to spend it on: panem et circenses – no more is wanted, no more would be understood. Superiority, manners, taste, and every description of inward rank are crimes. Ethical, religious, national ideas, marriage for the sake of children, the family, State authority: all these are old-fashioned and reactionary. The picture of the streets of Moscow shows the goal, but let no one suppose that it is a spirit from Moscow that has conquered here. Bolshevism’s home is Western Europe, and has been so ever since the English materialist world-view, which dominated the circles where Voltaire and Rousseau moved as docile pupils, found effective expression in Jacobinism on the Continent. The democracy of the nineteenth century already amounted to Bolshevism: it lacked only the courage of its logical conclusions. It is only a step from the Bastille and the equality-demanding guillotine to the ideals and street-fighting of 1848, the year of the Communist Manifesto, and only a second step from there to the fall of Western Tsarism. Bolshevism does not menace us, it governs us. Its idea of equality is to equate the people and the mob, its liberty consists in breaking loose from the Culture and its society.

***

This revolution does not commence with the materialistic Socialism of the nineteenth century, still less with the Bolshevism of 1917. It has been “in permanence” (to borrow one of its current phrases) since the middle of the eighteenth century. It was then that Rational criticism, proudly named the philosophy of Enlightenment, [14] began to turn its attention from the theological systems of Christianity and the traditional world-philosophy of the scholars – which was nothing more than theology without the will to system – to the facts of actuality, the State, society, and finally the evolved forms of economics. It commenced by depriving the concepts of nation, right, government, of their historical content, and interpreting the difference of rich and poor quite materialistically as a moral contrast, which was insisted upon by the agitators rather than honestly believed. At this point “Political Economy” came in, a materialistic science – founded about 1770 by Adam Smith in association with Hartley, Priestley, Mandeville, and Bentham – that had the presumption to regard men as appurtenances of the economic situation [15] and to “explain” history in the light of prices, markets, and goods.

To it we owe the conception of work, not as the content of life and calling, but as the commodity in which the worker trades. [16] The whole history of the formative passions and the creative characters of strong personalities and races is ignored – the will, focused on commanding and ruling, on power and booty; the inventive urge, hatred, revenge, pride in personal strength and its successes; and equally, on the other side, jealousy, laziness, the poisonous emotions of the inferior. And there remain nothing but the “laws” of money and prices, which find expression in statistics and graphs.

All the better were the professional demagogues, who had learnt nothing but speech-making and pamphlet-writing, able to see the value of these works as a source for first-rate catchwords with which to stir up the masses. In England disturbances began in 1762 with the case of Wilkes, who was condemned for insulting the Government in the press, and thereupon elected again and again to the House of Commons. At meetings and in systematic riots the war-cry was: “Wilkes and Liberty,” rioting for the cause of freedom of the press, universal suffrage, and even a republic. In that period Marat had written, in England and for Englishmen, The Chains of Slavery (1774). The revolt of the American colonies in 1776 and their proclamation of the universal rights of man and the Republic, their trees of liberty and associations were in reality the outcome of English movements during these years. [19] From 1779 onward there arose the clubs and secret societies which spread over the whole country, aimed at revolution, and from 1790, headed by Fox and Sheridan, sent congratulatory addresses, letters, and advice to the Convention and the Jacobins. Had not the reigning English plutocracy been far more vigorous than the cowardly court of Versailles, revolution would have broken out in London earlier than in Paris. [20] The Paris clubs, particularly the Feuillants and Jacobins, were nothing but copies of the English in their programs, their organization of branches all over France, and the form of their agitation; while the English in turn translated “citoyen,” the French form of address between members, into “citizen” and the newly-coined “citizeness,” and adopted, further, the phrase, “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” and the designation “tyrants” for kings. Since then, and even in our own time, this remains the form which preparation for revolution takes. It was in those days that there arose the “universal” demand for freedom of the press and of public meetings as a means thereto – the central demand of political Liberalism, the desire to be free from the ethical restrictions of the old Culture. Yet the demand was anything but universal; it was only called so by the ranters and writers who lived by it and sought to further private aims through this freedom. But the older society itself, obsessed as it was by esprit, the “educated” classes corresponding to the philistines of the nineteenth century – that is, the very victims of this freedom – exalted it into an ideal which stood above any criticism of its background. Today, when both the hopes of the eighteenth and the results of the twentieth century lie before us, we may be permitted to discuss it.

Freedom from what, for what? Who financed the press and the agitation? Who gained by it? These liberties have shown themselves everywhere in their true light: as a means to be used by Nihilism in levelling society, and by the underworld in inoculating the masses of the great cities with the particular opinion – it has none of its own – which promises the best result for its aims. [21] This is why these liberties, of which universal suffrage is one, are checked, suppressed, and completely inverted, once they have done their work and given the power into the hands of their exploiters. It was so in Jacobin France in 1793, in Bolshevist Russia, and in Germany’s trade-union Republic of 1918. When were there more suppressions of newspapers, in 1820 or in 1920? Liberty has always been the liberty of those who wish to obtain the power, not to abolish it.

This active Liberalism progresses from Jacobinism to Bolshevism logically. These are not in opposition of thought and will, but are the Early and the Late form, the beginning and the end, of one single movement. It began about 1770 with sentimental “social-political” tendencies: the structure of society according to class and rank was to be destroyed; and there was to be a “Return to Nature,” to the uniformity of the herd. The place of class was to be taken by that which has no class: money and intelligence, counting-house and lecturer’s chair, arithmeticians and clerks; in place of form-ordered existence, life without form, manners, obligations, respect. It was only about 1840 that this “social-political” tendency passed into an “economic-political” one. The scapegoats are now no longer the aristocrats, but the possessors, from peasant to entrepreneur. The disciples of the movement are promised, not equal rights, but the privilege of the unpropertied; not freedom for all, but the dictatorship of the city proletariat, the “workers.” But this represents no change of a world outlook – which was, and still is, materialistic and utilitarian – but solely a change in revolutionary methods. The professional demagogues now mobilize a different section of the nation for class war. At first, about 1770, peasants and craftsman were approached with some hesitation, both in England and France. The cahiers of small-town and country deputies in 1789, which were supposed to represent the “Cry of the Nation,” were composed by professional ranters [22] and were not understood at all by the greater part of the electorate. These classes were too deeply rooted in tradition to be unconditionally available as means and weapons. Without the mob from the eastern suburbs – the fists of the capital, always handy – the Reign of Terror in Paris would have been impossible.

It is not true that the problem was one of economic necessities. Rates and taxes were sovereign rights. Universal suffrage was intended as a blow against the structure of society. Hence the failure of the Convention: peasantry and craftsmen were no reliable following for professional demagogues. They possessed a native sense of respect and self-respect. They had too much instinct and too little town-intelligence. They were industrious and had learnt something; besides, they wished to leave the farm or the workshop to their sons. No permanent effect could be made upon them by programs and catchwords.

Continue reading..