Do you believe in God, deities, souls, spirits & things like that?

[Tiger]

~
Did Thomas Clarke want a Catholic Theocracy as a State?

No.

 

[AN2]

It has it's uses if qualified but it also has significant limitations.

Well, I would think that calling say the Tories right-wing is laughable

Dissident right is perhaps a term that can be used, but that could just be someone right of the mainstream right, not necessarily a nationalist ("far right")

 

[AN2]

So if we were to put your beliefs beside the esteemed nationalists of the past, side by side, how would you compare?

As an example, your beliefs compared to Thomas Clarke.

Do you think there’s a new form of secular nationalism that compares favourably with the past?

lol You've had a refreshing sleep but, if anything, you've come back today more retarded

Secular nationalism is something you've plucked out of thin air

To get back to your post that I originally replied to..

You claim that the "bone of contention" of the OP (laying down the gauntlet) is that "atheists make for shit nationalists".

The OP doesn't even mention nationalism

You go on to say -

So far, we’ve established that the atheists on Sarsfields want a nationalist leader (or party) that are anti-Catholic, pro abortion, pro euthanasia and like to dabble in a bit of Buddhism as a kind of hobby.

That's merely your projection of what you think (all) atheists are

 

[Tiger]

lol You've had a refreshing sleep but, if anything, you've come back today more retarded

Secular nationalism is something you've plucked out of thin air

To get back to your post that I originally replied to..

You claim that the "bone of contention" of the OP (laying down the gauntlet) is that "atheists make for shit nationalists".

The OP doesn't even mention nationalism

You go on to say -

So far, we’ve established that the atheists on Sarsfields want a nationalist leader (or party) that are anti-Catholic, pro abortion, pro euthanasia and like to dabble in a bit of Buddhism as a kind of hobby.

That's merely your projection of what you think (all) atheists are

Ah, the opening insult—a reliable crutch for those short on substantive arguments. Anyhoo, let’s proceed.

You claim that 'secular nationalism' is an invention of mine, as if nationalism somehow thrives in a vacuum without the moral and cultural cohesion that comes from shared spiritual values. History begs to differ. Nationalism has always been rooted in a unifying ethos—be it religious, cultural, or both. Secularism, on the other hand, fractures nations, reducing them to economic zones governed by fleeting moral trends and the whims of technocrats. If you believe secularism can sustain true nationalism, the burden is on you to prove it.

You and your atheist pals have been referring to ‘Christian nationalism’ which you presumably believe is a ‘thing’. Which suggests that there are other forms of nationalism which are different.

As for my characterization of the atheists in this chat—anti-Catholic, pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, dabbling in spiritual tourism—this is not 'projection.' It’s an observation of the values repeatedly espoused here. You and your peers mock religion, advocate for the killing of the unborn and the elderly, and offer no substantive moral framework beyond personal preference.

Your worldview aligns almost perfectly with the political elite running the country. The only distinction? You seem to gripe about immigration while otherwise parroting their entire ideological platform. A curious form of 'nationalism,' if you can even call it that.

And while you’re correct that the OP didn’t explicitly mention nationalism (it spoke of right wing, which is generally associated with nationalism, with exceptions in Latin America, and the ‘left associated with internationalism) the essence of their argument—concerning leadership, identity, and moral conviction—is inextricably tied to it. My point remains unshaken: atheists, by rejecting transcendent truths, lack the cohesive moral foundation necessary for nationalism. Your secular worldview, rooted in relativism, inherently atomizes society, undermining the unity and shared purpose that nationalism demands.

If I’ve mischaracterized the 'nationalism' you champion, then enlighten me: What are its unifying principles? Where is its moral backbone? Who are its leaders in Ireland today?

Or does your 'nationalism' amount to nothing more than a flag-waving gesture supported by the same godless technocracy you claim to oppose? Until you answer these questions, your critique is empty—insults masking a void where an argument ought to be.

 

[AN2]

Ah, the opening insult—a reliable crutch for those short on substantive arguments.

lol Incredible

Anyhoo, let’s proceed.

Maybe later but I'm honestly wondering why I should

You claim that 'secular nationalism' is an invention of mine, as if nationalism somehow thrives in a vacuum without the moral and cultural cohesion that comes from shared spiritual values. History begs to differ. Nationalism has always been rooted in a unifying ethos—be it religious, cultural, or both. Secularism, on the other hand, fractures nations, reducing them to economic zones governed by fleeting moral trends and the whims of technocrats. If you believe secularism can sustain true nationalism, the burden is on you to prove it.

You and your atheist pals have been referring to ‘Christian nationalism’ which you presumably believe is a ‘thing’. Which suggests that there are other forms of nationalism which are different.

As for my characterization of the atheists in this chat—anti-Catholic, pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, dabbling in spiritual tourism—this is not 'projection.' It’s an observation of the values repeatedly espoused here. You and your peers mock religion, advocate for the killing of the unborn and the elderly, and offer no substantive moral framework beyond personal preference.

Your worldview aligns almost perfectly with the political elite running the country. The only distinction? You seem to gripe about immigration while otherwise parroting their entire ideological platform. A curious form of 'nationalism,' if you can even call it that.

And while you’re correct that the OP didn’t explicitly mention nationalism (it spoke of right wing, which is generally associated with nationalism, with exceptions in Latin America, and the ‘left associated with internationalism) the essence of their argument—concerning leadership, identity, and moral conviction—is inextricably tied to it. My point remains unshaken: atheists, by rejecting transcendent truths, lack the cohesive moral foundation necessary for nationalism. Your secular worldview, rooted in relativism, inherently atomizes society, undermining the unity and shared purpose that nationalism demands.

If I’ve mischaracterized the 'nationalism' you champion, then enlighten me: What are its unifying principles? Where is its moral backbone? Who are its leaders in Ireland today?

Or does your 'nationalism' amount to nothing more than a flag-waving gesture supported by the same godless technocracy you claim to oppose? Until you answer these questions, your critique is empty—insults masking a void where an argument ought to be.

 

[Tiger]

lol Incredible


Maybe later but I'm honestly wondering why I should

You won’t.

You never do.

 

[AN2]

You won’t.

You never do.

Your critique is a critique of what you think atheism is, which you've repurposed as "secular nationalism"

Your black & white thinking is really quite indicative of a very low IQ

 

[Tiger]

Your critique is a critique of what you think atheism is, which you've repurposed as "secular nationalism"

Your black & white thinking is really quite indicative of a very low IQ

So you’ve got nothing to say as usual.

It’s incredible that you find it so difficult to articulate your position or answer any questions.

 

[AN2]

So you’ve got nothing to say as usual.

Didn't I just do exactly that

You write reams of dribble and are unresponsive and incomprehensive of anything that's said to you in reply

You ARE a soapbox dunce!

It’s incredible that you find it so difficult to articulate your position or answer any questions.

View attachment 6908

 

[Tiger]

Didn't I just do exactly that

You write reams of dribble and are unresponsive and incomprehensive of anything that's said to you in reply

You ARE a soapbox dunce!

You’ve elucidated nothing.

If I’ve mischaracterized the 'nationalism' you champion, then enlighten me: What are its unifying principles? Where is its moral backbone? Who are its leaders in Ireland today?

 

[AN2]

lol You remind me of Gowl, ethnic nationalism is a complete mystery to you

 

[Tiger]

lol You remind me of Gowl, ethnic nationalism is a complete mystery to you

If I’ve mischaracterized the ‘ethnic nationalism' you champion, then enlighten me: What are its unifying principles? Where is its moral backbone? Who are its leaders in Ireland today?

 

[AN2]

"Secular nationalism" is a conjunctive term that should have meaning like "Christian nationalism"

Can you name a single "secular nationalist" here?

 

[SwordOfStZip]

Starbucks, evolution, the African invasion of Ireland, Father Ted, and much much more! With Mark Collett

etc.

"Father Ted" is utter twisted poison designed to degrade and deprave, I am no fan at all of Collett but he is correct on that matter. Are you aware of another "commedy programme" called "Little Britain"?

 

[Fishalt]

Unfortunately with abortion it invariably includes "abortion on demand" and as we see, a slope to, what could only be described by any sane person, infanticide

That's why one has no other option but to vote no

The issue is if a woman really wants to terminate a pregnancy, she's going to, regardless of what the law says. We've already seen how this plays out. Moreoever sometimes abortion is medically necessary, and again there is the problem of rape babies. No woman should be forced to give birth as a consequence of being forcefully impregnated. I do agree with you about abortion on demand, though. Abortion should be heavily regulated, and late-term abortion should be illegal unless it is a case of medical emergency.

 

[Fishalt]

So if we were to put your beliefs beside the esteemed nationalists of the past, side by side, how would you compare?

As an example, your beliefs compared to Thomas Clarke.

Do you think there’s a new form of secular nationalism that compares favourably with the past?

Thomas Clarke died in 1916. Thomas Clarke wouldn't have been Thomas Clarke if here not born to the modernist period. He's just not a useful standard to point to, and his model of nationalism would simply not work in the conditions of the present. Different time, different world. No current modality of nationalism will pass that kind of purity test. You're talking about a period of extreme cultural homogeneity in Ireland before the pervasion of the surveillance state and hyper-globalization. You're beyond deluded if you think Ireland can ever return to the conditions of the past, and further deluded still if you think Clarke's approach to nationalism is feasible in 2024. People now are not cut of the same bolt of cloth that the greatests and the silents were.

You're just another old man shaking his fist at the sky I'm afraid, Tiger.

 

[AN2]

.

The issue is if a woman really wants to terminate a pregnancy, she's going to, regardless of what the law says.

In Ireland we had the situation whereby women were travelling to the UK, I think our domestic baby murdering factory has or will top that if we're talking numbers

We've already seen how this plays out. Moreoever sometimes abortion is medically necessary, and again there is the problem of rape babies.

Sorry but this reminds me of lefty pro-abortion claptrap. I can't imagine that the number of babies being aborted are 'rape babies' is significant

No woman should be forced to give birth as a consequence of being forcefully impregnated.

See above

I do agree with you about abortion on demand, though. Abortion should be heavily regulated, and late-term abortion should be illegal unless it is a case of medical emergency.

Abortion on demand is what comes with legalised abortion. You really have no wriggle room here, if you agree with abortion, then accept the consequences

 

[Fishalt]

.

In Ireland we had the situation whereby women were travelling to the UK, I think our domestic baby murdering factory has or will top that if we're talking numbers


Sorry but this reminds me of lefty pro-abortion claptrap. I can't imagine that the number of babies being aborted are 'rape babies' is significant


See above


Abortion on demand is what comes with legalised abortion. You really have no wriggle room here, if you agree with abortion, then accept the consequences

Whether the amount of rape babies is significant or not, there still needs to be a smooth legal pathway for women to abort those babies. I don't want some poor woman who has been gang raped by a rabid pack of Jeets or durka durkas being forced into a back alley with a bottle of gin and coat hanger. If abortion is going to be broadly illegal, there still has to be case exceptions.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

As for my characterization of the atheists in this chat—anti-Catholic, pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, dabbling in spiritual tourism—this is not 'projection.' It’s an observation of the values repeatedly espoused here.

No its not. That is pure projection.

By the way I'm not sure if any of the people you're debating are in fact atheists.

 

[AN2]

Whether the amount of rape babies is significant or not, there still needs to be a smooth legal pathway for women to abort those babies. I don't want some poor woman who has been gang raped by a rabid pack of Jeets or durka durkas being forced into a back alley with a bottle of gin and coat hanger.

I think there's plenty of opportunity for a woman who's been gang raped to avoid pregnancy without a bottle of gin and a coat hanger that only a fundamentalist Catholic would call an abortion

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

You're just another old man shaking his fist at the sky I'm afraid, Tiger.

I always had him down as a naive young fella.

However given that he cared for his parents as they died (sorry for your pain Tiger) he's probably older than I thought.

 

[AN2]

No its not. That is pure projection.

By the way I'm not sure if any of the people you're debating are in fact atheists.

I am

Glad to see that @Fishalt too is now calling himself one

He and I had a bit of thing previously with his 'agnostic' routine

 

[Fishalt]

I think there's plenty of opportunity for a woman who's been gang raped to avoid pregnancy without a bottle of gin and a coat hanger that only a fundamentalist Catholic would call an abortion

They probably do believe the morning after pill is abortion. If life begins at conception, it naturally follows.

 

[Fishalt]

One common objective of the nascent neo nationalism, granted the approaches to achieving that objective may differ, is the idea that white skinned people (or equivalent categorisation) need to outbreed competitors.


View: https://youtu.be/fUspLVStPbk



PS It may not be a coincidence that the actor in the above clip bears more than a passing resemblance to a young Tom Clarke.

In their ancestral homelands, they should outbreed their competitors. Only 16% of the world population is "white", and that is expected to decline to 10% within twenty years. Whites are the minority of the world. Despite the opinings of sociology departments (who deal in philosophy not science) race is real, and is quantifiable and measurable, materially. It is not a 'concept' any more than the fact that there are different breeds of dogs, which on average express behaviours corresponding to their genetic makeup. There is absolutely a genetic basis for behaviour and general quantifiable intelligence. Unfortunately this is, as truths go, taboo. It is also unpalatable because it is fatalist and deterministic.

The problem is parsing this out. I don't share Jame's commitment to net-zero immigration, and think there should be some, but he is correct that demographics are destiny--we simply disagree on the extent of this. I personally believe culture is more powerful than genes, on balance. But both have a role to play. I will also add that whites have themselves to blame for this. The name of the game in the perpetuation of civilizations is growth. This is primarily what governments are concerned with. No growth means economic contraction and collapse. The powers that be care not whether this growth comes from their indigenous people or Pakistanis--the most inbred and trogged example of humanity in existence.

Whites need to start having more babies, and start defending their cultures and historicity. Because they're amazing, and objectively quite superior to those of Asia, the Americas and Africa or anywhere else. In this sense I am a white supremacist, I suppose; I do in fact believe that white Art, science, and culture represents the best of humanity and these things are at least partially and perhaps significantly embedded in genetics.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

In their ancestral homelands, they should outbreed their competitors.

In Roc's Jew mind whites need to be exterminated.

 

[AN2]

In their ancestral homelands, they should outbreed their competitors. Only 16% of the world population is "white", and that is expected to decline to 10% within twenty years. Whites are the minority of the world. Despite the opinings of sociology departments (who deal in philosophy not science) race is real, and is quantifiable and measurable, materially. It is not a 'concept' any more than the fact that there are different breeds of dogs, which on average express behaviours corresponding to their genetic makeup. There is absolutely a genetic basis for behaviour and general quantifiable intelligence. Unfortunately this is, as truths go, taboo. It is also unpalatable because it is fatalist and deterministic.

The problem is parsing this out. I don't share Jame's commitment to net-zero immigration, and think there should be some, but he is correct that demographics are destiny--we simply disagree on the extent of this. I personally believe culture is more powerful than genes, on balance. But both have a role to play. I will also add that whites have themselves to blame for this. The name of the game in the perpetuation of civilizations is growth. This is primarily what governments are concerned with. No growth means economic contraction and collapse. The powers that be care not whether this growth comes from their indigenous people or Pakistanis--the most inbred and trogged example of humanity in existence.

Whites need to start having more babies, and start defending their cultures and historicity. Because they're amazing, and objectively quite superior to those of Asia, the Americas and Africa or anywhere else. In this sense I am a white supremacist, I suppose; I do in fact believe that white Art, science, and culture represents the best of humanity and these things are at least partially and perhaps significantly embedded in genetics.

There are serious nuggets of nonsense in this

I'll be back

 

[AN2]

In their ancestral homelands, they should outbreed their competitors.

Okay, so what sort of a homeland is it if the natives are in a breeding competition with invaders?

roc gags at the thought of more white people because he's a Jew

Only 16% of the world population is "white", and that is expected to decline to 10% within twenty years. Whites are the minority of the world. Despite the opinings of sociology departments (who deal in philosophy not science) race is real, and is quantifiable and measurable, materially. It is not a 'concept' any more than the fact that there are different breeds of dogs, which on average express behaviours corresponding to their genetic makeup. There is absolutely a genetic basis for behaviour and general quantifiable intelligence. Unfortunately this is, as truths go, taboo. It is also unpalatable because it is fatalist and deterministic.

The problem is parsing this out. I don't share Jame's commitment to net-zero immigration, and think there should be some, but he is correct that demographics are destiny--we simply disagree on the extent of this.

To clarify, I don't think that a white country shouldn't have any immigrants, a small immigrant population (without granting them citizenship) is fine.

Your idea is what, let's slow it down a bit? It's five to midnight my friend, a lot of white countries will require remigration to survive.

I personally believe culture is more powerful than genes, on balance. But both have a role to play.

This is just hopeless 'melting pot' type nonsense

I will also add that whites have themselves to blame for this.

Why are whites to blame? Even the dumbest of normies when asked will mostly say that becoming a minority is a bad thing, they just have no understanding that it's happening.

The name of the game in the perpetuation of civilizations is growth. This is primarily what governments are concerned with. No growth means economic contraction and collapse. The powers that be care not whether this growth comes from their indigenous people or Pakistanis--the most inbred and trogged example of humanity in existence.

Whites need to start having more babies, and start defending their cultures and historicity. Because they're amazing, and objectively quite superior to those of Asia, the Americas and Africa or anywhere else. In this sense I am a white supremacist, I suppose; I do in fact believe that white Art, science, and culture represents the best of humanity and these things are at least partially and perhaps significantly embedded in genetics.

 

[Fishalt]

Okay, so what sort of a homeland is it if the natives are in a breeding competition with invaders?

roc gags at the thought of more white people because he's a Jew



To clarify, I don't think that a white country shouldn't have any immigrants, a small immigrant population (without granting them citizenship) is fine.

Your idea is what, let's slow it down a bit? It's five to midnight my friend, a lot of white countries will require remigration to survive.


This is just hopeless 'melting pot' type nonsense


Why are whites to blame? Even the dumbest of normies when asked will mostly say that becoming a minority is a bad thing, they just have no understanding that it's happening.

Immigration doesn't need to be slowed down a bit. It needs to be slowed down a lot. To a drip. And I disagree, there should be a path to citizenship for exceptional people.

Whites are to blame because they continue to choose to not have kids. I'm sure this comes from a well-meaning and sensible place, but it's not something observed by the dreck being imported. They will thunk out litter after litter and simply force the state to pay for them on humanitarian grounds. Can't bitch about population replacement by the state if you're not replacing the population yourselves.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

R0ry why is "multiculturalism" only expected in white Countries?

 

[AN2]

Immigration doesn't need to be slowed down a bit. It needs to be slowed down a lot. To a drip. And I disagree, there should be a path to citizenship for exceptional people.

Sure, Jack Charlton can have the keys to the city

The vandalism of Irish citizenship we see commited today is a treasonous crime. Upon conviction in a court of law, I would not hesitate to be the executioner myself for those found responsible.

Whites are to blame because they continue to choose to not have kids.

Is it really a choice?

 

[Tiger]

Thomas Clarke died in 1916. Thomas Clarke wouldn't have been Thomas Clarke if here not born to the modernist period. He's just not a useful standard to point to, and his model of nationalism would simply not work in the conditions of the present. Different time, different world. No current modality of nationalism will pass that kind of purity test. You're talking about a period of extreme cultural homogeneity in Ireland before the pervasion of the surveillance state and hyper-globalization. You're beyond deluded if you think Ireland can ever return to the conditions of the past, and further deluded still if you think Clarke's approach to nationalism is feasible in 2024. People now are not cut of the same bolt of cloth that the greatests and the silents were.

You're just another old man shaking his fist at the sky I'm afraid, Tiger.

Skippy, it’s astonishing (or maybe not that astonishing) how your interpretation of my reference to Thomas Clarke manages to miss the point entirely, revealing not just ignorance but an apparent inability to comprehend what’s being discussed. The mention of Clarke wasn’t an appeal to resurrect his precise methods or transplant 1916 nationalism wholesale into 2024. It was a starting point, a reference to provide James—a self-proclaimed 'ethno-nationalist'—with a foundation to explain his vision in concrete terms. It could have been Kermit the Frog or Bobby Sands; the choice of Clarke was simply to prompt answers from James, who seems curiously incapable of articulating what his so-called nationalism entails and seems to need other people to try and answer on his behalf, however badly their attempt.

James' reluctance raises some real questions. James is half English, so is his 'ethno-nationalism' Anglo-Irish in nature? How does it differ from Unionism, beyond vague rhetoric? And why does he rely so heavily on a hillbilly from the outback to fight his battles for him? Perhaps his affinity for certain online English nationalists explains his reticence to engage with the Irish nationalist tradition on its own terms.

As for the argument that Clarke is irrelevant in 2024, it’s rooted in a shallow misreading of history. No one is claiming Ireland can, or should, revert to the conditions of 1916. Hyper-globalization and the surveillance state have fundamentally altered the landscape. But that’s precisely why figures like Clarke remain valuable: not as templates to mimic, but as embodiments of principles like cultural resilience, national sovereignty, and moral conviction—principles that are desperately lacking in today’s fragmented Ireland.

Frankly, it’s no surprise that someone from Australia—steeped in every modernist trope and detached from the intricacies of Irish history—would struggle to find any affinity with Irish nationalists like Clarke. But let’s be clear: the last thing Ireland needs is your ideals.

 

[Tiger]

Immigration doesn't need to be slowed down a bit. It needs to be slowed down a lot. To a drip. And I disagree, there should be a path to citizenship for exceptional people.

Whites are to blame because they continue to choose to not have kids. I'm sure this comes from a well-meaning and sensible place, but it's not something observed by the dreck being imported. They will thunk out litter after litter and simply force the state to pay for them on humanitarian grounds. Can't bitch about population replacement by the state if you're not replacing the population yourselves.

Your argument completely misses the elephant in the room: it’s precisely the modern, Godless worldview you and so many others here espouse that has led to Irish people selfishly turning away from family life. The modern, secular individual seems trapped in a state of perpetual adolescence, living at home with their parents well into their 30s, binge-watching Netflix, and playing video games, all while bemoaning the state of the nation. This isn’t "well-meaning" childlessness—it’s a choice driven by immaturity, lack of direction, and obsession with comfort over responsibility.

Contrast this with the work I’ve seen in the trenches of real Irish communities. I’ve worked alongside Pro-Life groups helping young Irish girls who feel they have no one to turn to. These groups provide genuine support, showing them that abortion—(chopping a baby into pieces and throwing it in a bin, or worse, selling its remains to feed the international abortion industry's sick black market on body parts)—is not their only option. Because of this work, there are now delightful Irish children this weekend playing GAA and football, preparing for Christmas, and looking forward to bright futures. None of that would have been possible without Catholic values of love and sacrifice guiding such efforts.

In my professional life, I’ve worked as a Director in my company, actively pushing back against the growing trend of overseas recruitment. In an industry that relies on rare specialized skills, it would’ve been easy to tap into international talent pools, but I persuaded the leadership to invest in local Irish talent instead. This isn’t just about jobs—it’s about preserving our community and providing young Irish workers with the opportunity to thrive in their own country. How many so-called secular 'nationalists' mocking Catholicism can say they’ve done anything even remotely as practical to protect and preserve Irish sovereignty and culture?

What’s your contribution? Spending endless hours on 4Chan or James, drinking and smoking at home playing online chess and arguing about ethno-nationalism? That's not building a nation; that’s a hobby. As I said before, atheists like you make terrible nationalists because nationalism requires real, tangible action, not keyboard pontificating.

And let’s not forget, the last person to truly galvanize Irish public opinion and defeat an overwhelming political and media establishment was Declan Ganley—a practicing Catholic. Ganley, nearly single-handedly, led the charge to defeat the Lisbon Treaty, standing firm against the might of the EU and every major Irish political party.

 

[AN2]

Skippy, it’s astonishing (or maybe not that astonishing) how your interpretation of my reference to Thomas Clarke manages to miss the point entirely, revealing not just ignorance but an apparent inability to comprehend what’s being discussed. The mention of Clarke wasn’t an appeal to resurrect his precise methods or transplant 1916 nationalism wholesale into 2024.

It was a starting point, a reference to provide James—a self-proclaimed 'ethno-nationalist'—with a foundation to explain his vision in concrete terms.

Baha! He's still doing his Gowl routine

If anyone doesn't know or can't figure out what ethno-nationalism is then it's probably safe to assume that someone else dresses them in the morning

It could have been Kermit the Frog or Bobby Sands; the choice of Clarke was simply to prompt answers from James, who seems curiously incapable of articulating what his so-called nationalism entails and seems to need other people to try and answer on his behalf, however badly their attempt.

James' reluctance raises some real questions. James is half English, so is his 'ethno-nationalism' Anglo-Irish in nature? How does it differ from Unionism, beyond vague rhetoric? And why does he rely so heavily on a hillbilly from the outback to fight his battles for him? Perhaps his affinity for certain online English nationalists explains his reticence to engage with the Irish nationalist tradition on its own terms.

As for the argument that Clarke is irrelevant in 2024, it’s rooted in a shallow misreading of history. No one is claiming Ireland can, or should, revert to the conditions of 1916. Hyper-globalization and the surveillance state have fundamentally altered the landscape. But that’s precisely why figures like Clarke remain valuable: not as templates to mimic, but as embodiments of principles like cultural resilience, national sovereignty, and moral conviction—principles that are desperately lacking in today’s fragmented Ireland.

Frankly, it’s no surprise that someone from Australia—steeped in every modernist trope and detached from the intricacies of Irish history—would struggle to find any affinity with Irish nationalists like Clarke. But let’s be clear: the last thing Ireland needs is your ideals.

 

[AN2]

Your argument completely misses the elephant in the room: it’s precisely the modern, Godless worldview you and so many others here espouse that has led to Irish people selfishly turning away from family life. The modern, secular individual seems trapped in a state of perpetual adolescence, living at home with their parents well into their 30s, binge-watching Netflix, and playing video games, all while bemoaning the state of the nation. This isn’t "well-meaning" childlessness—it’s a choice driven by immaturity, lack of direction, and obsession with comfort over responsibility.

Contrast this with the work I’ve seen in the trenches of real Irish communities. I’ve worked alongside Pro-Life groups helping young Irish girls who feel they have no one to turn to. These groups provide genuine support, showing them that abortion—(chopping a baby into pieces and throwing it in a bin, or worse, selling its remains to feed the international abortion industry's sick black market on body parts)—is not their only option. Because of this work, there are now delightful Irish children this weekend playing GAA and football, preparing for Christmas, and looking forward to bright futures. None of that would have been possible without Catholic values of love and sacrifice guiding such efforts.

In my professional life, I’ve worked as a Director in my company, actively pushing back against the growing trend of overseas recruitment. In an industry that relies on rare specialized skills, it would’ve been easy to tap into international talent pools, but I persuaded the leadership to invest in local Irish talent instead. This isn’t just about jobs—it’s about preserving our community and providing young Irish workers with the opportunity to thrive in their own country. How many so-called secular 'nationalists' mocking Catholicism can say they’ve done anything even remotely as practical to protect and preserve Irish sovereignty and culture?

What’s your contribution? Spending endless hours on 4Chan or James, drinking and smoking at home playing online chess and arguing about ethno-nationalism? That's not building a nation; that’s a hobby. As I said before, atheists like you make terrible nationalists because nationalism requires real, tangible action, not keyboard pontificating.

And let’s not forget, the last person to truly galvanize Irish public opinion and defeat an overwhelming political and media establishment was Declan Ganley—a practicing Catholic. Ganley, nearly single-handedly, led the charge to defeat the Lisbon Treaty, standing firm against the might of the EU and every major Irish political party.

You've been asked to name a "secular nationalist" on this site and you can't

 

[Tiger]

Baha! He's still doing his Gowl routine

If anyone doesn't know or can't figure out what ethno-nationalism is then it's probably safe to assume that someone else dresses them in the morning

James; Padraig Pearse could be defined as an ‘Ethno-Nationalist. My beliefs could be described as ‘Ethno-Nationalistic’ in terms of my connection to my Irish heritage and cultural ties. However, I think we can agree that you, I and Padraig Pearse have very different worldviews, especially given your mixed heritage.

So, why do you find it so difficult to add any detail to your claim of being an ‘Ethno-Nationalist’ and what that entails for you?

Why the reluctance to expand your answer past one bland sentence?

What are you afraid of?

 

[AN2]

Google Search

www.google.com

Google Search

www.google.com

 

[AN2]

James; Padraig Pearse could be defined as an ‘Ethno-Nationalist.

My beliefs could be described as ‘Ethno-Nationalistic’

Nah

in terms of my connection to my Irish heritage and cultural ties. However, I think we can agree that you, I and Padraig Pearse have very different worldviews, especially given your mixed heritage.

So, why do you find it so difficult to add any detail to your claim of being an ‘Ethno-Nationalist’ and what that entails for you?

Why the reluctance to expand your answer past one bland sentence?

 

[Tiger]

Nah

You really are the embodiment of Ralph Wiggum

 

[AN2]

You're not an ethno-nationalist

In essence, you're a Christian (Catholic) nationalist.. and why would anyone expect anything different from you

 

[Tiger]

You're not an ethno-nationalist

In essence, you're a Christian (Catholic) nationalist.. and why would anyone expect anything different from you

No answers all usual.

‘Other people this and other people that’. Nothing about yourself though.

So, presumably we have to wait for Skippy to come along and answer on your behalf again.

Pathetic.