Bonus Content: Three Thoughts About Trans
Trans is not an organic social phenomenon, but a cunningly conceived psy-op, designed to lead to the replacement of 'Human 1.0' by the transhumanist 'human', a being without a heart, a mind or a soul.
One: Enoch Burke is an Irish hero whose actions in defiance of the trans tyranny are rooted in the Brehon Laws.
In all necessary humility, I must insist that a correct understanding of the Enoch Burke case can only be achieved as a result of understanding first the matters I set down in my article on the Irish autogolpe, or self-coup, published here last week. Trans is a weapon of war used by the Combine on the human population of the world (I exclude the Combine from this category) using mentally deranged people and the highly malleable instrument of contagion instead of fighter jets and tanks. There is nothing spontaneous or naturalistic about the trans phenomenon — it is entirely a fomented grievance-letting. That there may be a tiny minority of people on the border between maleness and femaleness does nothing to refute this assertion. Intersex people have alway existed and had to carry that cross as best they could, just as others have to carry other crosses, with no one escaping. But this movement, like the other Cultural Marxist contrived custodianships of minorities, is not in its essence directed at helping anyone; it is directed at confounding, demoralising and ultimately enslaving what will afterwards remain of the human race.
This, though he may not articulate things in this way, is the reason for Enoch Burke’s rage and apparently erratic behaviour: He senses how urgent his struggle is. That he couches it in religious terms has to do with the fact that his understanding of the nature and structure of mankind have their roots in what we call religion, which is itself unexceptionable, though perhaps limiting. I understand that, tactically, this may appear to be a good way of tapping into particularised rights in an age when only minorities appears to matter. Yet, this approach tends to muddy the waters and throw people off the scent. Cultural understanding of religion is now so rudimentary, indifferent or hostile that people tend to hear only a fanatical fundamentalism, when what he is expressing is a profound human longing for sense and sanity.
I hear ‘conservatives’, with their usual two-handedness, declaring that Burke is ‘doing himself no favours’. He is not, I think, in the business of doing himself favours, unless he has a fetishist fondness for prison food. Burke and his family are in the business of shouting ‘Fire!’. Of all the actors in this drama, theirs are the only reactions that succeed in being commensurate with the facts and proportionate to the danger of what assails them, and us. The rest is equivocation and dissembling in the face of ideological manipulation, bullying and lies — as well, of course, as the usual official corruption, which can be relied upon to prevail even when the danger threatens to be total.
Trans is a cultural gateway to transhumanism, the destruction of Human 1.0 and his (or ‘her’, and full stop.) replacement by Human 2.0, a being without a mind of its own (note the change of pronoun!) and, by extension, without a soul of its own. Here, we may fleetingly glimpse the ‘religious’ connection, but my preference is to keep these questions human- and Earth-centred, and allow the religious elements to emerge by their own inexorable logic.
You will note that virtually everyone who speaks of this case moves immediately to say what it is not about. It is ‘not’ about transgenderism; it is ‘not’ about free speech’; it is not about ‘religious beliefs’. They are less clear about what it is actually about, although this is self-evident: It is about introducing compelled speech to augment the already bedded-down strictures concerning forbidden speech, which are causing our civilisation to choke on its Woke vomit. Beyond that, it is about control and demoralisation.
Enoch Burke’s manner of advancing his case, in his schools or in court, is beside and after the point. He was reacting to something unspeakable, which he, not being dulled into somnambulance like everyone else, could not help but recognise for what it was. He does not speak in the moderate tones of a prosecuting lawyer, but in the alarmed manner of a sentient human being. Having been issued with an unconscionable diktat, he went into refusal mode, and made his refusal clear at every opportunity. It was not — as one might gather from paying attention to the judges or the journaliars — that he had been told not to wear jeans in the classroom, or park in the principal’s parking spot. He recognised this as something life-or-death. As far as his contempt of court is concerned, I can only repeat: There are some things in life to which contempt is the only reasonable response.
The school’s initial case against Burke consists chiefly in huffing and puffing. The notion that he was wrong to raise the matter at a meeting to discuss other matters is an absurd molehill-made-mountain. This was one of the most urgent questions to face the Irish educational system in its history. The idea of the principal saying that ‘as a principal and as a teacher, she has never experienced a staff meeting where a teacher has sought to hijack a meeting to pursue an issue in such a disrespectful manner’, as she says occurred on this occasion, is, in the circumstances prevailing, simply silly.
Similarly, the school’s reliance on Burke’s interruption of a quasi-religious service to raise the issue again is flimsy and beside the point. The aim is to generate as much noise as possible without addressing the core question, which is the sole matter that concerns Enoch Burke. That issue relates to the very possibility of continuing to describe and negotiate reality. It really is as fundamental as that. Burke attracts odium for his beliefs and handling of the issue, but these are peripheral to the fundamental nature of what he has raised: the right of people to continue seeing the world in the way it was universally seen until the day before yesterday, and set down in every document produced and retained by Western civilisation — concerning its own values and motor functions — for the past 2,700 years.
Burke’s mode of expressing himself, or his timing in doing so, may provided welcome avoidance-fodder for a certain aesthetic commentary, but these issues are separate from the legitimacy or otherwise of his core point, which is being carefully elided by the school and the courts, which is why both entities have sought to subdue and silence him. Those who try to do Burke down are clutching at straws in a tsunami of madness, seeking to portray him a bad light when his is the sole voice of sanity to be heard in the whole affair.
The three written judgements delivered at last week’s Court of Appeal hearing are relevant purely as illustrations of this attempted elision. The respondent school is supported by the court president, our old pal George Birmingham, in claiming that Burke was never issued with a ‘demand’ that he use ‘they’ in referring to ‘the pupil in question’. Birmingham P. did not ask the school to explain what its point was in issuing a directive on this matter at all, or what options were being offered to teachers issued with it.
The judge states:
The original communication from the principal on 9th May 2022 to staff members, including the appellant, used the passive voice. It spoke of the fact that the student would become known as ‘they’, though it must be acknowledged that the following sentence states: ‘[t]his means “they” must replace where we would have used [former pronoun] until now’. While the reference to ‘they’ and the former pronoun are in mandatory terms, this communication seems to me to fall well short of a demand.
This reads to me as complete gibberish. Perhaps Birmingham P. did not have the time to look up the meaning of the word ‘must’, so let me do it for him. ‘Must’ means (1) ’to be obliged or required by morality, law or custom’; (2) ‘be compelled, as by physical necessity or requirement’; (3) ‘used to express a command or admonition’. So, ‘must’ comes with intonations of obligation, law, compulsion and command.
What, for that matter, does the judge think is the difference between ‘mandatory’ and ‘demand’? Although he appears to make much of some prevailing distinction, he does not say. ‘Mandatory’, in fact, means ‘required or commanded by authority, obligatory’; ‘demand’ means ‘to ask for urgently or peremptorily’ or ’to claim as just or due’. In fact, a ‘demand’ is a rather milder phenomenon than a mandate; ‘must’ is a great deal stronger than ‘ask’ or ‘require’.
Enoch Burke claims that the invocation of the disciplinary process in the circumstances that have occurred is manifestly unconstitutional and unlawful. He is correct. For a state-controlled entity to utilise its authority in an attempt to compel an employee to surrender a fundamental right in this way is clearly wrong. It is, as Burke claims, an issue of compelled speech — the school principal using the authority of her position to impose a diktat on teachers to do something that offends not merely their religious views, but their very understanding of the human condition.
It was entirely to be expected that Burke’s position would be met with jeers and derision from the stinking galleries of journaliars and establishment whores. They care for neither principle not philosophy, but live from paycheque to paycheque, their eyes always on the next stroke or scam. Just as Birmingham P. is able to issue snide remarks about Enoch Burke, but make no adverse allusion to the amorality of the Gender Recognition Act, our society has managed to ignore the fact that all these instruments were introduced by bullying, gaslighting, moral blackmail and lies.
Really, what this case is ‘about’ is the dramatisation of a difficulty that it, first of all, of an intensely cultural character. Because our society is now incapable of conducting mature conversations, and therefore of safeguarding itself against inane or insane proposals becoming, yes, mandatory through law, the only way of raising matters of this nature is for individuals to throw themselves at the court system in the hope that something will emerge to draw attention to the outrage being purveyed in the guise of increasing civility or respect for ‘others’. Enoch Burke’s appeal against some of the court findings against him, was entirely dealt with in technical terms, sidestepping the primary question, and therefore in itself little above hopeless and pointless from a legal standpoint. It may, however, contribute to increasing public awareness of the fact that something has gone badly wrong in our country. It is possible that Burke could have saved himself much pain had he taken a more restrained approach from the start, but it is all but certain that the eventual outcome, in legal terms, would have been the same: Even had his behaviour been irreproachable he would have lost to the slimy but skilful sophistry of the judiciary. In that event, however, the case would have passed as a faint whisper rather than the roar of human anguish it has become. The establishment now has on its hands a problem that no amount of legal hair-splitting will dissipate: a man of principle who refuses to lie down, and a family behind him that does what families did before they became subservient to the State, i.e. stand by one another through thick and thin.
This may or may not have been Enoch Burke’s objective, but it is certainly his achievement, and it is no small one. His actions, for all the flak he has taken from the usual swamplife of the Irish media, has awoken the sleeping giant. His actions may well have been, willy nilly, a critical factor in the recent decision of the Catholic Primary Schools Management Association to refuse to cooperate with the introduction of transgender ideology into schools under its supervision. Burke, by launching this symbolic crusade, has employed the only weapon left to those seeking to have their voices heard in this society: a quasi-Brehonic self-harming directed at arousing whatever conscience may remain in the relevant target area. This approach risks enormous consequences, but it is the only option left when all institutions have been marched-through and captured, and all instruments of justice corrupted.
The instruments of this corruptions are many, but the most insidious is the use of pseudo-compassion to corrupt truth, sanity and decency,
In this respect, Birmingham P’s judgement pretty much captures the condition of our culture now, in stating:
With parental support, the child indicated a desire to transition. In those circumstances, while it is not inconceivable that an accommodation satisfactory to all could have been reached, given goodwill and flexibility on all sides, it would seem at this stage, given the attitude taken by the appellant, that it is not possible to meet simultaneously the desires of the child and the parents, on the one hand, and the appellant’s concerns, on the other. If that is the choice — and I am afraid that, by reason of the appellant’s actions, it may well have in fact come to that — I would be of the view that the wishes of the child and parents must prevail.
At a surface level, the judge’s implication here is clearly that, in favouring the ‘wishes’ of the (passive and invisible) child and ‘its’ parents over the truculent and turbulent teacher, he (Birmingham P.) is demonstrating his (virtuous) compassion for the weak over the strong. This is more or less what this society would like to persuade itself of more generally. In reality, however, at play here is an entirely different power dynamic: that of the all but superhuman exterior force, seeking to impose on Irish society a potentially lethal ideology by means of vast resources and surreptitious intrigue, with a view ultimately to destroying our way of life by taking away our capacity to defend it. The instrument of this imposition is, as usual, the omnipotent victim — in this case the ‘trans child’.
This impression is confirmed by the judge’s subsequent remarks:
I am of the view this case is not about what the appellant has chosen to describe as ‘transgenderism’, and I would prefer to express my views in terms of the fact that the case is not about transgender rights. I cannot but believe that the term, as used by the appellant, is a somewhat pejorative one, as is his use of the term transgender ‘ideology’. These are phrases I prefer to avoid; I do not believe they are phrases that in today’s Ireland would find favour with transgender individuals and I would wish to respect their preferences in that regard.
QED. The judge is here expressing his prejudice and bias, and ought in the next breath to have recused himself from further involvement in this case. Birmingham P., too arrogant or committed to understand what is happening, bigs himself up because he favours the ‘weak’ ‘minority’ over the troublesome teacher, thereby positioning himself in perfect harmony with ‘today’s Ireland’. One can almost feel the warmth of his self-congratulation wafting upwards from the page. Truly, there has rarely been uttered such a perfect expression of the idiotic hubris of ‘progressive’ Ireland, as it dislocates its spine in attempting to clap itself on the back.
The day will come when Irish society — or what remains of it then — will look back on horror at these words and ask what kind of man could possibly have been so ignorant of reality as to utter such an asinine, though undoubtedly pious, remark.
TWO: The trans obsession is a mental illness, though not merely afflicting those claiming the condition
By a strange ‘coincidence’, Clif High has just posted a newsletter (see below for link) in which he outlines his very interesting reasoning to the effect that the trans scourge might be tackled by the application of the criteria for mental illness, albeit targeted not at those believing themselves to be trans people per se, but those who are seeking to brainwash them into this mindset.
The mental ‘disease’ he has in mind is called Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another (FDIA), and is actually a real phenomenon. Previously called ‘Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy’ (MSBP), it is frequently diagnosed when someone — usually a ‘caregiver’ — falsely claims that another person has physical or psychological signs or symptoms of illness, or, alternatively causes injury or disease in another person with the intention of deceiving others, or gaining attention, sympathy, admiration, or power for him-/herself.
You might say that this is precisely what the world has been subjected to since early 2020, with no significant abatement as yet, a disease insinuated chiefly by propaganda and ‘scientific expertise’, albeit notably lacking in actual scientific proofs. But similar techniques are used in other contexts as well, under the auspices of Cultural Marxism and its custodians, the Khazarian Mafia.
According to the ICD-10 (International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision), FDIA is classified under the category of ‘Other disorders of adult personality and behavior’ with the code F68.1. The description of FDIA provided in the ICD-10 is as follows:
F68.1 Factitious disorder imposed on another
A disorder in which an individual, usually a parent, induces or fabricates symptoms or signs of illness in a dependent child, spouse, or other person. The inducement of illness in others may be motivated by a need for attention, nurturance, or to assume the ‘sick role’ by proxy.
Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy (MSBP or MBP), as FDIA was previously known, was treated as a form of child abuse in which a parent (usually the mother) purposely fabricated illness in her child or reported concerning symptoms (such as seizure activity, apnea, et cetera) not seen by objective witnesses, and repeatedly sought medical care for the child, denying knowledge as to the cause of the illness or injury. Acute signs and symptoms often subsided when child and parent were separated.
The clinical definition of MSBP stated:
Munchausen syndrome by proxy is a behaviour pattern in which a caregiver fabricates, exaggerates, or induces mental or physical health problems in those who are in their care. With deception at its core, this behaviour is an elusive, potentially lethal, and frequently misunderstood form of child abuse or medical neglect that has been difficult to define, detect, and confirm.
It is, in short, a mental illness that can affect two persons in different ways — one who seeks to inculcate illness in another by dint of suggestion; the other being the person in whom beliefs concerning such a phantom illness is psychologically induced. The syndrome had become commonplace in family law cases, last time I found myself writing regularly about that subject, some dozen years ago, when children would manifest symptoms in situations of dispute between their parents, the fictional illness being used to maintain custody and keep the father away from his child or children.
What we deal with here is more in the way of a social condition, According to Clif High, the condition has manifested in the context of social engineering in the past, specifically in Mao’s Cultural Revolution, (approx 1966-1976), where the idea of a sick society was used as a weapon of mobilising the young against the old. Under Khazarian instruction, Mao Zedong used this technique to advance his Cultural Revolution as a kind of weapon of virtue to win over the young, essentially directing their energies to tearing down the culture of the past — complete with statue-toppling and all the devices we have observed bring rolled out in the Western present by Khazarian proxies Antifa and BLM. As in the current situation also, the Maoists used points of division under headings like gender and race to divide the population, just as the Khazarians are currently using these to conquer the Western republics of Europe, America and Eurasia.
FDIA has since become one of the most refined ideas in psychological warfare, with enormous potential for use in projects of mass social engineering. Essentially, what is called Cultural Marxism is a menu of FDIA conditions — trans being the most immediately visible at the present time — that enable powerful actors to manipulate others into imagining themselves to suffer from a condition — ‘gender dysphoria’ being one — that can be induced by contagion to take over an individual’s imagination.
FDIA is, in this context, a deeply destabilising social condition, because the attacks the very foundations of human understanding concerning the nature of reality, feeding delusional ideas into the public realm in a manner that, being accompanied by intimidation, coercion and moral blackmail, and promoted by purchased media, can in effect bring entire societies to their knees. That such an initiative can be driven from the shadows by unseen actors renders it, in effect, a form of covert warfare, which invariably proceeds behind veils of spurious altruism and virtue.
Clif writes: ‘The WEF are doing FDIA in support of “trans” in order to destabilize the social order and break inter-generational cohesion. The mental illness that is FDIA needs a victim to be “cared for” and “protected" by the “brave caregivers” who are the actual source of the illness. The “trans child” effect is totally necessary.’
In the narrower, localised political context, then, where the promulgation of ideas is driven by corrupt or stupid politicians, doctors, judges, et cetera, FDIA can also be seen as a mind-control condition that corrupts the powerful, which means that anyone engaging in such practices can, under international human rights law, be charged with child endangerment, or child abuse.
Clif is adamant that the existence and validity of FDIA is beyond question. ’This is not you making up some disease, ‘This is a factual disease that’s been studied and studied and studied,’ he claims. ‘The WEFfers put it in there, and categorised it. The WEFfers understand all this in the detail because the psychiatrists had to study all this in order to be able to weaponise it. So it’s in all the books!’
Clif’s advice is that, whenever we observe a public figure spouting about 'trans rights’, we should intervene and say, ‘Wait, you need to see a psychiatrist. You are exhibiting symptoms of a classified disease!’, citing the ICD-10 number F6810. There no need to get into the ideology or politics, no need to express any view on whether trans is a valid category or not — you simply say that you’re not going to talk to the person promoting these ideas until a psychiatrist has been engaged to conduct an assessment to ensure that he or she is not engaging in FDIA, which Clif categories as an STD — a ‘socially transmitted disease’.
In this way, the issue of trans does not require to be argued or debated. The conversation goes directly to the core of the matter: that this is an insane imposition on human culture and those responsible are mentally ill. An important point is that no blame is attached to the person believing him/herself to be trans, who is simply the hapless victim of an FDIA. This is an interesting facet, because the promotion of trans by Khazarian-purchased media invariably employs crypto-compassionate tropes in order to bundle the dubious ethics of the issue past any concerned observers. Trans is ‘real’, to the extent that its victims are convinced that they are trans because they have become so as a result of insinuation and psychological manipulation by ‘caregivers’, i.e. politicians, doctors and so forth. To the extent that trans is a disease, it is a disease not of those who claim to be affected by it, but by those pushing it upon them. Clif High’s idea provides us with a new way of framing the ‘compassion’ ingredient of this question: We can bestow ’compassion’ in all directions, but also insist on mandatory treatment of those afflicted. Both victims and perpetrators are to be treated sympathetically, because both, in different way, require to be nursed back to health.
An attempt to insinuate climate as yet another FDIA has failed, Clif claims:
The ‘great thinkers’ of the WEF came up with an idea to transfer the ‘victim’ role to someone who could be a perpetual victim, never to be cured, and thus always to be used for control in their world domination plan. They tried to make the planet ‘trans’. They said that Earth had ‘climate crisis disease’.
The WEF was having the collective FDIA that they are engineering focused on the ‘victim’ of Planet Earth.
It’s been a difficult swap. People just are not buying it. The number of committed FDIA enablers for ‘climate crisis’ is falling by the day.
People are just not buying into the WEF’s ‘crisis’ of climate. Sure, some media, and others, brainwashed or paid, still mouth the platitudes, and the true believer groups still glue themselves to roads, BUT, the trend is down, and the populace is expressing revulsion.
Climate Crisis as the next ‘victim’ mode of the FDIA from the mother WEF is just NOT happening.
He elaborates:
There are so many problems for the mother WEFfers in their Planetary Takeover Plot, but what is truly crushing to their social-mental engineering is to have it brought out that the FDIA ‘disease’, either ‘climate crisis’, or ‘trans crisis’, is not an actual disease, is in fact weaponized FDIA, and is not ‘organic’ in reality.
I believe that Clif has articulated the answer not merely to the trans problem but the overall threat posed by Cultural Marxism. For many years now, Western civilisation has been assailed by the Omnipotent Victims mobilised by the Khazarians with a view to leveraging Western guilt, misplaced and otherwise, in order to effect the total defeat of our civilisation and its surrender to their evil designs. What Clif is saying, deeper down, is that Western civilisation, through its culture and laws, has the means of combating these tendencies, in the first place by enabling itself to see clearly what is happening and how this might be resisted. In order to disable the ‘omnipotence’ of the ‘victims’, we need to separate them from their minders — the Khazarians’ proxies operating Western society, who engineer the Cultural Marxism psy-ops according to supplied protocols, without necessarily knowing what they are doing. Clif’s plan allows us to leverage ‘the science’ of FDIA to draw the sting of the victims’s omnipotence, but by treating their minders and stewards as ‘victims’ too — the hapless sufferers from an obscure mental illness that drives them to do evil without knowing what is happening.
Here is Clif’s Substack on the matter. Ignore the headline, which amounts to the most cynical (i.e. deliberate) clickbait:
Three: It is time for the Irish people (and by extension peoples everywhere) to stand up and reclaim their culture and country from the manipulators and deceivers who are destroying it, and Saint Patrick’s Day presents a golden opportunity to do so.
(Originally published in the March edition of The Irish Light).
The news that the 2023 Saint Patrick’s Day parade in Ireland’s capital city has been hijacked by the LGBT goons to promote the crazed and evil transgender agenda is perhaps the worst we have heard in a while, and that is some statement. A transgender ‘woman’, now calling himself Rebecca Tallon De Havilland, has been announced as the Grand Marshal of the LGBT+ ((+P, one supposes) pageant — one of the leading pageants in this year’s parade, providing perhaps the most egregious example yet of State collaboration in this damaging and wicked ideology.
It is disgusting enough that these loathsome bullies have been allowed to hijack the rainbow, the unicorn and the beautiful month of June. Now they are permitted to besmirch the feastday of the national saint with their nonsense and lies. What this disgusting development bespeaks is that Official Ireland is now so completely captured that there is no discretion left whatsoever, and that any bunch of thugs with backing from some US-based foundation (translation: ‘terrorist organisation’) can move in and shout the odds, not only getting what it wants but in effect laying claim to a part of Irish heritage that ought to belong to the people at large, none of whom were consulted before this was allowed to happen.
It perhaps should not be surprising, when we see our supposed political representatives clamouring for Drag Queen Story Hour, promoting paedophilia by nods and winks in our education system, and pushing legislation that will enable teenagers to mangle their bodies and souls in pursuit of an online-driven craze for self-mutilation without their parents being informed, never mind being asked if they agree.
Words like ‘deranged’ and ‘bonkers’ are no longer adequate to describe what is happening, under numerous headings, in Ireland 2023. The trouble is that we perhaps used these words too loosely in the past, when the bar of insanity rested at a much lower level, and so we wore out their usefulness to describe true and grave insanity when it would eventually materialise. That is where we find ourselves now, with the national saint being appropriated by the scrofulous lunatics driving this agenda, and the entire establishment standing by with foolish grins on their faces, as if to say, ‘Aren’t we so cool!’
They are not. Time will reveal what is happening here as one of the most dismaying episodes in Irish social history (leaving aside, for the moment, all the other egregious things that have been happening of recent times!) Without question, if reason ever returns to our public affairs and spaces, posterity will be as appalled by what is happening in this context now as we have been about past events that have caused our public debate to continue in the manner of a stuck record for 30 years. The idea that people who are no more than children, infatuated by a craze that is spread by propaganda online, should be permitted to destroy their bodies and lives without their baffled and grief-stricken parents being permitted to intervene, must rank as one of the most terrifying things we have heard in a time when terror and menace are the first options of our political class in imposing its will — or, more precisely, the will of invisible but powerful outsiders — upon the people. These times will go down in infamy as the times in which the population stood idly by as a bunch of retarded bullies was allowed to, in effect, maim and disable a generation of young people. There will be no hiding place for the perpetrators — that much is certain — but that will be poor consolation to those who have lost their sexuality, identities, self-confidence, procreative capacities, and indeed their very humanity in the name of an ideology imposed on our culture from above by unseen actors manipulating deranged dingbats and corrupt politicians to impose their objective of demoralising Irish society to the pitch where it will surrender everything it has — and is — in the forlorn hope of attaining some measure of peace.
That no voice of dissent has emerged from within the political or cultural establishments is a dismaying reflection of what we have seen in the Covid and climate contexts: total capitulation to edicts imposed without authority or mandate, mainly from outside; not a single mind or voice capable of expressing the truth about human beings and their desires, and why the first rule of dealing with impulsive actions and behaviour is to avoid, at all costs, anything irreversible. The assault on Saint Patrick’s Day is, in its way, almost as shocking as the substantive threat to the young, but at the same time unsurprising, given the contempt that has been shown towards the national faith for many years by our political class, our legislators, our media and our ‘cultural ambassadors’. In all probability, what pertains in such quarters is a barely restrained glee about the grotesque cheapening and burlesquing of this precious day in the Irish Christian calendar.
But this development also offers an opportunity for the people to answer back, not just about the debasement of the national saint and his feast day, but against the continued and escalating abuses of our country, its territories and borders, its culture and traditions, its faith, its founding fathers and freedom fighters, its past, present and coming generations. It is time for the people of Ireland — and in particular of its capital city, whence most of these evils have erupted — to make a stand against the encroaching tide of filth and depravity that now threatens to sweep everything we value away, and after that to defenestrate the Irish people themselves.
My proposal is this: that, on this coming Friday, March 17th, the people of Dublin stream on to the streets as has been their custom in the past, to participate in the Saint Patrick’s Day parade. They should bring with them tricolours and other flags or banners celebrating Saint Patrick, perhaps totems, relics or images of the saint, and symbols of his teaching in the iconic form he bequeathed us. They should line up along the parade route as usual, gently pressing themselves to the front. And, when the Dublin Pride pageant comes within a hundred yards or so, they should turn their backs on it, so that the message goes around the world that Ireland is finally standing up to Woke and all it has drawn down upon us, that there are some things that lie beyond the Pale of human tolerance, and this is one of them.
What a statement that would be! Let us do it now, before it is too late to speak against these darkening evils.