Beware of the Risen Aul One: Reflections on Pride vs Joe Duffy:

“I see the worst in people. I don’t need to look past seeing them to get all I need. I’ve built my hatreds up over the years, little by little” – Daniel Plainview, ‘There Will be Blood’

We Kill Our Children and Mock the Dead

Edmund Burke once defined society as “a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born”. If this standard is accepted as a sound vision of how society should be, then contemporary Ireland, the land of sex workers and sodomites, fails to meet the threshold of Burke’s dictum.

We cannot speak of a partnership between the living and the prospective living after the Irish people sanctioned slaughter in the womb – 21,000 babies have been aborted since 2018. And in light of the controversy surrounding Joe Duffy, it’s clear that our elite bears little respect for the dead generations that precede us, many of whom shed blood for this Island – a fact they either ignore, appropriate for maladaptive and immoral ends, or petulantly scoff at.

Is it a smart idea to allow one’s society to be browbeaten by deviants? To be ruled by the capricious will of a conspiratorial coterie of libido driven scum. If surveyed our ancestors would either laugh or answer in unanimity: No.

Yet the prevailing attitude takes great pride in breaking the penultimate of Burke’s stipulations: our partnership with the dead. The poor Kerry peasants of yesteryear may have been able to speak Latin, but they are mere ignoramuses when juxtaposed to the fruits of our education system; they may be equally drug addled and sexually confused, but at least they did CSPE!

Cope, Seethe, Dilate

I won’t recount the minutia of what occurred, a broad brush account will suffice. A thing (she didn’t comprehensively clarify her ontological status) called into Liveline, hosted by Joe Duffy – as an aside, his faux wurkin’ class schtick is tedious; Duffy is too scared to go to a D4 Avoca, nevermind Finglas or Darndale. This thing contended that the word “‘woman’ should be removed from the Maternity Act in order to make it inclusive of those who choose not to identify as a woman but who want to give birth”.

Thereafter, she was challenged by an array of callers, whose reasonable opposition was framed by leftists and queers alike as the hateful haranguing of a courageous stalwart of inclusion. The show was a fiasco for RTÉ. Dublin Pride terminated their relationship in response, and RTÉ’s head honchos have been asked to attend an Oireachtas committee.

As Ciaran Brennan astutely put it, our “deep state is the constellation of NGOs and LGBT networks who inhabit all layers of the state-corporate nexus”. He further opines that RTÉ’s platforming of gender critical voices, and the hysterical riposte from discord mods who pretend to be women represents a cleavage among Ireland’s hegemonic strata.

While the affair may strain relations with senior figures in the national broadcaster and the troon haut monde, I don’t foresee an RTÉ satrapy staffed by TERF harlots, ruled with an iron fist by Glinner, its paternal male satrap; Fr. Ted re-runs ad infinitum, albeit amended to include the words: “I hear you’re a transphobe now, Father”.

However, another demarcation has been accentuated by the controversy. Germinating for some time, but not yet explicit to the common denominator, this recent instance of elite moral hysteria has buttressed the divide between it and ordinary people, especially older generations.

Ireland’s shunt to the left, as evinced by the 2015 and 2018 referenda, should not be interpreted as a complete departure into an abyss where lucidity’s rays do not shine. There is a perverse logic to gay marriage and abortion if one accedes to leftist and liberal priors. Trangenderism, though less evil than abortion, is distinguished by its prima facie absurdity. Even the Irish general public, characterised chiefly by pliancy, cannot imbibe that a 6’6, 230-pound jarhead who puts on a dress to satisfy his porn-induced fantasies is a woman.

The Absurdity of Transgenderism

It’s an affront to our instincts and God-given rationality. For transgenderism to possess veracity, one must swear fealty to a platonic world of forms, a position that suffers from a paucity of congruency with the prevailing atheism of the left, marked by its empiricist pretence – in reality: middling deference to so-called experts.

Put differently, transgender individuals subscribe to the contention that their, say, male physical form has been alienated from its real feminine nature. But if they’ve been delinked from their real gender since instantiation, then where other than some metaphysical realm must it be located? Troons are the real Platonists? Based? Cringe? My brain is too fried to know.

The more cerebral among them will retort: “realism is a spook; we’re nominalists who view all categories as a human contrivance, and we thus defy our linguistic entrapment by gendered language”.

Yet even this position is problematic. Firstly, transgender rhetoric is incongruous with this position – see the frequent appeal to one’s real nature i.e as a dainty princess (you’re a neckbeard with multiple OnlyFans subscriptions). Secondly, since nominalism means that categories aren’t extant independent of human convention, the tranny’s claim to be [insert gender here] is fundamentally fake and gay.

Thirdly, why shouldn’t a government invent labels which, at worst, roughly correspond to physiological and mental differences. When one examines a human populace it’s transparent that traits converge among certain groups. For instance, although facial hair (Pakistani broads) and a larger frame are not exclusive to men, they’re more common among humans which possess male primary sexual characteristics; conversely those possessing female primary and secondary sexual characteristics tend to display contrasting traits. There are grey areas, but such exceptions prove the broader rule.

A society which directs its actions toward adaptive, rather than maladaptive ends, must take account of this basic reality when it evaluates its societal mores and laws, and construct divergent, but complementary roles for both.

Owing to their greater strength, logical nature, resilience etc. a functionalist construction would allot matters of war and political power, as well as symbolically significant, but functionally inert, positions to men – the latter should exclude women, for a race which confers power to its women will indubitably be mocked, and later scorned, by more warlike races.

Life for women should entail greater restrictions, but also key privileges. Naturally, they will never face the frontlines, owing to their weakness and the necessity of one’s broodmare subsisting in order to fulfil generational repletion. Moreover, women disrupt the dynamic between men. Their intrusion into male spaces leads to simping and jealousy – see ‘Romper Stomper’. Every man deserves a woman, but he must keep his beur within the remit of the homestead

Conclusion: Beware of the Risen Aul One

The right laments the political and economic factors that stifle our electoral efficacy. But we must not forget that inertia stems, in part, from sentimentalism. We ponder why the people do nothing while the poison incrementally drips. But the people’s vista is obfuscated by cultural landmarks that elicit reflexive nostalgia, thus distracting the average person from the entropy that surrounds them.

The derogation or distortion of cultural pillars foments a cultural landscape that’s psychologically alien. In turn, this induces a collective sense of ennui and alienation in place of prior feelings of identification with wider society. One’s purview becomes naked, cleared of all previous sentimental attachments to the system; more open to the possibility of peripheral politics, which is now viewed as potentially redemptive, the last resort to quash malaise. 

Joe Duffy’s ‘Liveline’ is an important pillar of life for post-menopausal Irish women. The organised transgender lobby has erred in their decision to quarrel with it. Their outrage risks alienating an important demographic from the left. Twitter user @JRD0000 put it well:

“For better or worse, many people in Ireland buy Joe Duffy’s self-cultivated image of the everyman. When extremists come to silence him, they see themselves in him more than they would with some shadowy far right imaginary figure”