May 182011
 

What do the loyalists make of Queen Elizabeth honouring the old IRA?   What do the high-fibre, low-fat, I-can’t-believe-it’s-not-the-IRA make of the GAA president welcoming a British royal to Croke Park?  The two complementary parts of the age-old bitterness, who need each other like ancient co-dependent spouses, must be vanishing up the fundament of their own bewilderment as they behold the appalling scenes in Dublin.

For the loyalists, the queen has created an impossible paradox.  You’re loyal to  your monarch. You’ve even murdered people in the name of that loyalty.  Ironically, though you hate nationalists, you yourself are an extreme nationalist.  You continue to harass Catholics in the name of your professed loyalty.  Now, that monarch to whom you are loyal is honouring the very enemies whose existence brought you into being. So you can’t be loyal to the monarch.  But then you’re not a loyalist so you have to remain loyal.  But you can’t.  But you must.  But you can’t.

And therefore, like an old science-fiction computer, you explode under the pressure of contradiction, but not in a shower of springs and valves.  No.  Your explosion is made of tattoos, pit-bull terriers, dumb-bells and Rangers t-shirts.

And what if you’re the mirror image — a Republican loyalist?  Your loyalty is to an imagined Ireland that never existed, and though you chant “give us back the six counties” you can’t quite say who governed them before the Brits.  Was it an Irish government of the people?  No.  It was a monarchy of sorts, which makes you a royalist.  And so you reveal yourself as a craven serf just like your loyalist brother in bitterness.  You don’t even know who the word “us” refers to.

And so there you are on the streets, making a clown of yourself, claiming to speak on behalf of the Irish people, even though those people have consistently offered you two fingers at every election you’ve ever entered.

Were you on the streets protesting when Cowen’s government committed treason by selling us out to the bankers?

No.  You were not.

You’re self-appointed.  You represent nobody but, like all of your kind throughout the world, you care nothing for what the people think.  In time, you will tell them what to believe.  You are the Taliban.

No.  You’re more ridiculous.  You are the People’s Front of Judea, or maybe the Judean People’s Front.

And now, in your Celtic-twilight madness, you see the legitimate elected (unlike you) government of Ireland welcoming the British Queen.  You witness a guard of honour drawn from the legitimate (unlike you) defence forces of this country.  Worst of all, the hated monarch is laying a wreath at the memorial to your venerated heroes.  In offering respect to the tradition you claim to be a part of, the queen has just offered you the worst insult you can imagine, with the blessing of the Irish people.

You’re not even permitted to nurse ancient grievances, as the bastion of Irish nationalism, the Gaelic Athletic Association, greets the queen of England in the most iconic of locations : Croke Park.  Now what will you do for festering resentment?

What’s left to be loyal to?  Not the State.  You never recognised that.  Not even the Irish people.  But if you can’t be loyal, then what ..?

You have no choice but to explode under the weight of your loyalist contradictions, in a welter of what?

Tattoos, of course, and pit-bulls and, ludicrously, Manchester United shirts.

You’re not so different from the other guy, are you?

  67 Responses to “Loyalist and Republican Lunatics Equally Confused by Queen’s Visit”

Comments (67)
  1.  

    Nice piece of writing there Bockmeister.

  2.  

    Well said Bock, about time the knuckledraggers woke up and smelled the coffee.

  3.  

    In the case of Loyalists, a rationale will emerge of being loyal to the crown despite the errors, perversions and deviations of some unworthies who may be in situ. Perverted logic will also prevail in the Republican hard-liners. This is hardly surprising in RIRA circles where Ruairi O’ Bradaigh is probably regarded as Teashop, since they view him as the inheritor of the 1919 electoral lineage, a lineage unperturbed by the manifestations of Freestate electoral chicanery (democracy) down the years.

  4.  

    I like that. Cheers my man.

  5.  

    As great a piece as I’ve ever read on these two groupings – shame they would not be able to understand what you’ve written…

  6.  

    That last explosion should have a few Celtic jerseys as well.

  7.  

    Great post Bock.
    Their similarities far outweigh their differences.

  8.  

    Cheers, nearly laughed my tattoos off, read it out to Diasy the pitbull she wasn’t imressed though….

  9.  

    Great post baby!

  10.  

    very cerebral. I like it. Am watching her visit with fascination and I will admit, tenseness. I hope some eejit doesn’t do something stupid.

  11.  

    Great post Bock. A lot of my family in Belfast have not relished or supported the visit, although they have not objected with the same passionate abhorrence as those protesting on the streets of Dublin. But nevertheless, they objected. And then said nothing when i pointed out that our local MP, saviour of Ulster Loyalism and, of course, Northern Irish First Minister Mr Robinson was attending.

    Too increase the confusion amongst the objectors, I would have preferred it if the Deputy First Minister had attended, but one cant have everything. Now the elections in the North and South are over, Martin could have risked it though.

  12.  

    Well written sir, your academic ability with both truth and words goes before you.

  13.  

    watched the protesters on t.v. in their man.utd. t.shirts..[english]..have these guys any brains..where did their dads/ relations go to work when times were bad in ireland…get a life lads.

  14.  

    Seem to remember hearing some (more recent) stories of nastiness involving guys called Hitler, Stalin, Amin, Mao, Milosevic, Pot……………………………………………Maybe the knuckle draggers are right – everybody should hate everybody else in the world for ever and ever?

  15.  

    A Royal Post indeed.Great bit of writing.

  16.  

    Excellent post again Bock.

  17.  

    Again? Consistency is my middle name.

    Sometimes.

  18.  

    Yes, excellent.

    (Persistently consistent even!)

  19.  

    Nicely put. I’m no fan of the Queen, but I certainly wouldn’t protest her and give Cowen, Bertie and the other gangsters a free pass. Knuckledraggers can’t see past the bitterness.

  20.  

    Tim — What’s going on with the download file hidden in your link? (Removed)

  21.  

    Do you mean the link to P45movement.org? I dunno. First time I’ve seen that happen. Thanks for the heads up.

    It downloaded some file www4.p45movement.org, which wouldn’t open. When I type the link into a browser it works fine (redirects to p45movement.blogspot.com,
    Weird. Will have to take a look. In meantime, don’t click the link.

  22.  

    The fields autofilled when I posted by the way. I’m assuming it won’t show a link from now on, as I’ve cleared that field.

  23.  

    Well done Bock, your insight is scarily true, let’s hope this visit goes without incident as we do not need anymore bad publicity after the raping we got from the developers?, FF, bankers etc

  24.  

    Great post,Bock.The way the Queen handled herself,her cupla focail,the significance of her visits to the various sites,has certainly been very confusing for hardliners on both sides.
    Manchester United and Coronation Street seem to be the common denominators for knuckle-draggers both sides of the Irish Sea as well as North/South Ireland.

  25.  

    Congratulations Bock,
    Great post and very accurate observation.The Queen speaking an cupla focail must be a bitter pill for many northern Loyalists to swallow ,together with the other events.I should’nt gloat about this but I find it ironic following Unionist fear and hatred of the language.

  26.  

    It might not be as black and white as unionists having a fear and hatred of the Irish language. Have a read of this.

  27.  

    Great Post, I am familiar with this dliemna having spent time in the West of Scotland

    Regularly to be seen the non church going protestants (probalby never seen inside of a church) In their annual march under a banner of convenience, celebrating Unionism / Sectarianism

    The following week at Rangers, then next shouting for Scotland against the English who they also hate when it comes to football, but not over the union.

    Thankfully the other tribe don’t march as much in the summer, where outbreaks of violence would be a regular occurence, they also hate the English when it come to footaball, but they also throw in the hatred of the crown/ Union/ all things English. And now they don’t go to church much either.

    So what are they fighting over ?

    The stupidity not just confined to the North of Ireland, I’m afraid

    Michael Moore (of all people ) has friends in the North of Ireland and summed it up quite well, as an outsider trying looking in trying to understand why ?

    Parahrasing here, but along the lines of one side has moved on (a little bit) and the other side is clinging to the 70’s.

  28.  

    Are you talking about all the protestors, or just the ones who turned up to throw rocks? You make some good points, but I think you weaken your case with the contention that one should only protest if the majority of the Irish people agree with you, or if you have previously protested about other things. I also think there are valid reasons for protesting about this visit, the British non co-operation with the enquiry into the 1974 bombings, mainly.

  29.  

    I didn’t say that you can only protest if the majority of Irish people agree with you. It should be plain from the post that I’m talking about physical-force people on both sides of the divide.

  30.  

    Great post there Bock..
    Some people will always find reasons to be bitter it seems.. needing enemies.. a sad way to live really.

  31.  

    Excellent, excellent post. Been reading it again and again, each times it brings a smile to my face.

  32.  

    What about the Ulster GAA county reps who refused their invites………

  33.  

    Flying the flag for bitterness, bless them.

  34.  

    Flying the flag for bitterness – a bit harsh, glib even.

    Maybe playing hurling and football in the 6 counties was not all fun and games in the not too distant past.
    Might take more then a few years in the sun for some peoples wounds to heal.
    The G.A.A. was represented and Croke park was open to the Queen. That says a lot.
    I happen to like our national sports and I happen to think that the G.A.A. is a great organisation. But then again I am not ashamed of all things Irish and of being Irish, and I am certainly not ashamed of being a Republican. Republicanism is not a dirty word and it should be made clear on this thread that a few youngsters in Man U shirts throwing around thrash cans in Dublin are not representitive of the greater republican family which makes up the majority of citizens in this country.
    Oh and by the way I hope Her Majesty has a great time in Ireland and it is wonderful to see the British head of state on a visit to Ireland. Just as long as she knows she cant take up squatters rights in the Park again……ever again.

  35.  

    I think it’s plain enough that the post isn’t about republicanism — especially since half of it is about loyalists. As it happens, I’m a republican myself, in the sense that I think a republic is the right political system to have, but I’m not a Republican with a capital R.

    To clarify, for the avoidance of all doubt, the post is about those who reject the democratically-expressed wishes of the Irish people north and south.

  36.  

    Your deed ya feinian ,orange,pope loving ,King Billy supporting bas,,, ,,,,eh,,,eh !(head explodes !!)

  37.  

    Yes indeed, It is plain enough what the post is about.
    I was reacting to Barry’s comment about the 6 county G.A.A. reps and your subsequent response. I thought your response was harsh at the very least. I still do. And I felt it needed a response.
    What is your definition of a capital R republican?

  38.  

    “Bock May 19th, 2011 12:46 pm
    It might not be as black and white as unionists having a fear and hatred of the Irish language. Have a read of this.”

    Interesting read, that link.

  39.  

    Thanks for this, a great way to put into words what we were all thinking.

  40.  

    LJS — I don’t have a definition for a capital R republican. I just said I’m not one. Normally, a capital denotes a proper name, indicating a party or movement while lower-case indicates something generic. For instance, an American democrat is not the same thing as a Democrat.

    It’s unfortunate that you think my response is too harsh, but I’m sure the northern GAA people don’t give a rat’s arse about me or my opinions. It’s my view that sometimes in life you have to do the big thing in order to move on, even if you hate it at the time, and by that criterion, I think they were being bitter. While it’s true that they were treated harshly, they don’t hold the monopoly on suffering, and I wish they could see the bigger picture. As with any part of life, what does holding on to hurt achieve?

  41.  

    Bock – Ok so your not a member of a Republican Party or a Republician movement (not sure if I should have a capital M in movement) but there you go. Holding on to hurt achieves nothing. But human beings are not robots, and though it would be great to be able wash off hurt, like we do with dirt on our skin. Its not that easy to forgive and forget when there is still tangible hurt in the heart. They will eventually forgive and forget. I am sure. Time heals all wounds and all that. But ‘Flying the flag for bitterness’ No, sorry,thats just not fair.

  42.  

    We’ll just have to differ on that, I think. If Mary McAleese could get over the childhood experience of being made homeless by armed loyalist mobs, perhaps the GAA men might draw some inspiration from the example.

  43.  

    i find the only unduly unfair references in this article refer to tattooed pitbull owners, of which i am one and one who did peacefully attend the anti-sellout protests last year, could the knuckle draggers not explode in say, a burst of flowery rhetoric, for example…?

  44.  

    Flowery rhetoric? That would be Fianna Fáil, I think. They’ve already imploded.

    As for tattooed pitbull owners, well there’s tats and then there’s tats.

  45.  

    Great piece Bock…
    P.S enjoyed the conversations that followed almost as much….

  46.  

    Good post Bock and thanks for the CAIN link.

  47.  

    Great writing. Humanity, righteous indignation and wit well combined.

    Thank you too for the link. Extremely interesting. Have bookmarked it for future reference.

  48.  

    Were you on the streets protesting when Cowen’s government committed treason by selling us out to the bankers?

    Yes I was Bock. Were you?

    I assume you weren’t as you would have been protesting against the democratically elected government of Ireland something you have made clear is wrong

  49.  

    Brian — Let me clarify that. Where did I say it was wrong to protest against the government?

  50.  

    Apologies if i picked you up wrong bock

    So do you think it is wrong to protest against the government?

    What about protesting against the queen?

    So were you on the streets protesting against the sell out to bankers?

  51.  

    Delighted to see that you did take to the streets. Fair play to you

    What about the queens visit?

    Do you think people had the right to protest against it?

  52.  

    Brian — If you actually read this post, you’ll see that it isn’t about what people have a right to do. It’s about the quality of their thinking. So please, let’s not go down blind alleys just because we can. Ok?

  53.  

    The quality of whose thinking? Everyone that protested against the visit? The bulk of those that protested?

    As for the right to protest against the queen I am just interested in your view on that? I dont see how that is a blind alley considering the topic at hand

  54.  

    It isn’t relevant. People can protest against whatever they want as far as I’m concerned. It has nothing to do with this post. Back on topic now, please.

  55.  

    So whose quality of thinking are you referring to Bock?

    Everyone that protested against the visit? The bulk of those that protested?

  56.  

    Brian – If that isn’t obvious to you, I’ve utterly failed to get my point across while writing this post, or else you’ve completely failed to understand it. Both options say this is a waste of time. Stop now. You’re taking the piss. But much more important : this is going nowhere.

  57.  

    I am sorry if you think I am taking piss because I can assure you I am not. Its not obvious. It doesn’t make clear whether you are a talking about a handful of people or whether you are talking about the vast bulk of those who protested against the visit. I dont see why that is so difficult for you to answer. When you refer to republican ‘lunatics’ who exactly does that refer to?

  58.  

    I have it. You think I’m calling all republicans lunatics, don’t you?

  59.  

    No. I am asking who you are referring to as lunatics? Are you seriously telling us you dont know who you are referring to yourself?

  60.  

    Brian — If you would like to make a general point about the thrust of this post, feel free to do so. You have the floor.

    If, on the other hand, you think you’re going to lead me through a forensic dissection of every sentence I’ve written, you’re deluding yourself. It ain’t gonna happen.

    Now, I’ve been very polite to you so far, and I urge you to hear what I’m saying. Make your point if you have one. If you don’t have a point to make, move on.

  61.  

    My general point is the article is extremely vague as to who it is referring to? I am not asking for a forensic dissection of every sentence. It would be nice to know though who specifically you refer to as ‘lunatics’?

    If you had the decency to reply when I asked you the first time, then you wouldnt need to keep avoiding the question? Do you not know who you were referring to as ‘lunatics’? Do you not know who you were referring to when you referred to peoples ‘quality of thinking’?

    I have also being extremely polite to you bock despite your evasiveness. I am genuinely interested to know who you refer to.

  62.  

    Brian — The word Lunatics does not appear in the post. It’s in the headline.

    Now, here’s my final word on the subject. Every community has its lunatics. Loyalists have theirs. Nationalists have their lunatics. The IRFU contains lunatics as does the GAA. Republicans are not immune to this, and the headline refers to those lunatics who are republicans.

    This is not going to become a long exchange of comments.

    The end.

  63.  

    Fair enough. Still cant understand why you are afraid to actually tell people who it is your article specifically refers to. Unless you want it to be deliberately vague so it can be misinterpreted….

    Doesn’t seem to be much point writing an article when you don’t even know yourself who it is that you are actually writing about

    Whatever makes you happy bock!!

  64.  

    It refers to da LUNATICS Brian… speaka da Engli?

  65.  

    Who are these ‘LUNATICS’ FME?

  66.  

    Loopy people Brian. They don’t wear a t-shirt saying, ‘I am a lunatic’, you know.

Leave a Reply