Not much of a stretch for an Irish Nationalist Zealot.
Pearse thought the lads in 1900s Ireland were snowflakes as well. The more things change
Much of this started with the strong emphasis on patriotism, which also permeated the curriculum presented to his pupils at St Enda’s. In the school prospectus of 1908 their duties were clearly spelled out: ‘It will be attempted to inculcate in the pupils the desire to spend their lives working hard and zealously for their fatherland and, if it should ever be necessary, to die for it’. Pearse felt that what he saw as a feminised society should recover the ideals of courage, strength and heroism. Through war, he argued, it was possible ‘to restore manhood to a race that has been deprived of it’. In this the shedding of blood was even considered a good thing:
yeah but they did their research on Facebook and Youtube. The internet wouldnt lie.
There is another video there of a woman spouting her shite. At the end then she tells them all that if they want to do something positive about this, seek peace in Ukraine. “these are not Ukrainian” they roar back at her. “Seek for peace” she says and then goes on about the North and Cuba and JFK and war mongers. I think she got a little lost talking about the refugees infiltrating her town.
We had one fella here claiming Ukraine could walk into the UN security council and take Russia’s seat any time they wanted. That’s what you’re up against.
Seamus Deane’s Celtic Revivals: Essays in Modern Irish Literature 1880-1980 (1985) contains a brilliant piece entitled ‘Pearse: Writing and Chivalry’. Deane analyses the passage you quoted, glossing it by noting Rupert Brooke et al said much the same. That aspect of Pearsean nationalism was a pan European phenomenon rather than a specifically Irish affliction.
The only thing I’d say about this is that it will leave the countries they have fled getting worse and worse. I think refugees should be taken in and looked after, educated and what have you, but encouraged to return to their native country if that country becomes relatively safe and stable. The west should really be pouring it’s resources into reducing the need for non economic migration. I don’t think that the demographic stacks up in a lot of cases. I’d be far more in favour of issuing 9 month work visas far more easily, and citizenship far less.
I’d say 99.67% of people on here have no issue with immigrants coming here and trying to build a life… As ever, the system is fucked - a fucked system in time of a housing and cost of living crisis also allows crack pots to play on people’s anxiety and create more fear. We had a record number of homeless this year - migrants are low hanging fruit and unfortunately a buffer for anger that should be directed at government.
I don’t think anyone does, but if we keep taking engineers, teachers, doctors, etc from these countries, they will just get worse and worse like some kind of feedback loop. Look at the geography of places like Albania, Syria etc. They should be the most desirable places to live in the world, but the west would rather pillage and bomb them than help them out.
A load of these young lads are looking for an opportunity to make a few quid. Give them a 9 month renewable visa. Let them come and work and go. It’d stop a load of grey area asylum claims, save a fortune, and I suspect they’d have a homing beacon like most folk do tbh.
I’m not trying to be smart with you, but a few things. People that have been recognised as refugees are fleeing war or persecution. How long do you think that generally takes to resolve? What do they have to go back to? What if they’ve built a life here over a decade? How do you propose to encourage them to go back? And why? That suggestion is pretty nonsense when you give it any consideration at all.
I don’t understand your point about nine month work visas and citizenship. They don’t appear to be in any way related at all. I presume you mean citizenship by naturalisation? Why do you want that to be issued “far less”? What’s the problem with it currently?