Debate With Curtis Yarvin

Did British Leftism Create Irish Nationalism?

I recently had a back and forth with Curtis Yarvin on the question of the origins of Irish nationalism, specifically over the question of whether Irish nationalism was somehow an outgrowth of British leftism.

Since this was spread across a few days, and went between replies and quotes, it’s a little difficult to follow even for people on X, so I’ve decided to publish the full exchange here for posterity.

I think the reason Yarvin is so defensive of this position — despite his apparent ignorance of the history surrounding the topic — is that he wants to demonstrate some lesson in elite theory about how supposedly organic movements like ethnonationalism always being downstream of some broader geopolitical machinations, making us nationalists destined to be mere pawns of the real power brokers. It’s also worth pointing out that at one point during this debate Yarvin did repost someone calling the Irish “spiritually brown”, which might suggest there is some deeper ethnic resentment at play.

What is interesting is how much you see people in reactionary circles like Yarvin’s repeat the modernist orthodoxies about nationalism which I’ve spent some time picking apart. Both the Marxists who promote this theory in the academy and rightists like Yarvin take it for granted that nationalism must be some kind of synthetic, elite creation to direct the masses for their own material interests. Yarvin demonstrates here that he takes this on faith. As you’ll see, when the historical record doesn’t support it in a case like Ireland, he just insists it must be the case because that’s how it goes.

Yarvin’s initial post came as a reply to this:

Yarvin opines:

Because Irish nationalism has been a cat’s paw of the London left at least since Gladstone got on his high horse about abolishing the Church of Ireland.

“Nationalism” is the easiest way to camouflage international soft power. Look at the Ukraine today. Same thing

Yes, there is much in it that is truly Irish, and real deviations (de Valera) toward genuine independence.

But Irish nationalism is ultimately just the original anticolonialism—and nothing is more colonial than anticolonialism.

Sorry if this comes as a shock to you.

My response:

This is so dumb. With few exceptions, Irish nationalism had no truck with the international left prior to the 1960s. The IRA was collaborating with NS Germany in the 1940s, hardly an expression of the desires of the "London left".

Even Yarvin's example of Gladstone felt forced to make concessions to Ireland because the country was already united behind Charles Stewart Parnell's Home Rule movement – Gladstone believed some concessions were necessary to preserve the Union and quell Irish nationalism.

In other words, it's the complete reverse of what Yarvin is suggesting. But I suppose I shouldn't expect historical accuracy from a guy who concluded last week that he had uncovered a hidden mass genocide in Western Europe based off the vibes he got from a photo.

Yarvin responds with ChatGPT screenshots:

Sorry to ChatGPT you old chap

Yes I’m still hoping Claude will take me back. But reality rapidly setting in:

I’m well aware that there was all kinds of insane based-Irish stuff around WWII. De Valera sending condolences to the Austrian painter etc.

There is always a bunch of real nationalism around. In all periods. But you see how it ends up lol

I respond:

The best Yarvin could come up with in response is asking ChatGPT to agree with him? Curtis, here's what's not included in your screenshot:

• It's clear that Liberal leader Gladstone wanted to make concessions to Ireland because he feared a more militant Irish nationalism emerging otherwise.

• He only supported Home Rule after 1885, when he failed to secure a majority and needed the votes of Parnell's Irish Parliamentary Party.

• He was so strongly opposed within his party that it led to a split and the formation of the Liberal Unionists who chose to enter coalition with the Conservatives rather than allow any concessions to Irish self-rule.

• Parnell's Home Rule movement had become a formidable force politically independent of the British left.

You haven't done anything to prove your point about Irish nationalism being a cat's paw of the London left. Your argument is the equivalent of saying Ukraine giving more self-rule to its eastern provinces after 2014 proves its government supports Russian nationalism.

Yarvin dismisses the split of the Liberal Party over Home Rule as typical “infighting”:

Lol. Was there ever a movement without infighting? You can prove socialism and communism were Mortal Enemies this way.

If you are a leftist in London in the 19th or 20th centuries, you support Irish nationalism. Without this tailwind, the “Irish” cause is unrecognizably weaker.

I respond:

It's not just "infighting" — they actually abandoned Gladstone and changed sides for a coalition with the Conservatives over the Home Rule issue. And the point is those in Westminster making concessions to the Irish cause were doing so tactically, not as an expression of leftism.

You have yet to demonstrate this supposed sympathy in London did anything to stoke the rise in Irish nationalism. Demonstrate your point instead of just repeating it. If you can't do it over text, let's debate this.

Yarvin:

Do you acknowledge that the natural alliance I describe applies to other 19th and 20th century nationalisms? Is the Irish cause unique, or not unique?

Me:

Did leftists often sympathise with nationalisms within their own empires? Sure. Was this significant to the growth or shape of Irish nationalism? Not at all.

Yarvin offers up a way to refute him:

Keith or anyone else has a simple way to refute this: show us 19th-century English libs on the other side of the Irish conflict—supporting the Ascendancy.

Such people perhaps exist. But they’re about as common as Franco supporters in Greenwich Village in 1937.

I refute him:

"show us 19th-century English libs on the other side of the Irish conflict—supporting the Ascendancy".

There was a bunch of prominent ones that were passionate enough about it to create the Liberal Unionist Party.

Per Robert Ensor's History of England: "virtually the whole whig peerage left Gladstone over Home Rule".

London Liberals actually went the hardest against Home Rule -- Gladstone became more reliant on the "Cetlic fringe".

Sounds like the complete opposite of your narrative.

Despite referencing the Liberal Party throughout the debate, Yarvin now says he wasn’t talking about anyone in the Liberal party, but other, unnamed radicals:

Sorry, by “libs” I meant actual shitlibs, not Liberal Unionists, Liberal Imperialists, etc. Radical would be a better word at this time.

There are no living descendants of anything like Chamberlain’s movement. Compare to McKinley in the US

I respond:

Let's rewind, shall we? Your claim was "Irish nationalism has been a cat’s paw of the London left at least since Gladstone got on his high horse about abolishing the Church of Ireland."

Now you say Gladstone Liberals aren't relevant to your argument, just the real radicals who weren't even represented in government?

Sounds like you've already thrown the argument. In any case, what impact on British foreign policy were these anti-Union, anti-Empire English radicals having on British policy in the late 18th century?

Remember that you're supposed to be demonstrating that they were the guiding hand over Irish nationalism. How did this relationship function if they weren't in government?

Yarvin hasn’t responded to this. I don’t know what he could say at this point. He began by arguing liberals stoked Irish nationalism, using examples specifically from the Liberal Party like their leader Gladstone’s policy on the Church of Ireland and their attempts to negotiate Home Rule. Then in his final post, he decided Liberals and the Liberal Party weren’t relevant to his argument, which was actually all about radical leftists. Obviously, it would be very difficult for him to argue these people were somehow stoking Irish nationalism through the British state if they weren’t even represented in government.

I saw a page here named

Twilight of the Gael

also wrote a response to Yarvin. It includes some important details not included in my posts which I’m sure a lot of my non-Irish audience will be curious about, so I’ll finish with it and encourage you to give him a follow.

Twilight of the Gael:

Curtis Yarvin’s take on Irish nationalism is retarded.

Claiming it was a tool of the “London left” from the time of Gladstone is the kind of contrarian overreach that sounds clever until you check the facts (typical for him).

Gladstone’s disestablishment of the Church of Ireland in 1869 wasn’t a nod to Irish self-determination. It was a calculated imperial reform to shore up the Union by softening Protestant dominance. Irish nationalists — whether militant Fenians or constitutional Home Rulers — weren’t fooled. They didn’t see Gladstone as a fellow traveler. They saw him as the same old problem wearing a liberal mask.

Yarvin also sidesteps the core of Irish nationalism: it was never about aligning with progressive internationalism. It was Catholic, rural, spiritual, and rooted in cultural memory. From the Gaelic Revival to the Easter Rising, the movement was built on the idea of a people with a sacred past and a sovereign destiny. Patrick Pearse, the symbolic heart of 1916, didn’t speak like a liberal reformer — he spoke like a mystic. His writings are steeped in sacrifice, resurrection, and divine national purpose. If anything, he represents a strain of nationalism closer to integralism or proto-fascism than anything resembling the modern left.

De Valera carried that spirit into the state he helped build: Catholic, protectionist, neutral, inward-looking, and fiercely independent of both British and American influence. Say what you like about his Ireland — but globalist it was not.

If Yarvin’s framing were accurate, figures like Seán South wouldn’t exist — and certainly wouldn’t have been celebrated. Killed during the IRA’s Border Campaign in 1957, South was a devout Catholic, a member of the Legion of Mary, and openly anti-Communist. He didn’t die for social reform or class struggle — he died for the Irish nation, its sovereignty, and its faith. Today, South is practically erased from official memory and openly derided by modern progressives as a fascist. In a sense, that’s the point: he’s exactly what Irish nationalism used to look like — militant, moral, unyielding — and exactly what the current order has no place for. His erasure says far more about the present than the past.

Yarvin’s narrative also collapses when you look at the post-1960s republican movement. If Irish nationalism were simply a puppet of international leftism, why were there repeated ideological splits over Marxist infiltration?

The Official IRA drifted into Marxism in the late ’60s and were rejected by a large faction that went on to form the Provisional IRA. That split wasn’t just tactical — it was a rejection of doctrinaire socialism in favour of the traditional nationalist cause. Later breaks, like Republican Sinn Féin’s split from the Adams camp, followed the same logic: a refusal to surrender national principle in exchange for American respectability and globalist alignment.

These weren’t fringe squabbles. They were battles for the soul of the movement — and they make one thing clear: Irish nationalism, at its core, was never aligned with the global left. It resisted both imperialism and ideological subversion.

If today’s Sinn Féin embraces neoliberalism, identity politics, and progressive orthodoxy, that reflects a rupture, not a continuity. The original movement would find them unrecognisable — and unforgivable.

Yarvin’s worldview insists every rebellion is theatre, every resistance co-opted. But Ireland doesn’t fit the script. Its nationalism wasn’t managed, mimicked, or manufactured — it was real, and it was dangerous.

If this is the man whispering in the ears of Silicon Valley’s would-be monarchs — if this smug, historically illiterate nonsense is what passes for intellectual leadership on the so-called “right“— then we’re already fucked.

Thanks for reading. If you want to learn more about the Home Rule movement and Irish nationalism, be sure to pick up a copy of Irish Nationalism: Essential Writings!