Ruarí Ó Brádaigh: Robert White's biography of a Republican idealist

by AntSF Fri May 12, 2006 21:50

Read the Village review of this book, not the book yet. Village review seems to get the picture a lot better than this `praising toss - "doomed to compromise" - seeing as RSF has less than 0.2 % support might have to accept a bit of compromise if it wants to have any input to anything in this country - stop this hero worshiping of the old scarecrow

by Padraig Cooney - none Fri May 12, 2006 22:03

It's sad to see an honest look at the man refered to as "toss". Would you not be better trying to attempt to take issue with the valid and factual points raised in the review? unable?

I think it was a very fair and honest review. I understand that in some circles, simply because it is, makes it an object of scorn. Much like ROB and RSF themselves. Did you read Anthony Coughlan's review. A "Masterly Biography" he called it. By all acounts this is the best biography in regards to an Irish public figure since Desmond Greaves work on Connolly.

by Barry - 32 csm Sat May 13, 2006 01:31

Whatever ones criticisms of OBradaigh and RSF he was a man of action as well as intellect . He was never bought off , he can never be bought off. His military career as well as his political thought , the Eire Nua programme , the identification with the anti colonial struggles in the colonised third world ( similar in analysis to the theories put forward by Franz Fanon) are head and shoulders above those who ousted him , by gerrymander and undemocratic practices . The same practices were used a decade later to drive an entire movement into ignoble defeat and utter surrender . To become a fully functioning part of the enemy colonial camp in Ireland .

Ive always believed that the Marxism speedily abandoned by Adams and his coterie of British agents once it had got them into leadership was merely a device used to undermine the OBradaigh leadership and those in the movement who supported him . To throw out Eire Nua , on the grounds it was sop to unionism only to advocate entering stormont a few years later strikes me as a similar ploy , merely to undermine .

Unlike Adams OBradaigh confronted the enemy head on , even in the belly of the beast when he raided their barracks for arms . And later in the field with the same arms at the head of a flying column on the border . Adams sent out youngsters and read books and posed . And plotted and connived and kept himself right with the enemy .

And unlike Adams OBradaigh despite my disagreements is a man Ill always respect . For his intellect and his refusal to go with the flow . To demand the overthrow of the entire system and have no truck with any colonial construct on this island . Years ago I had a great evening in his company and was impressed to see him roll up his sleeves and sit for an hours crack with myself at a table paying no heed to assorted RSF eejits trying to bask in his company in front of others . His honesty and lack of airs and affectations is something that struck me . Unlike Adams with his tree hugging , posing with his pipe and his intellectual pretentions .

Whatever OBradaighs faults his honesty and commitment stands head and shoulders over the snakes with their litany of cowardice , intrigue and sickening treachery who ousted him with their all too familiar tactics . Lies , scorn , spin and gerrymander .

I remember that 86 ard feis well . And I remember the promises made by Adams , McGuinness and co to the assembled delegates " fear not comrades , we will lead you to the republic" .

Im going to post a link here to those lying no good bastards in action so people can see for theselves .

by Barry - 32csm Sat May 13, 2006 02:02

link here to the gerrymandered 86 ard feis . When RO'B goes to speak Adams hops in to soak up the applause and make sure people clap him too . McGuinness talks shite as well

http://upthera.net//IRM/Irish%20Republican%20Media%20-%...6.WMV

documentary here from 1997 were ROB speaks

http://upthera.net//IRM/Irish%20Republican%20Media%20-%...A.wmv

by Keera Sat May 13, 2006 17:12

Thanks, Barry, for a well written reply. Sadly others do not follow your lead. Perhaps the editors here would consider adding this to the main page. Only because both this article and the book it is a review of, delve into largely unknown history. RSF and Republicanism is largely misrepresented. Some questions.
What/Who was behind the raid at the Feakle peace talks?
What could have come out of those talks?

Has ROB not been a concilatory figure in regards to the conflict?

Is Eire Nua/Saol Nua not viable options, are they worthy of discussion/debate?
Was Eire Nua a "sop to Unionism"? If it was, What is the GFA?
What do we make of Unionist/loyalist positive feedback regarding Eire Nua?

Was Eire Nua the first Green document put fourth by an Irish political organization?

Has ROB been proved to be correct in his anaylsis? Have the provos been "brought into" the system?
Should revolutionaries take part/pprop up the very system they seek to rid?

There are so many things that can be discussed here. An real oppurtunity to learn is available about a subject some would like to be swept under the carpet. Yet if history is anything to go by, then we will all be discussing this again in another generation. RSF/Republicanism want to deal with the root cause of conflict and have put fourth proposals for a new enviromentally sound ,decentralised, nuetral Ireland. Makes sense to me. What doesnt make sense to me is why anyone who uses this site would be against those ideas. That the corrupt 26 county state, the occupied 6 counties, the status quo? Or a new Ireland?

by Seamus Sat May 13, 2006 21:13 twtone at lycos dot ie

A very well written review. Next time Im in BAC I will be sure to drop into ofig an SFP and buy a copy of the biography. Be worth the ineviditable Special Branch harrassment. Ruarí must be one of the most principled men in éire, who could ever say that about any of the establishment politicians, and I include PSF in that. Maybe his dream will come through one day, I certainly hope so,
beir bua RSF, agus Ruarí an tírghrách fear cróga.
Seamus

by Molly Childers Sun May 14, 2006 00:09

The problem with Ruairí Ó Brádaigh, a fine fellow by all accounts, is that he is 'timeless'. It does not matter what is going on in reality, Ruairí, will stick to his guns. Brits in Ireland, therefore shoot Brits. British policy, Dublin government policy: shoot Brits. Ruairí awaits that certain hour when the tide will turn. Like a stopped clock, he is bound to be right at some point in the future.

Far from the adulation of the revue, no real revolutionary worth his/her salt ever behaved like this. The reference to Rosa Luxembourg is devoid of context and is meaningless. Ruairí fights the last battle and says ‘we should have won, our opponents did not fight fair’.

Parliaments: abstain. Parliaments that Irish people vote for in droves and expect to resolve political issues: ignore and abstain from them. Parliamentary bodies that the unionists will not work and that the Brits subvert: ignore them and try and shoot some Brits (not very successfully).

Barry, by all accounts also a very fine fellow, thinks that Ruairí had substantial support in 1986 at the then Sinn Fein Ard Fheis - why then did only a tiny minority follow him out of the Ard Fheis? Presumably Barry did not, as he is in the 32 County Sovereignty movement and voted in favour of getting rid of the albatross of abstentionism as a 'principle'.

It is a common republican mistake to fall out with former friends and then to find out they were wrong all along. Everything they did was suspicious. This leads to intense naval gazing and bizarre theories about Gerry Adams – Ed Maloney is the greatest exponent of this approach. Spies, spies everywhere. Gerry and Martin are to blame for Denis Donalsdson, but not Barry and his pals (I hesitate to mention the name David Rupert). In fact, the Brits are to blame, though you might not know it from reading some of the stuff I have seen.

Instead of plunging into introspection, why not get involved in some actual politics and oppose unionism on the ground. A revolutionary theory needs to be tested through politics – get on with it and come back when you have achieved something.

Ruari O Bradaigh really is a very fine fellow, an idealist whose ideas were overwhelmed by reality. Change the ideas or change the way they were implemented though abstentionism. You will end up where Gerry Adams is now. Then figure it out. That is the hard part.

by Barry Sun May 14, 2006 00:37

Why did only a tiny minority follow him out of the ard feis ?

http://upthera.net//IRM/Irish%20Republican%20Media%20-%...6.WMV

Leaving aside the gerrymandering you obviously missed the bit were Martin McGuinness promises /tells barefaced lies to the assembled delegates " our position will never , NEVER NEVER change , the war.must continue until Irish freedom is acheived ..blah blah blah" Of course we now know from their own accounts " the peace process" started at that very Ard Feis . Its a seminal moment .

At that period of time vast amounts of arms and explosives were being landed . Many people who would have instinctively rejected and distrusted Adams thought it better to remain on , and tried to convinve ROB of the same . But the motherlode with the tactical weapons as opposed to the small arms of the other shipments was never going to be allowed through . The tet offensive never happened , a high up agent in Adams clique tipped off the Brits and it was caught off France. And even before that , according to themselves , the peace process had already begun .

Its worth pointing out too that only about 3 hours previous to that handshake and back slapping Adams and his mates ( with scap in attendance) face to face threatened OBradaigh and OConnail with death , physical execution . And theres Gerry patting him on the back pretending to be his mate when the cameras are running . The mans a snake . Thats the 2 facedness and deviousness of the entire barrel of rats .

by Barry Sun May 14, 2006 00:47

Republican seperatism isnt about opposing unionism , its about opposing British rule in Ireland . Thats constitutional nationalism within a British framework that you and your party advocate .You and your party have accepted British rule in Ireland not only as legitimate but conceivably as legitimately permanent . Shortly Adams party will physically join the British police police in Ireland and defend the realm . Which sooner or later will mean jailing and shooting republicans . Thats not republicanism .

Republican seperatism , fenianism , is "timeless" in as much as it rejects the legitimacy of any form of colonial rule in this country and the armed forces which enforce it .

Whatever my disagreements with RSF Id much prefer to read about a lifetime spent upholding this radical and revolutionary perspective than a political career of a charlatan , collaborator and outright traitor attempting to destroy it .

by r-e-p-u-b-l-i-c Sun May 14, 2006 01:06

Sinn Fein today declare opposing unionism is republicanism . No mention of opposing Britain or its right to rule here , its fully accepted. If British rule is accepted as legitmate , conceivably permanently so then Adams has doomed us to perpetual sectarianism in the north , perpetual division and perpetual British rule . Perpetual opposing unionism and playing the sectarian card . Plenty of votes in it and plenty of British money to play along in their centuries old little gane so why not

by Molly Childers Sun May 14, 2006 02:35

Opposing unionism politically is sectarian? How pathetic can you get. This is pitiful.

Fenianism "timeless"? The 'new departure', the alliance with Parnell - what was that exactly?

Barry, who sometimes writes clearly, has gone hysterical - so totally fixated by 'where did it all go wrong' that politically he is easy meat. The "motherload" - is this for real? This is nonsense. It is no wonder these people are going nowhere.

Get a grip.

by Barry Sun May 14, 2006 05:11

Please explain your strategy to oppose and confront British rule in Ireland , as opposed to arguments with virtually powerless unionist politicians . Unonists are a politically impotent as nationalsts . Britin rules , not local parties .
What is your strategy to oppose Britsh illegal claims to soverignty over Irish territory , mo chara . Where is your strategy to challenge , never mind defeat British sovereignty over Irish territory ?

by Seamus Sun May 14, 2006 10:08 twtone at lycos dot com

Barry,
thank you for the links to those media clips, well worth viewing regardless of your stance on republicanism. Was funny to see Martin Mac Guinness mouthing his Never Never Never speech.
Interesting times ahead....
S

by AMused Sun May 14, 2006 10:27

Barry you have a cheek asking MC what her strategy to defeat the Brits is. Anytime ytou are asked the same question you huff and puff, and simply refer the questioner to your movement;s website. Your own strategy seems to consist of ranting against the Brits, against Adams, against change - while insinuating that a resumption of the Good Old Days (ie war) is the way forward. Never mind that it has always failed spectacularly - good ole immovable Ruairi, or ther likes of Madman McKevitt, is the answer. You are stuck in the past and seem to have learned little from decades of disaster. You and your movement, still dripping in the blood of Omagh (undaunted by even that catastrophe) are part of the problem, not the solution.

by Barry Sun May 14, 2006 10:53

Thats the cause of the conglict . Either address the problem or perpetuate it .

by Barry Sun May 14, 2006 10:54

Its the cause of the conflict . Either address the problem or perpetuate it .

by Molly Sun May 14, 2006 12:03

So, you hung around in Sinn Fein in 1986 because someone waved pictures of a few guns and you went all quivery.

Puleeeeese…..

Bar, a Chara,

What are the political, strategic and institutional obstacles to a United Ireland? How do you get from where you are now to there? How to you mobilise the majority of nationalists on the island (not simply in the Six Counties) to turn it into a realistic possibility within a timeframe of political action?

Work that out (try not to put all the obstacles down to the guy standing beside Bobby Sands in the photograph in Long Kesh) and come back to me.

As to the poster who says that unionists have no power, they have the residual power of a sectarian state set up for their benefit. They have the power to prevent nationalists from moving freely through towns. They have the power to attack nationalists and to kill them – they have the sectarian ideology to back up actions with words. They have a political power structure in which sectarianism runs from the streets to the committee rooms in a relatively seamless manner. That is the reality of British rule in Ireland. It is a reality to nationalists every day. The police force of this state will inevitably relapse back into sectarian ‘order’ – the path of least resistance to police rule in a sectarian state. To oppose that is not sectarian.

Breaking the power of the unionist monolith is part of the pathway to breaking British power in Ireland. The refusal of unionism to form the Executive, the attempts to subvert it by elements of British and unionist institutional power, means that they know that unionism as an organised sectarian block cannot survive sharing power on equal terms with nationalists in the North. Trimble knew it and it destroyed him. Paisley knows it and his allies in the apparatus of the state know it. (Put your thinking cap on, Barry, and come back with a more worked out criticism of this view.)

I see that Barry has put up some videos on another thread that show nationalists under attack from assorted sections of unionism. Sinn Fein is involved on the ground in helping communities to defend themselves and to create organised political opposition to sectarianism. Presumably Barry agrees with that, despite his differences. If so, that is a start. Put away the guns. Nationalists are not interested in that path (north of south), you have not got enough, and you will go nowhere – certainly not towards a United Ireland.

by Amused Sun May 14, 2006 12:04

Barry - I know you despise the Brits, but does that extend to not understanding the English language? Since you felt comfortable asking MC for her strategy to defeat them, I asked you for yours. Would you care to answer - are you too busy just ranting?

by Molly Sun May 14, 2006 12:09

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76019

If Barr agrees with everything on that post, we are going somewhere.

by subtext Sun May 14, 2006 13:03

I find it interesting that the subtext in the discussion seems to be that those who support Sinn Fein don't want this book to be read. Why shouldn't the book be read and judged on its merits or lack of? What is there to be afraid of?

While the discussion between Molly & Barry is interesting, I find it more interesting/curious the push to sideline the book.

by Barry Sun May 14, 2006 13:16

"Bar, a Chara,

What are the political, strategic and institutional obstacles to a United Ireland?"

The undemocratic and sectarian unionist veto ( which sinn fein accepts as legitimate) , Britains partitioning of Ireland ( which sinn fein accepts as legitimate) the sectarian GFA which legitimises the above ( which Sinn Fein accepts as legitimate) , that big British parliament sitting in stormont ,( which sinn fein accepts as legitimate) , illegal British political and military interference in Ireland ( which sinn fein accepts as legitimate political activity , conceivably in perpetuity) , the British armed forces in Ireland ( which sinn fein are on the verge of physically joining) , the British governemnt ( which sinn fein now view as an honest broker as opposed to a malignant occupying force) .

And last but by no means least BRITAINS ( contested) CLAIM TO SOVEREIGNTY OVER IRISH TERRITORY . ( who contests it ?)

The biggie , the bedrock of British occupation ( but its no longer an illegal occupation now , right ?) . Non negotiable from the outset in the GFA negotiations , not even up for discussion . Triple lock , union secure . End of story . Which Sinn Fein accepted as well as accepting that all Irish claims to sovereignty over the national teritory should be abandoned .

Defending nationalist communities ? By surrendering "illegal" weapons , while the "legal" British forces hold on to theirs ? Along with the territory , uncontested .

Timeframe ?? All the aboves supposed to be gone by 2016 according to Sinn Fein , am I right ? Or was that from the same book of telling bare faced lies as Martins "never , never , never" speech at the Ard Feis I linked to above . Remember , the Ard Feis were the " peace process" began ( or to be more precise the secret talks with British intelligence behind the movements backs while telling them " never , never, never" and waving guns in peoples faces to convince them not to leave the movement ,) . Thats before the high ups sabotaged the arms shipments that would have quare and scuppered the same " peace process"

by AMused Sun May 14, 2006 13:22

So Barry, what to do? Your answer is????????

by Barry Sun May 14, 2006 13:31

"I find it interesting that the subtext in the discussion seems to be that those who support Sinn Fein don't want this book to be read. Why shouldn't the book be read and judged on its merits or lack of? What is there to be afraid of?"

I think its safe to say this book can be added to the banned list along with Richard ORawes and Ed Moloneys . Unhelpful to the peace process , mo chara .

One would think that a profile of the founder and former president of Provisional Sinn Fein would be required reading for members of that party but seemingly not .

Interestingly a brother of mine welcomed the late Denis Donaldson onto the segregated wing in Maghaberry a few years back . He felt it important that this senior sinn fein official shouldnt feel under threat on a wing full of burly Real IRA types . He asked did he nedd anything , teabags biscuits and the like or anything to read . Even got him the loan of a radio . Denis said thanks and that hed appreciate a few books to pass the time . The bro , being a cheeky little sod then returned with Moloneys book . Donaldson exploded in rage , literally physically recoiled from the book like Dracula from the Bible . For a long time British agent he certainly displayed remarkable loyalty to his mates in that leadership .
One thing that leadership has in common with the late Denis was a serious aversion to certain books . One wonders what more they have in common as opposed to views on unsuitable literature ?

by Molly Sun May 14, 2006 16:08

I started off talking about Ruarai O B – it was Barry who deviated into other matters that clearly occupy most of his thoughts. I was happy to indulge him.

As to the book, of course I will read it. I read Maloney’s conspiracy theory and the “solid” (according to the reviewer above) hatchet job on Martin McGuinness by the two former sticks in the Sunday Times (who made such fools of themselves at the Bloody Sunday Enquiry: Martin McGuinness did it and he was not a nice boy in school).

On the other matters Barry raised.

Barry has not answered the question I asked.

Barry, you accuse Sinn Fein of things that they don’t articulate and don’t accept. And tell us things about British interference in Ireland that your average Fianna Failer would have difficulty refuting. But moving from the ‘A’ of describing the problem to the ‘B’ of doing something practical about it, there is not a peep. You think the union is “secure” under this “triple lock” you mention. Why do you bother getting out of bed in the morning then, what is the point? Why did the quietly astute Jim Molyneux, former head of the UUP, describe the peace process as a greater threat to the union than armed struggle? Is he thick? Why have the unionists and their friends in the apparatus of the state attempted to sabotage it at every turn? I believe I asked a variation of this question before, but I await an answer.

Why did the establishment in Dublin go into a frenzy of attacks on anyone in or associated with Sinn Fein in the past 18 months? Why the attacks on Frank Connolly and the Centre for Public Enquiry, and the linking of him to Colombia, why the vilification of Phil Flynn, why the media and political frenzy over Castlereagh and the Northern Bank robbery? Why the furore over the McCartney murder, when the normal reaction of the southern elite to the demise of a working class nationalist is ‘so what’, another one bites the dust (not to diminish the unjustified nature of that attack). One reason Barry, conservative and reactionary forces on this island are afraid of a smooth transition to power sharing as of right in the North. It destabilises Unionism and therefore destabilises Partition. Otherwise, unionists would not be so worried about it, would they?

The Northern state, I must again remind you, Barry, is a sectarian state designed to put a sectarian form of 'Protestant' unionism power in perpetuity. The GFA takes that away - that is why the unionists (or a part of them) had to be dragged kicking and screaming into it and why they have tried to wriggle out of it ever since. You do not address this point Barry because it does not compute in your blinkered world view, does it?

All you have given us, Barry, is more dramatic gibberish, of which “the high ups sabotaged the arms shipments” is a typical example. Do you know Barry, that there are people in this world who assert that US astronauts never actually landed on the moon in 1969. They say it was all a charade with bright lights, some sand and a backdrop of the night sky. These lunar thicks have constructed an elaborate conspiracy theory to sustain themselves in time of trial. Nothing can shake them from their sincerely held and impenetrable beliefs. Do you want to turn into one of those, Barry?

By the way I do know that Ruari O Bradaigh is an extremely tolerant and kind individual who will listen to anyone. He suffers fools gladly.

Go on, have another go.

by Al Sun May 21, 2006 13:21

I have just read the Village review of the O'Bradaigh book. The book was sold out in Ireland so I purchased on Amazon.

Having read the book (Which is more than can be said for a lot of the contributors here), I feel the Village review was extremely unfair. It appears to be a review of O'Bradaigh's politics from the reviewer’s personal political perspective as opposed to an actual review of the book.

The reviewer, for some bizarre reason seems to feel that the book should also provide a platform for former comrades of Mr O'Bradaigh . Yet the reviewer never mentions the author’s statement "that despite many requests for interview he received no reply from Gerry Adams". Incidentally Gerry Adams is a regular paid contributor to the Village. Perhaps it would have been fairer if he had reviewed it the book. At least we would have known where he was coming from.

My own suspicion is that the Village reviewer did not actually read through the book. If he had, I would have thought that the foreword by Ed Maloney (author of "a secret history of the IRA ") would have merited comment.

But then again, Ed Maloney has been demonised by the official republican movement ever since his own book was published.

I agree with the suggestion from a previous contributor that official republicans here do not want to debate the book on it’s merits but simply want to stop people reading it.

Whatever your views on Mr O'Bradaigh's politics, this book is essential reading for anybody seriously interested in Irish Republican politics. Read the book and make up your own mind.

by Molly Sun May 21, 2006 19:40

No answer from Barry.

(Poster above: "Ed Maloney has been demonised"? Give me a break. You mean criticised, don't you?)

For what it is worth, my view of the critics of Sinn Fein is that they cannot see past the differences. They are trapped in a time warp in which there is a ‘magic key’ that will unlock what exactly ‘went wrong’. Hence the childish attempt to pinpoint some fiendish plan by Gerry Adams to derail the struggle, for which ‘evidence’ is found in 1986, 1981, 1979. It is no wonder the offshoots from Sinn Fein since 1986 have largely self-destructed. Since they cannot blame themselves for their inability to create a viable pole of political attraction, they indulge in a fruitless and destructive search for those who are ‘traitors’ to a pure and pristine cause.

The Provisional IRA and Sinn Fein were in the best position to harness the anger of the mass uprising of the nationalist population in the 1968-70 period. The ‘Eire Nua’ policy was always an irrelevance and no one paid it any more than passing attention. Those on the ground were practical in their approach and learned as they went along. Many old shibboleths were discarded along the way. The ‘principle’ of refusal to recognise the courts was dropped when that was seen as military suicide, and the ‘principle’ of abstentionism was dropped when that was seen as political suicide. (Presumably Barry agrees with me on this.)

It was real life and death issues that decided whether and in what circumstances it was right to get involved in elections. The ‘Gerry and Martin said this and Daithi and Ruairi said that’ approach above is just pathetic. Several of the participants were right and/or wrong about various things along the way. It was political struggle with a vigorous and dynamic ebb and flow. A lot of the stuff contributed here is just codswallop that, if I was a British spook or one of their media friends, would leave me sniggering in my boots, and that I would do my utmost to encourage mightily.

So I would say to Barry and his friends, start getting your hands dirty with some politics. Make some mistakes – it is the only way to learn. Oh, and another thing, take a look at the establishment agenda (the ‘big picture’ I mean) with regard to protecting Paisleyism and attacking Sinn Feinism, and try and distance yourself from it.

by Al Mon May 22, 2006 06:25

To the poster above

YES, I mean demonised, as in forced to leave the country on threat of physical violence.

by Molly Mon May 22, 2006 09:17

You are wrong Al. 'Criticised' - or 'ignored' - is a better term.

by not fooled Mon May 22, 2006 10:20

Well, Molly, for all your eloquence above that last sticking point is what discredits your argument completely - your words cannot be trusted. Anyone who has followed the debate around Moloney's book and his peace process reporting knows he was most certainly not "ignored", nor merely criticised. Demonised is a good word for it, and as far as the proof being in the pudding, he no longer resides in Ireland, does he?

by Molly Mon May 22, 2006 11:32

A few billion people live outside Ireland. A few million have left the Emerald Isle over the years. Ergo, says our thumb-sucking genius, this is proof of being forced to depart for parts foreign. You will have to do better than that. I repeat Mr/s 'not fooled' (sic): you, and Al, are wrong. You live in a political fantasy land.

by Barry Mon May 22, 2006 12:16

Those millions didnt have to leave the country immediately after wiriting a book that the SF leadership and particularly Denis Donaldson regarded as dangerous blasphemy . For someone whose entire career has been in Irish political reporting for decades the sudden move does seem to have a tad more to do with necessity than with a mid life crisis and a yearning for foreign climes .
Im struck with the similarity of the fate of Cristín ní Elais . But I suppose she just felt like emigrating as well .

by Molly Mon May 22, 2006 14:39

Did Ed tell you this Barry, or are you making it up as you go along? What is the actual evidence, as distinct from the outpourings of your imagination? It seems like one of those things we might have heard about before now.

by Amused Mon May 22, 2006 16:11

I find it interesting that Barry can respond to any issue under the sun, except one: what exactly is your strategy for dealing with the problems that you diagnose? |He feels perfectly free rto ask others this. But his own response, other than silence, is only ever to refer people to the 32CSM website. Bizarre.

by Barry Mon May 22, 2006 16:25

you are a persistent troll and i dont engage with you for that reason only. If you want to start a thread on the subject which is a completely different one to the subject being discussed please feel free to do so . A debate on 32csm strategy clearly does not concern the subject of Ruairi OBradaighs biography . Try and start a thread with a critique , background , summary , links points etc as others have done .

Or just carry on as you are were i suspect youll merely come back with some sneering troll like reply as usual . Make the effort and you may find people can be bothered to engage with you . Or stick to the trolling and continue to be ignored , up to yourself .

by amused Mon May 22, 2006 18:38

well, Barry, is Molly a troll too????? Your discussion of the biography raised wide questions of strategy, and YOU took the chance to be dismissive of recent developments in Sinn Fein. Fair enough. I think it is a POLITICAL biography, so to discuss it at all is to have a debate about whether the subject of the book is a visionary or a lunatic, and whether the critque that he has been associated with has any validity. You have engaged with these issues. Yet whenb asked to move from criticism to a description of what you think needs to be done, you chunter about trolls. Interesting. You have never dexcribed your strategy clearly. I am not a Republican, but Molly clearly is - and has also asked you to describe your strategy. AGain, nothing. I suppose it is better than spouting nonsense.......

by Mary Kelly Tue May 23, 2006 14:13

"Why did the establishment in Dublin go into a frenzy of attacks on anyone in or associated with Sinn Fein in the past 18 months? Why the attacks on Frank Connolly and the Centre for Public Enquiry, and the linking of him to Colombia, why the vilification of Phil Flynn, why the media and political frenzy over Castlereagh and the Northern Bank robbery?"

" Molly", Ed Moloney in his book gives an astute analysis for the above type of harassments. Worth taking into account!

I look forward to reading Mr O Bradaigh,s book. He has an extraordinary commitment to ending British rule in Ireland. He lives in the present time, is an ordinary man and speaks the truth fearlessly. He tackles the difficult subjects, like the increasing occupation and control of the island by the US military. An awkward subject for those doing deals with them!
.

by Barry Tue May 23, 2006 14:25

The demise of Denis Donaldson and the case of the 2 punters nabbed with the vodka shortly afterwards werent seized on at all , not even by McDowell. Of course the provisionals had nothing to do with either . Strange thing is all the governemnts agreed wholeheartedly and even immediately .

by Conor Wed Aug 09, 2006 02:08

One of the most invidious aspects of the Adams' cabal's dumping of republicanism is the idea that the Unionists rather than british imperialism constitute the main obstacle to Irish freedom. Of course, this hasn't stopped the SF leadership proposing Paisley as First Minister in Stormont, as they are so keen to help operate the six-county parliament that they once wished to blow up.

I agree with Molly that times changes and tactics therefore must too. However, what is involved here is not tactics but core republican principles. SF is now helping operate partition. They became a willing part of a capitalist government operating the direct colony in the north, including adminstering capitalist austerity, and it is only a matter of time before they will be part of a capitalist government in the neo-colony in the south, again administering partition at the political level and neo-liberal austerity at the economic level.

SF today bears as much relation to republicanism as the British Labour Party does to socialism. Indeed, Adams is the Blair of Ireland.

It is also hard to see why Molly takes such umbrage at people pointing to Adams' duplicity over the years. We all know that at the time him and McGuinness were saying one thing at the 1986 ard fheis there were already secret meetings and discussions afoot which resulted in the abandonment of republicanism. Unlike some conspiracy types, I don't believe Adams deliberately set out on a course, knowing it would end where it has. I think he and others set out on a course without a road map, and they have been nicely caught by the Brits and drawn into the web of helping the Brits run a partitioned Ireland. That's what happens when you subordinate principles to tactics, rather than creatively using tactics to advance principles.

In the late 1980s, the Republican Movement adopted the position of setting out to build an anti-imperialist movement. A very difficult task in a period of global political downturn, but one worth pursuing as a long-term strategy. Yet, very quickly and without any democratic discussion and decision-making, that perspective was abandoned and replaced by the pan-nationalist perspective - the very perspective which had disoriented republicanism during the War for Independence and led to the betrayal of 1921. Instead of looking to mobilise the working class around a combination of social, economic and political issues, the leadership turned its eyes to a cross-class alliance of nationalists, including the SDLP, Fianna Fail and (even) Fine Gael.

Pan-nationalism has always been the enemy of republicanism. Tone and the United Irish movement opposed Grattan the pan-nationalist; the Young Ireland movement and the Fenians opposed the pan-nationalist O'Connell; Pearse and the other revoltuionary republicans of that era opposed the Irish Parliamentary Party. Connolly, the greatest republican of all after Tone, excoriated the pan-nationalists and pointed to the fact that today the people of no property are the working class and there is a class basis to the struggle for irish freedom.

Molly asks what about Parnell and the "New Departure" as if this was some kind of positive. Indeed, look at the "New Departure" and the betrayal of the land struggle that was the result - go read Anna Parnell's "Tale of a Great Sham". It was a political disaster which finished off republicanism for a quarter century. It took a new generation to rebuild, virtually from scratch.

by Donnchadh Wed Aug 09, 2006 02:56

I wrote the following letter to Village Magazine the week after Scott Millar's "review". Village published it the week later. I have always found Village to be corageous in printing letters - a trait sadly lacking in most of the print media - the Irish Times exerts a particularly strong censorship regime. A letter from Professor White was also printed by Village detailing some of the faults in Millars piece.

It was disappointing to read Scott Millar’s review, 11th May, of Professor Robert White’s new biography of Ruirí Ó Brádaigh. It was an example of the mix of will-full disinformation and careless inaccuracy that Village has devoted considerable space to exposing in the O’Reilly family press. I was particularly disappointed as Mr. Millar has done some good, solid reporting for this magazine. The title of his piece “Prisoner of his past,” telegraphs his antipathy towards his subject. He then begins with a bland statement that Ruirí Ó Brádaigh is the founder of Republican Sinn Féin, as if this was a simple statement of fact. The fact that neither Republican Sinn Féin or Ó Brádaigh himself would consider this to be true is either unknown to our reviewer or complicates his pedagogy too much. RSF held its 100th Ard Fheis last year; Ó Brádaigh is 74. Next he tells us that Wolfe Tone committed suicide. This is not known to be true. We are then told that Ó Brádaigh has made a career of refusing to recognise any representative parliament in Ireland. It seems totally beyond the comprehension of Mr. Millar that anyone could reject a parliament which, at the very best, represents only 26 Irish counties, but in reality represents a much smaller group – so much so that Sir. Anthony O’Reilly could boast to Forbes magazine that because he is the biggest newspaper owner in Ireland he could get the politicians to give him whatever oil and gas fields he wanted (reported in the same issue of Village). The question central to the 1986 split is completely ignored: How can you recognise the law of the southern state without accepting that IRA volunteers are politically motivated criminals?
There is no point in going through every sentence in Millar’s “review,” almost every one of them is as faulty as the next, I will skip down to the last paragraph where he says that RSF is not willing submit its principles to the rigour of representative democracy, but seeks to provoke a “sudden awakening” of the people. This, of course, is pure nonsense. RSF contests local elections, as Sinn Féin has always done, and Ó Brádaigh has spent the last fifty years of his life travelling the highways and byways of Ireland trying to “awaken” the people, issue by issue. There’s nothing “sudden” about his approach.
To finish, can I ask how does taking your politics from diverse sources such as your parents’ experience and Tanzanian socialism equate with a lack of real political development? If Sinn Féin has taken inspiration from African thinking, is it so horrific a thought that we Irish, in our belief that we were first among minions in the greatest empire of all time, could have anything to learn from mere Africans, not to mention our parents?

by Buck Wed Aug 09, 2006 04:03

"I have always found Village to be corageous in printing letters"

Thats because they have f*cuk all readers and are desperate to get publicity. Village is aimed at left-wingers, but all true left-wingers will know that Vincent Browne does not have a good reputation when it comes to trade-unionism. Remember the characteristic bullying in RTE?

by Donnchadh Wed Aug 09, 2006 13:28

Well compared to the paranoid, right wing, neo-unionist Irish Times they really are quite open, they let themselves down badly with the Professor White "review" and their Gerry Adams column is so dull and self serving that it might be lifted straight from An Phoblacht, but I suppose its difficult to keep standards up all the time.

by Donnchadh Wed Aug 09, 2006 23:34

Its interesting to consider what has become of the great pan nationalist front the so called GFA was supposed to bring in. It quickly fell apart when PSF started taking votes from FF.