Fighting for Faith and Fatherland in Fermanagh
fermanagh |
miscellaneous |
feature
Wednesday February 28, 2007 15:58
by Terry
Gerry McGeough
Arch-Catholic, novelist, ally of Justin Barrett, former I.R.A. volunteer, and failed gun runner Gerry McGeough is standing in the Northern Ireland Assembly elections on a traditional republican platform in the Fermanagh/South Tyrone constituency.
This article (taken from the newswire) analyses the politics and ideology of Gerry McGeough, his Hibernian magazine and other conservative and right wing nationalists that identify themselves as republicans. It outlines the background of Gerry McGeough, his past involvement in the Provisional Irish Republican Army, his current activity as editor of the extreme right-wing The Hibernian and explores their ideas and interpretations of nationalism, republicanism, religion, mysticism, sex, immigration, Masonic conspiracy theories and secularism vs. theocracy. The article also provides some historical background on the right wing aspects that have featured in Irish republicanism.
Related Links on Indymedia: Fascist Ex-Provo Exposed — Justin Barrett’s cohort appears on Radio Free Eireann — McGeough Rants On — Craobh Gál Gréine commemoration — The Other Side of the Anti-EU Coin, Justin Barrett on Tour — Fascist Barrett Scores with the Great and Good of NUIG — Barrett’s Friends and Supporters — 'Statement regarding Justin Barrett debate at UCD on 13th October 2004 by the AFA' — Justin Barrett gets a hand from UCD's L&H to organise — Debate on EU: left wing or clerical-conservative — Youth Defence Prints 50,000 Anti-Gay Leaflets — Inside the World of Dissident Republicanism — Interview with Irish Pro-Choice Activist — Cork’s First Ever Pride Parade a Triumph! — USI says ban on gay marriage breaches human rights
Other Related Links: Neo-Nazis at Lit. and Deb. Forum in NUI Galway (UCDSU) — What Youth Defence Didn’t Mention (UCDSU) — “More debates:” The alternative republican strategy for a united Ireland? (Slugger O'Toole) — Architects of Resurrection Ride Again — RSF article on Aiséirí
His election manifesto seems principally geared towards getting people to issue a protest vote against the policies of the current leadership of Sinn Fein, aiming at ending concessions to the Democratic Unionist Party, particularly in regard to policing.
That manifesto genuflects towards the core republican demand of a British withdrawal and a united Ireland:
“A No. 1 vote for me is a vote for a United Ireland. Through peaceful, political means I will advocate that the demand for a 32 County Irish Republic be put firmly back on the agenda.” “I wish to see a full British withdrawal from Ireland as soon as possible, and will continue to work uncompromisingly towards that goal.”
It doesn’t give any indication though as to how exactly that goal is to be achieved.
His anti-abortion position also gets a mention. The manifesto says ‘lend me your vote’, in an echo of what republicans were saying during the Bobby Sands election campaign in the same constituency, an election campaign which shaped the course of the history of the North and of Provisional republicanism.
So McGeough might appear as a standard ‘dissident’ republican, many of whom are standing in the elections in opposition to Sinn Fein’s recognition of the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI). The addition to the standard variety is with McGeough you get a strong ultra-Catholic stance on abortion. So one could read it from his manifesto.
For some strange reason the electorate is apparently not being given the full run down on the McGeough, unless one seeks it out in his magazine ‘The Hibernian’.
‘The Hibernian’ is a monthly magazine with a wide distribution in newsagents around the country. It is in Easons, so perhaps it is distributed by them. Its format is quite similar to ‘Ireland’s Own’, perhaps as a device to appeal to the ‘Ireland’s Own’ reading section of the public.
As we shall see from excerpts from ‘The Hibernian’ McGeough has left a lot out of his election manifesto. The manifesto has no mention of any Sharia law style opinion on suitable clothing for women. No mention of opposition to any sex other than that aimed at reproduction. No mention of the Freemason conspiracy which riddles the Catholic Church and is responsible for the dawning of that apparent Marxist super-state the European Union.
No mention of the need to make Ireland ethnically and religiously homogenous.
Most of all the manifesto has no mention of the epic Lord of the Rings style struggle between the supernatural forces of darkness and light that contributors to ’The Hibernian’ seem to think they are engaged in. Gerry McGeough the white wizard of Tyrone, battling it out with demons and devils and Mordor in the shape of the Masons, yes it is actually that mad.
Gerry McGeough:
Gerry McGeough was no minor figure in Provisional republicanism.
As a teen in the mid-70s he joined the famous East Tyrone brigade of the Provisional I.R.A.
A brigade which was to later suffer many casualties, most notably in the Loughall S.A.S. ambush.
In the late 80s the East Tyrone brigade was purportedly central to the alternative to the thinking that led to the Hume-Adams talks, ceasefire and peace process. That alternative, known as the ‘Tet strategy’, was a military escalation to create ’liberated zones’ .
McGeough served time in jail in Germany and the U.S. .
His prison sentence in the U.S. was for trying to buy surface to air missiles, the importation of which would have been central to something like the ‘Tet strategy’.
McGeough was on the governing body of Sinn Fein in 2001, and resigned from the party in 2003.
He cited the ‘socially liberal’ stances of Sinn Fein as the reason for his departure, saying:
“You would never get a leader of Sinn Fein condemning abortion, homosexual ‘marriage’ or anything of that nature. I, as an Irish nationalist and Catholic, never want to see the day when there are abortion clinics in every market town in Ireland. But looking around there is no political grouping willing to take a stance against that.”
In the spring of 2004 McGeough went on a national speaking tour with one time Youth Defence stalwart and current friend of European neo-nazis Justin Barrett.
In May 2006 he launched ‘The Hibernian’ magazine and was reportedly involved in an entryist type strategy within the Ancient Order of Hibernians at the same time.
The Hibernian Magazine:
“There can be only one Irish Nation. A Catholic one, that will never again be ruled by a heretic monarch from England.” - ‘The Hibernian’ magazine.
The central idea that one finds in ‘The Hibernian’ magazine is that various supernatural entities have a direct influence on human society. These entities include God, the Devil, Mary, and Guardian Angels.
Of secondary importance is the Masonic conspiracy. This is a clandestine organisation of great influence, the French and Russian Revolutions for instance are ascribed to its work, and it appears to be a consortium of the human agents of the supernatural entity known as ‘the Devil’.
“Our nation is under attack” reads one ‘Hibernian’ article, by “sinister, shadowy forces” who “have targeted Ireland“. The following quotations are all from ‘The Hibernian’ magazine.
The Masonic Conspiracy:
“What is often lost in all of this, however, is that Communism (along with the New Age movement) is simply a chief tool of Freemasonry; it’s policy of Church infiltration, just an extension of the Masonic plan clearly laid out in the Alta Vendita and other bona fide Masonic documents recognised by the Popes.”
Alta Vendita is a document purportedly written by the Carbonari - who were mid C19th Italian republican revolutionaries. It is apparently often held up as the cause of what traditionalist Catholics see as the Roman Catholic Church loosing its way, as it advocated an infiltration of the Church. This Freemason conspiracy to infiltrate the Church is what causes “the latest moral misadventures of this and that priest.”, “the clownish, televised Lloyd Webber style musicals that pass for Holy Mass on RTE, ministered over by effete and be-sandled weaklings (ideologically speaking)” and the fact the “prevailing popular image of the Priesthood one of bearded, sandle-wearing hippies or worse”.
The conspiracy also lies behind the European Union:
“To those of us in Ireland Communism can be seen as something historically and geographically distant. Don’t be fooled. The ideology underpins Irish political agendas and that of the E.U. which is the basis of a massive Marxist Super-state. Our national religion has been seriously compromised and now our nationhood and Irish identity is being watered down in order to mold us into better and more politically correct “Europeans””
And when a ‘Hibernian’ contributor writes of the Bilderberg group that:
“The annual coven of the chief warlocks and witches of international business and politics convened in Ottawa, Canada between June 8 and 11”
I think that is actually meant literarily.
Conspiracy has always been a component of ultra-conservative views, some writers of the time put the French revolution down to a Masonic conspiracy, just as the popularisation of the idea of a Jewish world conspiracy came from White Russian émigrés as an explanation for the Russian revolution. Conspiracy explains why seemingly impossible things happen, impossible in terms of the particular ideology, or why bad stuff happens to fundamentally good societies or institutions. So the waywardness of the Roman Catholic Church and particular clerics is down to freemasons, or class struggle within the ’German nation’ down to Jewish bankers and Jewish subversives.
Ironically the only documented major Masonic conspiracy of recent decades was that of the P-2 lodge in Italy, and involved State officials supporting the far-right.
One hundred and fifty to two hundred years ago in Italy and France revolutionary undergrounds were organised through Masonic type groups with rituals and so forth, this is the origin of the Catholic anti-Mason thing. Following from that of course in the Anglo world at least Masonry would be predominantly Protestant, and therefore this anti-Masonry left over from the c19th was reinforced with sectarian conflict.
Supernatural Entities:
I must admit to my shame that the range of supernatural entities within ‘The Hibernian’ worldview includes ones I had no idea were a part of Catholic doctrine, that is Guardian Angels. Guardian Angels are fascinating, so here is an entire passage about them from the magazine:
“According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, we each have a guardian angel, appointed to us at birth, who guards, guides and helps us to aspire to and reach Heaven and God. If you just stop and really think about this concept, it could blow your mind. There are over six billion people in the world at the moment. As we each, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, have an angel guardian, that means that there are also over six billion angels in the world at this moment, not to mention the amount of people and hence angels who have graced this earth already since the time of Adam and Eve. It is believed that some people, such as priests and doctors, even have two guardian angels to help them in their vital vocations. We know from the story of creation that the fall of the bad angels took one third of the angels from Heaven, the amount which we humans are meant to replace. This means by default that one third of all angels in Heaven are guardian angels.”
I’m curious as to how the massive human population growth in the last 250 years fits into this. It would have to be much more than ’one third of all angels in Heaven’ as there are now many more humans than there were at “the time of Adam and Eve”. Guardian Angels are generally associated with the ‘New Age’, but, as the article explains that is just another manifestation of the Devil’s guile.
In another article we learn that for a woman to dress ‘immodestly’ is to ally herself with Demons against the Guardian Angels.
“When a woman dresses even slightly provocatively, she becomes a tool of the devil, pulling many men with her towards Hell. Such a woman becomes the ‘bait’ of demons. For many men, to look at her may very well be an occasion of sin. They will be tempted away from their roles of self-control and self-discipline, enticed by this woman toward sensuality and carnality. This woman may think that she is beautiful, by the glances of approval she receives from men. She is thus drawn towards vanity and pride, and may become addicted to literally being the ‘object’ of attention. What she doesn’t see, however, is the disgust of the many guardian angels she unknowingly meets on her way, horrified by her ugliness in the sight of heaven.”
Sex:
This alliance with Demons and the Devil is also to be found with civil unions for same sex couples, or ‘homosexual marriage’. A ‘Hibernian’ article on the subject opines:
“A nation which institutionally promotes, encourages or supports sin in any way, is a cursed nation. That nation has made a pact with the devil, and will, so, bring upon itself the hideous fruits of hell. Do not be surprised if such a nation rapidly degenerates - if it soon suffers from moral anarchy, lawlessness, political disintegration and even famine, war and disease.
The Catholic Church teaches that sodomy is a sin which ‘cries out to Heaven for vengeance.’ Many people nowadays, hopelessly imbued with the false notions of the ‘enlightenment‘, are quick to disregard this teaching. They cannot, however, ignore such a reality forever.”
We later learn in this article that this is not just a matter of homosexuality:
“Physical pleasure is often a feature of sexual intimacy. It can be a product or consequence of the act, but it is not its primary function. To value sexual pleasure above or even on a par with reproduction therefore, is intrinsically disordered.”
So it is not just civil unions for same sex couples which is out, but any sexual activity in a context where procreation is not possible is out, any sexual activity aimed not at procreation is out, and any sexual activity not primarily aimed at procreation is out.
Opposing same sex civil unions is a core issue for Gerry McGeough and the group around him. They first came to public attention in May 2006 with a stunt at a McDowell press conference which was claimed in ‘The Hibernian’ thus:
“We, the General Tom Barry Division No. 1975 AOH, Cork and the Naomh Lorc O’Tuathail Division No. 31 AOH, Dublin, wish to state that we carried out today’s protest at the launch of a conference on homosexual ‘marriage’ …”
AOH being Ancient Order of Hibernians, a very historic fraternal organisation bigger in the U.S. than here, which the McGeough crew are reportedly infiltrating.
Similarly McGeough cited ‘homosexual marriage’ as one of his core discontents with Provisional Sinn Fein.
Immigration and the “New Plantations”:
According to an article on immigration entitled “The New Plantations”:
“God abhors the blending of all peoples into a single world state.”
“Nationhood is not an arbitrary human arrangement, but a principle of divine order. The separation of vastly different peoples helps reduce conflict and promote fruitful diversity. Massive uncontrolled immigration defeats God's order.”
“There can be no true national community and, more to the point, there can be no freedom in countries where the majority of people hold little in common.”
This, and the magazine’s clear preference for a Catholic ‘Irish Nation’, neatly matches Justin Barrett’s proposed solution to the Northern Ireland conflict as expounded in his book ’The National Way Forward’, that is the repatriation of the British or Protestant population.
Note this is ordained by God. Again the hand of supernatural intervention into the affairs of humans. As with angels and population growth the historical specificity of nations, that is they weren’t always around, appears to have escaped ‘The Hibernian’ hacks.
‘The Hibernian’ actually carries articles by, and interviews with, Poles, so I think it is fair to say that perhaps some immigration is seen as more negative than other immigration.
Elsewhere material in the magazine mentions the “Islamic invasion”, something which it sees current immigrants as the advance parties of .
Though with the views expressed in ’The Hibernian’, plus the Provos penchant for punishment beatings, one might think that McGeough and his cohort would feel very at home in Saudi Arabia or Iran. Perhaps they should emigrate there.
New Christendom:
One article in ‘The Hibernian’ espouses the goal of building a ‘New Christendom’ which is basically a society modelled after Europe prior to the Reformation. No that isn’t an exaggeration of mine, the article reads:
“Indeed, no person, who has lived in the last five centuries or so, has ever lived within a truly Christian Social Order.”
“If the peoples of Europe, of the world, are to regain a semblance of happiness and normality, they are going to have to retrace their steps. The society without God must be rejected. The society against God must be rejected. The society with God must be embraced, acted upon and brought to fruition.”
Society without God being capitalism, society against God being communism (by which they mean the Soviet Union) and society with God being medieval Europe.
Shades of Islamic fundamentalists aiming to turn time back to the ’Islamic Caliphate’.
I guess there being no huns in medieval Europe would be an added attraction. On the minus side if memory serves me correct witch burnings didn’t really take off until after the reformation, but sure you can’t have everything.
Historical antecedents of Gerry McGeough and ‘The Hibernian’:
There is an historical revisionism which seeks to greatly exaggerate the left wing current within Irish republicanism, most recently typified in the film ’The Wind that Shakes the Barley’. If one was immersed in that, it might seem like McGeough was the product of an ‘Invasion of the Body Snatchers’ style scenario, with a UFO depositing the pod from which the new McGeough sprang in 2003, looking just like the old one, but actually completely different.
However an historical excursion to the Ireland of the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, when ultra-right wing ideas were more fashionable, will show this is not the case, and that there has been a far right tendency within Irish republicanism
While our memory of the Blueshirts has them opposed by the then partly left leaning I.R.A., the Fascist leadership of the period was of republican vintage. Moreover a fair bit of the fighting that went on was more civil war politics than fascism/anti-fascism.
Eoin O’Duffy had been chief of staff of the pre-Treaty I.R.A., and in his later, Fascist career, proposed the invasion of Northern Ireland.
Likewise Alex McCabe leader of the pro-Nazi ‘National Peoples’ Party’ during the Second World War, was a former pre-Treaty I.R.A. commander.
McCabe was also involved in the ‘Irish Christian Front’, a broad based group organising support for Franco during the Spanish Civil War.
Those on the platforms of Irish Christian Front rallies were often people who had became public figures in the nationalist movement prior to 1922.
Douglas Hyde, founder of Conradh na Gaeilge aka the Gaelic League was one, and while Hyde disagreed with the politicisation of the Irish language movement, the organisation he founded was an incubator of the Easter rising.
Alfred O'Rahilly, former Sinn Fein councillor in Cork, and advisor to the Treaty delegation, was another.
While these were treatyites and the rump of the I.R.A. existing at the time more leftist, and included people who volunteered for the International Brigades, I think we have to invoke the pod people again to see them being treatyites as something which would downplay the right trend in republicanism.
Also the elephant in the living room is that when the pre-1922 republican movement partially won, the bulk of it, both pro or anti Treaty, went on to build up a society and state which was conservative, Catholic and repressive, not quite the ‘New Christendom’ of McGeough and ‘The Hibernian’, but certainly in that ball park.
In the 1940s a splinter group from Conradh na Gaeilge called Ailtirí na h-Aiséirí (Architects of Resurgence) seemed poised for take off, but was to be thwarted by internal wrangling, and the fact that in the late 40s Clann na Poblachta sucked up the protest votes. Aiséirí was depicted in a TG4 documentary a couple of years ago. Heavily influenced by the Catholic wing of contemporary European Fascism, its slogan was ‘Ireland needs a Salazar’, in reference to the then Portuguese dictator.
Aiséirí advocated a military solution to the Northern Ireland situation, once ‘invading’ the North in an operation much like Peter Robinson’s ‘invasion’ of Monaghan in the 80s, and bedecking Dublin with posters reading ‘Arm Now to Take the North’.
Interestingly the famous Sean South was a member of this organisation, and even the ‘An Phoblacht’ article commemorating his death, noted his conservative Catholic views, and the fact he used to protest Hollywood films for their apparent ’Communist’ influence.
The extent to which I.R.A. co-operation with German intelligence services during the Second World War was a matter of ’England’s difficulty is Ireland’s opportunity’ or a matter of pro-Nazi sympathies is well debated, and for the most part it was a matter of the first rather than the second. However some I.R.A. prisoners of the time were elatedly tracking the progress of the armies of the Reich through what was then the Soviet Union, which suggests that there was some pro-Nazi sympathies around too.
After this, into the 1950s and early 60s, I don’t have a clear picture of what views existed. However I do know that the ’United Irishmen’, the Sinn Fein paper of the time, carried articles about how ‘communism’ was a facet of the Freemasonic conspiracy.
So there has been a right current within republicanism, as there has been a left current.
That right wing element is currently represented by McGeough, ‘The Hibernian’, and Craobh Gál Gréine. Craobh Gál Gréine is an ‘Irish Cultural Society’, seemingly mostly Cork-based, some of whose adherents are also involved in ‘The Hibernian’. The group apparently has around thirty members all of who have, apparently, track records of involvement in Provisional republicanism, Republican Sinn Féin or the 32 county Sovereignty Movement.
Craobh Gál Gréine organises commemorations, last time I was in Cork there were posters up for its commemoration of ‘The Gaelic War against Cromwell’ (guess the ‘Gaelic War for the King’ doesn’t have the same ring to it).
Pre-18th century matters is also a focus for McGeough’s writings in ‘The Hibernian’, perhaps because these were times when various rebellions and strife can be more easily seen as ’Catholic and Gaelic’.
Similarly traditionalist Catholicism, which carries on the Latin Mass, and which rejects the Vatican II reforms, and is what Justin Barrett and ’The Hibernian’ are into, does have a history and a following within the far-right. Particularly in the ’Political Soldiers’ wing of the National Front in the 1980s, which later morphed into the ’International Third Position’.
It is beyond the scope of this article but there are clear parallels between the views associated with the Third Position and the views expressed in ‘The Hibernian’.
There are of course also obvious parallels between ’The Hibernian’ and the Catholic right in Ireland, which fought a long battle against contraception, abortion, the Rape Crisis centres, divorce and so on, from the 70s onwards. It basically seems like a fusion of that movement with republicanism. Most of the Catholic right though, from cursory observation, seems to have toned itself down considerably, where as ’The Hibernian’ is for all out jihad.
It is instructive to also remember that the battles around these issues were also fought out within the Provisional republican movement, the Sinn Fein party’s pro-choice position for instance being dropped as a sop to traditionalists in the run up the 1986 ditching of abstentionism. Previous to this, in the 70s, one I.R.A. leader refused to use condoms in bomb manufacture, on the grounds they were immoral objects. So those ‘social issue’ conflicts cut through republicanism, with there being both feminist, and conservative-Catholic, elements to the movement.
Other Republicans:
The interesting thing to see will be the reactions of other republicans to the new nationalist, deeply sectarian, ultra-Catholic, anti-immigrant, and anti-gay movement McGeough seems intent on building, in apparent alliance with a man, Justin Barrett, who consorts with neo-nazis on the continent.
Martin Galvin, formerly prominent in NORAID, the United States based support group for the Provos, has been over in Ireland canvassing for McGeough.
Galvin transferred his support from the Provos to the Real I.R.A. and the 32 County Sovereignty Movement, in 1998. He has written for ’The Hibernian’, and for those homes of the intellectual wing of ‘dissident’ republicanism, The Blanket, and Fourthwrite.
Galvin has a radio show based in New York, and is generally quite prominent in matters of ‘traditional’/‘dissident’ republicanism over there.
According to a report here on indymedia Republican Sinn Fein invited McGeough to address their annual hunger strike commemoration in Bundoran last year.
(see: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/77945 )
While Anthony McIntyre writes in the ‘The Blanket’ of a public meeting on policing in Derry that McGeough “went unquestioned about views he holds that many republicans regard as anti-secular, misogynist, racist and reactionary.”.
(See: http://www.phoblacht.net/AM1210107.html)
McGeough was one of the panel of speakers.
On the other hand apparently his candidacy has not been endorsed by ‘concerned republicans’, the umbrella group supporting most ‘independent republican’ candidates in the Assembly elections. Though the reason for this I’m not aware of.
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (121 of 121)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121Interview with McGeough here: http://unitedirelander.blogspot.com/
excerpt:
What is the best way to achieve a United Ireland in your eyes?
To get the British out of here as quickly as possible.
Information on Angels (especially Guardian Angels) here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07049c.htm
excerpt:
That every individual soul has a guardian angel has never been defined by the Church, and is, consequently, not an article of faith; but it is the "mind of the Church", as St. Jerome expressed it: "how great the dignity of the soul, since each one has from his birth an angel commissioned to guard it." (Comm. in Matt., xviii, lib. II).
(1) But old mammy church saw 2 important documents on angelic beings produced in the last 20 years. One was the doctoral thesis of the late archbishop of Dublin Ryan and the other was a directive of the late pope JP2 that angels could have (but not necessarily always have) physical bodies. For those few of us who take an interest in this thing & as a result have to admit we are living conspiracy theories - it was a small movement which brought Christian and Islamic theories closer together. More angels being admitted by the muslims whose djin approximate to the "fallen angels" of the Jewish Testament and accompanying mystical writings. Common to the 3 religions is the protection of the divine placed over each human and the concept of war - a war which preceded humanity's existence in creation. Angels are for traditional Christian thought organised in 9 choirs. Only the "lowest" or more properly "external" in the scheme may have contact with humanity and if you're extra special you get a visit from one of the archangels. Of the ante-diluvian humans (those before the flood) Enoch is believed to have been the last human to enjoy the conversation directly of God - "with whom he walked" and as reward upon death became the archangel "metraton" or "voice of God" in the qabalistic tradition and as such is held with being the "father" of writing roughly equivalent I suppose to the god Thoth in the Egyptian pantheon.
(2) Many of these conspiracy attitudes expressed above would appear to align the "Hibernian" with sedevacantist rejection of the process of liberalism in the church of Rome. The Sedevacantists rejected the line of succession to the see of Rome in the mid 20th century. Many of the groups considered to be sedevacantists support the conspiracy theory that John XXIII the pope who called the Vatican 2 congress and thus moved roman catholics from tridentine latin rites to mass in the vernacular or native languages had been initiated to a masonic order (francomason neither york or scottish) whilst stationed in Turkey in the 1930's. Their theory points as evidence to his adoption on election of the title "john 23" which is too "masonic" for them, and point out the last john 22 had been an anti-pope. They also tie his motto and statement of the suffering of Christ together with the priory of sion, maintaining that John 23 and the then master of Sion worked together to undermine all kathurlick teaching. Most of the sedevacantists are now conclavists - meaning they have elected alternative "popes" or "antipopes". My favourite example of such runs what many believe to be a money laundering operation in Andalucia and has canonised as saints Franco, Hitler, primero de Rivera but oddly enough not Mussolini. c/f http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmarian_Catholic_Church
There are obviously many holes in these conspiracy theories - but were I to point them out - my very pointing of them out - would reinforce the mesh. Just to say :- where does Ratzinger or the polish pontiff fit into a masonic or "priory of sion" attempt to take Rome? Didn't the polish pontiff play a pivotal role in ending sovietism? wasn't that the point of his election? Also what good would a priory attempt to take Rome do at this stage? Like it or not many thousands of suspected members of the lodges dedicated to liberty and libertarianism were sent by both Franco and Hitler to the camps. The figure is over ten thousand. But granted not all those who were welcomed into those lodges pursued liberty - many just wanted to feather their own nest. At end this is Dan Brown-ism. It has even gone beyond Robert Anton Wilson. It is very sad and worrying when groups like the one above begin to shape macro-social policies and views based on these stories and fables more proper to the entertainment of fools. = bad cess to them.
One important historical antecedent left out of the above article is Maria Duce.
Maria Duce was a Catholic organisation in the 40s and 50s whose main purpose was to have Jesus Christ declared King of Ireland. There are still folk trying to do the same for Poland. This would make the state expressly Catholic, the recognition of that Church, and of other denominations in the 1937 constitution, was seen as downplaying Catholicism.
Maria Duce was founded by a priest called Denis Fahey, who was big into the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy, maintained God had created a divine order on earth, and history was the story of the acceptance or rejection of this, with things going particularly downhill in the last 500 years since late medieval times.
According to an article linked to below Fahey published an edition of ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion’, the infamous anti-Semitic forgery.
There is a Wikipedia entry about Fahey here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Fahey
Sean South was a member of Maria Duce.
‘The Hibernian’ has carried articles in praise of Fahey.
He also still has a following among the ‘Society of Saint Pius X’, which is the body of traditionalist Catholic clergy that carries on the Latin mass. One of their websites has articles about the man from 1950s Irish newspapers here:
http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Catholic_Sermons/Fr-D...y.htm
Fahey is also a figure of inspiration to ‘Third Position’ fascists, and was a figure of inspiration to Charles Coughlin the famous ‘radio priest’ of 1930s America, see: http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/coughlin.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin
There was another organisation, An Ríoghacht, the League of the Kingship of Christ, which was something of a forerunner of Maria Duce.
More Links:
The Right Wing IRA of the 50s (this looks at the wider social context of the Border campaign)
http://www.phoblacht.net/ducenondulce.html
Swinging at Windmills (this is an article on ‘radical traditionalism’ and conspiracy theory from a mainstream Catholic publication):
http://www.crisismagazine.com/december2002/feature5.htm
Here is an 'An Phoblacht' article by Gerry McGeough, from 2000, about creating an Irish-Ireland by removing apparently Anglicised place names:
http://republican-news.org/archive/2000/July20/20rest.html
And here is an 'An Phoblacht' interview with him:
http://republican-news.org/archive/1999/December16/16mcge.html
Wrong Link Above:
The Right Wing IRA of the 50s (this looks at the wider social context of the Border campaign), the actual link is: http://www.workersliberty.org/node/3029
McGeough's blog offer some insights into his election manifesto:
http://gerrymcgeough.blogspot.com
It always annoys me when folks in order to avoid a decent debate, stoop to using ridicule and the downright ridiculous in order to cow any would-be disagreement.
This has happened here, and it happens regularly.
I don't advocate that any credence be put into the Hibernians or their publications. I think it most unfair of the author of this article, to use the Hibernians, to once again put Freemasonry into the vista of conspiracy theories. Maybe the author himself thinks he's part of some Middle Earth saga, in this respect.
Allow me to quote the following:
* 65. Special provisions as to Freemasons. -
(1) It is hereby declared that existing enactments relative to unlawful oaths or unlawful assemblies in Ireland do not apply to the meetings or proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of Ireland, or of any lodge or society recognised by that Grand Lodge.
(2) Neither the Parliament of Southern Ireland, nor the, Parliament, of Northern Ireland shall have power to abrogate or affect prejudicially any privilege or exemption of the Grand Lodge of Freemasons in Ireland, or any lodge or society recognised by that Grand Lodge which is enjoyed either by law or custom at the time of the passing of this Act, and any law made in contravention of this provision shall, so far as it is in contravention of this provision, be void.
The above quote was taken from The Government of Ireland Act 1920. This was the act that created the North of Ireland, partition and allowed for Home Rule.
If I were a Freemason, I'd consider the above legislation to be still valid. It does afterall allow for any subsequent legislation that might seek to change it. Regarless of this, it takes Freemasonry and its ability to exert influence and power, firmly out of the sphere of a conspiracy theory.
So enough of the debunking of 'conspiracy theories' without at least offering evidence.
That said, I sincerely hope that the good folks in the North know better than to elect Gerry McGeough or anyone else of his ilk or clique.
The Government of Ireland Act 1920 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Ireland_Act_1920
Pythagoras go read ‘The Hibernian’ it is full of stuff about the Freemason conspiracy.
I suppose it is ‘unfair’ of me to mention the fact they are Catholics and Irish republicans as well! There is no way one can write about ‘The Hibernian’ without writing about these things, people who think they are being pulled into some kinda ’guilt by association’ should complain to ’The Hibernian’.
As I said in the article Freemasonry and anti-Freemasonry was, and perhaps is, mixed up with sectarian conflict in some countries, Scotland and Australia anyways.
Given that it is not surprising that the Government of Ireland act would afford Freemasonry some protection.
To put this in context a couple of years later anti-Treaty republicans were condemning the Senate as being something for Freemasons (the original Senate was designed as something for the South’s Protestant minority). While anecdotal evidence suggests Freemasonry was once popular in the South (there are old Mason halls in towns in the midlands). Lots of issues about religion and employment and position come into this.
Also the law on ’unlawful oaths’ was brought in years before, aimed at peasant secret societies, naturally there would be provision to exempt Freemasonry from this, seeing as it wasn’t intended as an anti-Freemason law, but was a law that would have also applied to Freemasonry if it wasn’t specifically made exempt.
Note the article also mentions two Masonic conspiracies which did exist.
There is a world of difference between saying you might have this or that organised through Masonic lodges, or that Masonry might have accrued some power in a particular situation, or be a vehicle for the powerful rather, and saying there is a worldwide anti-God freemason conspiracy of enough power to basically run the show and which is behind 'communism', Father Ted, the European Union, the length of a women’s skirt and much more besides.
To ‘PRO Craobh Gal Gréine’ Indymedia is an open publishing platform.
See: http://www.indymedia.ie/publishing_guide AND http://www.indymedia.ie/open_publishing
That means your comment there (and other Craobh Gal Gréine content) is as much indymedia as my article. I have noticed that a fair few people get confused by this, which is curious to me.
As for myself personally I leave taking the pay check from MI5 to republicans, it was Freemason gold that paid for the article.
The rest of your comment shows the resemblance between your views and those in ’The Hibernian’.
It seems historically they have been perfectly able to divide & split without any outside stimulus. Perhaps to the contrary the evil Brits kept a gloss of unity amongst them. But this penchant for the splinter is common to all Irish groups - unionism as well. I don't remember who first quipped that any Irish group once it has reached a decent size tables the split as a motion. hmmmm Only one great and powerful Irish entity has survived 5 years intact - indymedia ireland. This is because angels with bright wings and shiny green skin look over us. But what amazes me is that individuals who are so vehement in their rejection of the philosophical enlightenment and the undoubted presence of shadowy groups of like-thinking men in the backrooms of most European revolutions can still call themselves republicans. Why haven't such reactionary nutters gone the whole way - and become absolute monarchists? I don' really go with this "Christ is King" thing - though surprisingly enough I've seen grafitti proclaiming "christus rex" on walls on continental Europe - I suppose it would up the quality of the christmas telly message, but can't there be better ways of assuring the succession to the throne? Just in case Dan Brown or some Hollywood director present us with the 21st century Magdalene? There must be a son of Haile Selassie knocking around somewhere. or would King Asfa Wossen Selassie of Erin be too black? we could ask him to cut off the dredds....
but all this shows how when people go to extremes they really go completely around the bend. Take out the "IRA" bit of the CV and I'm sure there are ultra-protestant residents of Ulster who could sit down and wholeheartedly agree with yer-man above.... they may even vote for him. In secret - with universal suffrage - "how masonic"
Just want to point out that McGeoghs 'The Hibernian' is not a publication of The Ancient Order of Hibernians.
Most Hibernians want nothing to do with this wingnut and to suggest that he is in any way influential or important within the Hibernians is absolute nonsense. The Hibernians are a non-political faith based organisation and resent and will actively resist the attempt of any political faction to use the organisation for their own ends.
Dominici, I can understand the reason for wanting to bring clarity on that point, but, for more clarity, the article you are replying to above doesn't suggest that he is of great influence in the Ancient order of Hibernians. It says that himself and some people around him have been 'infiltrating' or pursuing an 'entryist strategy' in the AoH, that is probably the reason for the title of the magazine too. AFAIK the AoH sent out a statement distancing themselves from the actions of his faction, so they probably do not deny the fact.
I know there are other articles on indymedia that do tie him in more with the AoH and its history. The article above isn't one of them.
Unfortunately the enemy of your enemy is often still the enemy.
Gerry's homophobia, kiss me I'm Catholic rant highlights his bigotry.
Queers and non-Queers in NY are asking is this really the best alternative to the shinners you could come up with? come on now-down with that sort of thing.
jf
The problem for many critics of McGeough is that while his views may be upsetting for the left, for many republicans all that matters is that he has balls. He did not get his reputation by talking about armed struggle, he actually went out and took part in it. He also served hard time in American and German prisons that were not easy places to be resident in. Just as many old school Catholic nationalists like McGeough put up with left wingers of various descriptions in the Provos while the war was on, so now many dissidents will support him while either ignoring or not caring about his other views. A few will support him because of them, although he is also drawing support from the Justin Barret types who were not pro-Provo when the war was on, (being essentially Michael Collin's FG types, Blueshirts to you and me). There is a niche market out there for a right wing catholic nationalist party. As someone noted above there is nothing intrinsically left wing about Irish nationalism. I think McGeough is leaning towards clerical fascism and his magazine's referencing of Belloc, Chesterton etc is revealing. But such a tradition exists; see JJ O'Kelly the 1930s Sinn Fein leader, an openly anti-Semitic supporter of Hitler. The McGeough article on 1916 in his mag was not too far wrong; he noted that the United Irishmen and the Fenians had strong anti-clerical tendences (and the UI were prods after all) but that by 1916 the Catholics had taken over. We may debate this but there is a rational strand of Irish nationalism that he can draw on. The AOH of course were never republican and this contradiction should be exposed. But I fear that many of those slagging off McGeough here would not get much of a hearing among republicans. It should also be noted and I'm sure Mr. G. Adams is aware of it, that McGeough has a gigantic ego, nursed by all manner of arse-lickers, who mistake his bombast and over confidence for leadership qualities. Puff pieces being written up by Jim Cusack and Liam Clarke (why, pray tell?) and hero worship from nerds like the frustrated student who runs the Irish Bulletin web site may have convinced himn that he actually has a chance. Fr. Flanagan's prediction; the Catholics of Fermanagh-South Tyrone are nowhere near as conservative as people think. Raving commies they are not but they are aware that it is not the 1940s.
a member of Mc Geough, gang in his 50s, know to be with youth defense. this is were amenisia set in of age. had a placard outside GPO. entrance to Henry Street.
placard read, Ex Homosexual blows whistle.
when I approached him, and asked him. how could one be a ex Homosexual? who has had sexual expierence with a male. he told me that there were thousands.
whom we mostly know as "Ali G" or "Borat" - but he also did an Austrian gay character who interviewed one of th many US ministers of religion who "cure" gay men. It is a hilarious sketch - the best moment being "so..... I can admire a man's penis in the shower but the moment I put it in my mouth a line has been crossed?" I reckon that's the best direction to point people in rather than list the many "cure" services available in the Bible Belt of the USA and their pseudo-scientific basis.
Found the Ali G interview with pastor Quinn of Maryland who "cures" homosexuals -
http://youtube.com/watch?v=21XEishihNo
you can't spend your life with a chick with a dick either. check out the moment he offers the pastor a lap-dance.
RSFs Michael McManus is standing in oppostion to McGeough in Fermanagh S Tyrone , so so much for the articles assertion that McGeough is a standard bearer for tradiional republicanism . 32 CSM has not endorsed him either , or any candidate for that matter.
Also Id take issue with the articles claim that 32 csm members ,past or present , are involved with this cork based Cal Greibhne outfit . I was in Cork city quite recently at a 32 CSM commemoration and none of our members had much of a clue about them (2 were present at our function afterwards trying to sell their paper , not very sucessfully) . Ive attended numerous meetings on a national basis and not once have I heard any mention about any of our members past or present being involved with this group . I regard this assertion as completely false and not based in fact whatsoever . As is the claim the Adams leadership didnt persue a pro abortion policy in deference to the anti abstentionist faction pre 1986 . They didnt persue it very simply because the vast majority of Sinn Fein delegates strongly opposed it , simple as that . Just as they opposed it post 1986 as well .
Anyway , on to the substantive issue which this article seems hellbent on avoiding altogether . The only electoral support McGeough is receiving from republicans is on the basis of his steadfast opposition to the crown forces and his track record of confronting them physically as a separatist . As far as 32 csm is concerned it simply makes sense for republicans to oppose the PSNI as acceptable in any form and this election affords the opportunity to make that point . The PSNI is an illegal and illegitimate British counter insurgency force upholding a crime against our nation , partition and the violation of our national sovereignty . To accept them is to accept a hideous crime against our own nation and people and signal our acceptance of our status as a people that its perfectly acceptable to commit such crimes against . McGeough is a separatist who strongly opposes the British crown forces and affords them no legitimacy at all . Its on that basis alone he'll receive republican separatist votes , as will Mick McManus who is running against him . His nutty religious opinions will not be a feature of this election . The rejection of armed imperialist forces will be .
this is the issue which will ensure support for McGeough
http://republican-news.org/archive/1999/December16/16mcge.html
To be accurate about it, RSF did not invite Gerry McGeough to speak at Bundoran.
Bundoran is not organised by RSF - although they have been represented with a speaker each year.
Vótáil Republican Sinn Féin!
Vótáil Michael McManus #1 in Fermanagh/South Tyrone!
Barry you contradict yourself, you say: “so so much for the articles assertion that McGeough is a standard bearer for tradiional republicanism” in response to the article above which says McGeough is standing on a traditional republican platform…yet later you say:
“The only electoral support McGeough is receiving from republicans is on the basis of his steadfast opposition to the crown forces and his track record of confronting them physically as a separatist” “McGeough is a separatist who strongly opposes the British crown forces and affords them no legitimacy at all .”
Right so a traditional republican platform then? McGeough is standing, principally as a separatist and against the acceptance of the P.S.N.I., you are saying the same thing I am saying.
32 CSM and Craobh Gál Gréine:
You may be right, you may be wrong, I say ‘apparently’ in the above article, in regard to where Craobh Gál Gréine draw their membership, that is what they claim, that their members are all drawn from people who have a track record of participation in the groups I listed. They maybe lying, but it is a plausible lie, unless we think that the group sprouted into existence independently of, and with no connection to, previously existing republican organisations.
Adams and a pro-choice position:
Barry in the 80s Sinn Fein did have a pro-choice position. They changed this to a ‘limited abortion’ position. There is a correlation between the more traditionalist republicans and the more socially conservative republicans in the context of the early to mid 80s, and the rise of the Adams faction. Obviously that doesn’t mean that everyone from then onwards fits into that, there were left splits also, like the League of Communist Republicans. Incidentally according to an in-depth analysis of Youth Defence on the Catholics for Choice website, members of R.S.F. were involved in the formation of Youth Defence.
The Election:
On to what will ensure McGeough support in the election, I agree with you that it will not be “his nutty religious opinions”, so does he presumably as he is not highlighting them, - though it would be interesting to know where he is getting his election workers from. However in the eventuality, not a likely eventuality I think, of McGeough winning, or getting anywhere, this would obviously be a tremendous boon to the movement he aims to build, which is anti-Gay, anti-immigrant, against abortion (in ANY circumstance), against contraception, for sexual repression, all based on, as you put it “his nutty religious opinions”. It would give him a platform and a base to build from. The question for ‘dissident’/’traditional’ republicans such as yourself is do you want to help that or be associated with that?
For sure the capacity of such a movement to effect legislative change would be limited, but it would have the capacity to chip away at family planning clinics, gay centres and the like with direct action, and contribute to a climate of bigotry, a climate which includes physical violence against ethnic and sexual minorities (and the downplaying of sexual violence based on the idea of ‘women leading men on’). The sort of stuff which does untold damage to many vulnerable individuals, and while its full blown form in regard to sexual issues, the culture of Ireland some decades ago, may largely dead and gone, its dying spasms still cause damage. On the immigrant question, I’m sure we are both agreed that Ireland doesn’t need a version of the National Front.
Also is it useful for you, productive to the realisation of your objectives, to see the development of a movement which aims for a 32-County Catholic Ireland, and not just Catholic in terms of state policy, but Catholic in the sense of having a homogenous Catholic population, that is new homes will have to be found for the Protestant population of the North, apart from any who convert.
These are not hard questions. Any person, organisation, or movement, which would claim a progressive role in Irish society would be expressly anti-McGeough and ’The Hibernian’, irrespective of the fact that some ‘Hibernian’ positions might resemble some of their positions. In fact that resemblance would make one surely more likely, not less, to want to put as much water between yourself and McGeough and ’The Hibernian’, and make for greater responsibility to do so. After all you say McGeough is receiving electoral support from republicans. There is surely a responsibility on republicans therefore, not to help McGeough build his movement and to dissuade their fellow republicans from supporting him, if that is they want to claim any progressive role.
I say resemblance as surely your case against British sovereignty is one couched in terms of democracy and one that sees that sovereignty as imperialist and hence oppressive and exploitative. Where as that of ‘The Hibernian’ is more that it is an alien intrusion into the divinely ordained Catholic Irish Nation, and thus the fundamental ‘Hibernian’ case against the British state, is the same as its case against immigrants, contraception, homosexuality, Protestants, etc..
On RSF and Bundoran, again the article says 'according to', in this case 'according to' a 'dissident'/'traditional' republican posting on this website.
Apparently our neighbours over the water are concerned with the BNP seeking electoral support from "traditional" Catholics.
The British National Party is building an alliance with radical anti-abortion activists in an attempt to reach out to Catholics and secure their votes in future elections..
The Observer, Sunday March 4, 2007
Barry in the last edition of your organisations paper "Sovereign Nation" there is a half page article on Fenianism by Tomas Mac Cormaic, the leading light in Craobh Gal Greine. the article is pretty poor by any standard well into celtic mysthic nonsense. Why are you providing a platform for these people?
Hands up, the Bundoran Hunger Strike commemoration is organised by a ‘broad based committee‘, not just RSF, and I would have realised that if I had paid a little more attention to the Indymedia thread to which I was linking. However RSF are heavily involved in it, it is a big date in their calendar, and Joe O’Neil, their man in Bundoran, seems to regularly be the MC, they always have speakers at it, so it is fair to say they are quite involved in it, if not being the sole body involved in organising it. In fairness Des Dalton (prominent member of RSF) gets confused about it here:
http://saoirse32.blogspot.com/2003/08/bundoran-hunger-s....html
describing it as “Republican Sinn Féin's annual 'H Block Hunger Strike' commemoration”, and he would know more about these things than I.
Though McGeough not being abstentionist, wouldn't that mean it he wouldn’t be invited to the platform of an RSF event?
From reading back issues of Saoirse it appears that the Emerald Society New York Police Band has been involved in this commemoration for an awful long time.
The September 1987 edition of Saoirse has Micheal Flannery, then boss of Noraid (see Galvin above), singling out the Emerald Society band for particular praise, and we learn that there seems to be something of a tradition that the march is led by this band. And here http://homepage.tinet.ie/~eirenua/2001/sep01/saoirse3.htm in 2001 Bob Loughman of the New York Emerald Society Police Band is one of the platform speakers.
PSNI bad NYPD good!!!!!!!!!!
RSF organise the Bundoran Commemoration. There is not one non RSF member on the committee organising it. Not one. So stop pretending otherwise.
Isn't that Mc Cormaic lad a Pagan and not a Catholic? How come he writes for The Hibernian? Didn't he write a load of articles condemning Christianity's attacks on Celtic Ireland and on the Druids?
Anyone I knows respects him as a Republican for all the commemorations he organises, plus the magazine he edits on Irish culture.
There is a two page article about last year’s Bundoran commemoration in Saoirse, the publication of Republican Sinn Fein, of September 2006.
The speakers were Bob Loughman, of the New York Emerald Society Police Band, speaking on behalf of the National Irish Freedom Committee, Anthony McIntyre, Margret Ward of RSF, the mother of Joe O’Connor read out a statement from Republican prisoners, and Gerry McGeough.
Actually, not all members of the Committee which organises the Bundoran Commemoration are members of Republican Sinn Féin or indeed of the Republican Movement.
It is not an RSF commemoration.
Full stop.
All those on the committee organising the RSF Hunger strike commemoration in Bundoran are in RSF. I live in Bundoran, I know them all for years and years. Joe and Mary. Martin McG. Pat Barry etc etc Dont talk Bull. You know, I know that they are all RSF. Why the hassle anyway, are they ashamed to say they are RSF
Tell me one person on that committee that is not in RSF.
I have a copy of the Jan/Feb edition of the Sovereign nation here in my hand and there is most definitely no such article contained within it . There are articles on the rape of our natural resources and even quite a lengthy and detailed one and a half page article on the revolutionary fight against clerical fascism in Spain . But most definitely no article on the Fenians or by the man you mention .
My apologies I hadn't realised that the jan feb edition was out . The article by Tomas Mac Cormaic leading light in Craobh Gal Greine was in the October/November Edition of "The Sovereign Nation". The title is "The phoenix National and Literary Society-150 anniversary".
Let me quote from the last paragraph
"In the same way O Donabhain Rosa challenged the might of a foreign empire, we need to build the foundation stones for a new cultural renaissance, which will cherish the memory of our fenian fathers and the children who have died under the barbaric rule of English oppression. In each generation this has been a holy virtue, the ending of foreign occupation and we are no exception to the rules of our ancestral heritage. we too are baptised in the seed of our fathers and in the same way O Donnabhain Rosa pledged his life over the grave of his father, we too must pledge our allegiance to a Gaelic nation that will redeem the glories of those who gave us birth. A fenian nation, a Free nation, a Sovereign nation."
So why are the 32 CSM giving a platform to Craobh Gal Greine?????????????????????????
It appears that the above article errs on the side of caution when describing the historic right wing trend in Irish Republicanism.
‘The IRA and Nazism’ is a Brian Hanley piece in the Irish Republican Socialist Party’s
e-mail newsletter of February 2006.
Here is a sample of it:
“However, in July 1940 the IRA leadership issued a statement outlining
its position on the war. The statement made clear that if 'German
forces should land in Ireland, they will land...as friends and
liberators of the Irish people'. The public was assured that Germany
desired neither 'territory nor...economic penetration' in Ireland but
only that it should play its part in the 'reconstruction' of a 'free
and progressive Europe'. The Third Reich was also praised as the
'energising force' of European politics and the 'guardian' of national
freedom. In response to critics such as George Bernard Shaw, who had
drawn attention to Hitler's anti-Catholic policies, the IRA countered
that both 'Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini' proved their lack of bias
by helping to establish the 'Catholic government' of Franco in Spain.
In August the IRA confidently predicted that with the assistance of
'our victorious European allies' Ireland would 'achieve absolute
independence within the next few months'.”
Here is the link to the whole thing.
http://www.rsym.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=813&sid=f3170...25b4e
As its now the 5th of march your claim that you didnt know the Jan/Feb edition of the Sovereign Nation had been issued strikes me as puzzling . But anyway , the Sovereign nation is a democratic paper which offers a regular spot to non members of the 32 CSM to provide us with an article or opinion piece . This has been availed of by socialists , progressives and non aligned republicans and will continue to be availed of . While that article you refer to strikes me as a tad old fashioned in its presentation there is nothing whatsoever in it I would have any problem with . You seem to be suggesting such views should not be given a platform for some reason . I have no problem at all with the views expressed in that article whatsoever , although you hint that there is something wrong with them .
As far as Im aware that particular grouping are neither facist , racist nor even right wing although I confess I dont know a hell of a lot about them and dont really have any interest either .. Until evidence to the contrary is produced Ive no problem with them writing any article to the Sovereign Nation nor I presume does our editorial board . They are free to contribute articles if they so wish . As that article appeared during the anniversary of the Fenians historic Catalpa mission to Fremantle I assume the editor regarded it as worthy of inclusion for that reason .
Are you claiming this is a fascist group that should not be given a platform ?
So now Barry moves from:
Also Id take issue with the articles claim that 32 csm members ,past or present , are involved with this cork based Cal Greibhne outfit . I was in Cork city quite recently at a 32 CSM commemoration and none of our members had much of a clue about them
to admitting that the 32CSM paper carries articles by them, indicating that there's a modicum of contact between them.
As for "While that article you refer to strikes me as a tad old fashioned in its presentation there is nothing whatsoever in it I would have any problem with", I have to point you to this bit:
we too are baptised in the seed of our fathers
By any standards, baptism using yer Da's semen is a bit weird. At the very least it's a perversion of Christian rituals. I'm all for allowing people to do whatever they want, so I'm not condemning them for it (and more power to them if they can fill the font), but this adds a completely new dimension to the group.
anyone can send an article to the sovereign nation for consideration either by e-mail or by direct post .That requires of course a modicum of contact with the 32 csm editorial board but no more than required for posting on Indymedia . Why not write one yourself instead of making up a host of user names to flog the same horse . Its called a productive use of ones time .
"Right so a traditional republican platform then? McGeough is standing, principally as a separatist and against the acceptance of the P.S.N.I., you are saying the same thing I am saying. "
No Terry . Im not saying the same thing you are saying at all . Im saying McGeough is standing on a platform in opposition to acceptance of the PSNI and as the highest profile and best known candidate in the area is likely to maximise the separatist vote against them despite his own political shortcomings and contradictions with the republican separatist platform . Just as in the past Bernadette Devlin who was not any type of standard bearer for traditional republicanism either did pretty much the same when campaigning against the RUC despite the major contradictions in her position compared to the republican separatist position (she took her seat in Westminster and with that an oath of allegiance to the Queen but tactical support for her position at that time was required).
McGoughs platform is that of an individual who in many peoples eyes has earned the right to stand in opposition against the PSNI and little more. Your article does not even mention the fact that he would attend Stormont despite the tradfitional republican separatist abhorrence of that British institution , a glaring omission in an analysis of the political situation . Legitimate criticism of the shoddy and inaccurate nature of your article is not "shooting the messenger" by any means . Its quite clear you are unable to handle any critical analysis of your writings in a mature manner if thats your view . That view is also borne out by the previous humdinger of an article penned by yourself that demonised republicans on Indymedia here
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/75378
An article of yours on a similar subject that was thorougly slated accross the board and despite repeated requests to back up your statements and accusations and at the very least to have the courtesy to engage with those offering a critical analysis of your attempt at a critical analysis, you refused to reply in a manner Peter Hart would be proud of . From that failure to respond and your current defensive plea of "dont shoot the messenger" for simply correcting and questioning your analysis it appears you cannot handle any analysis that disagrees with you . You expect to have your analysis accepted without any doubt or questioning at all and regard any such counter analysis as a personal attack . As that previous article demonstrated a heavily weighted personal bias and agenda against the republican separatist position that relied upon Sunday World type hysteria and felon setting Im of the opinion your current piece deserves viewed with a critical eye also . Certainly worth approaching with caution ..
As regards Craobh Gál Gréine its pretty much my understanding that this group essentially appeared out of nowhere and did not sprout from any republican organisation or organisations that Im aware of . There is no record at all of any defections or departures from any organisation that lead to the formation of this group .Why thats so difficult to believe in your opinion would need elucidation from yourself . You have utterly failed to demonstrate that any such process occurred anywhere or during any period leading to the formation of that group .
"Adams and a pro-choice position"
Again you are dreadfully incorrect in your analysis of Sinn Fein having a pro choice position regarding abortion in the 1980s until they were forced to abandon it as a sop to another faction. The PSF ard Chomairle based largely around a handful of individuals with their power base in West Belfast certainly advanced and supported a pro-abortion position but were unable to pass it at their ard feis as Sinn Fein policy due to pretty much no support for it at all throughout the entire organsiation . They didnt change their position as a sop to anyone . They were unable to have Sinn Fein adopt that position in the first place . That is a shoddy and poorly researched appraisal of the situation . As is your other claim that Martin Galvin has a radio show in New York . He doesnt and never has had.
As regards RSF involvement in the formation of Youth Defence its the most laughable thing Ive ever heard in my life . O'Bradaigh would have spontaneously combusted in outrage. RSFs own constitution has from day one specifically prohibited membership of any other political organisation , much less a shower of wannabe Blueshirts . It prohibits even co-operation of any kind with organisations like 32 csm or IRSP or pretty much anyone for that manner and is passed as a yearly motion at their ard feis , something Im deeply critical of But then properly researching an article beforehand would have told you that . Scouring the internet for unattributable unproven and unprovable tittle tattle that will support your own view of the intriniscally fascist nature of republican separatism just does not stand up as proper research .
Again your lack of research and basic knowlege of the situation is betrayed in your warning about McGeough getting a profile from the election . Leaving aside the issue of the high political profile he has enjoyed within nationalism since the 1980s courtesy of Sinn Fein , the anti Nice campaign and his IRA activities you pose the question " this would obviously be a tremendous boon to the movement he aims to build, which is anti-Gay, anti-immigrant, against abortion (in ANY circumstance), against contraception, for sexual repression, all based on, as you put it “his nutty religious opinions”. It would give him a platform and a base to build from. The question for ‘dissident’/’traditional’ republicans such as yourself is do you want to help that or be associated with that?"
The fact that you have completely ommitted from your article any of the quite public debate within republicanism which addressed the issue of voting for Gerry McGeough , ignored and ommitted the statements and press releases from 32 csm and others relating to the issue (unbelievably neglecting to mention the the fact that RSF are running AGAINST him) and instead concentrated upon the obscurantist religious writings contained in the Hibernian for shock value (edited by but not written by McGeough) leaves you again exposed to the accusation of shoddy research and a desire to engage in the Sunday World /Jim Cusack school of hysterical , reactionary and decidely shoddy journalism . If you were really interested in exploring that position you would have gone to the trouble of finding out . As you didnt Ill have to do it for you .
In a recent press release on the issue Francie Mackey , Chairperson of 32 CSM , addressed this very issue along the following lines
"The March election campaign is now under way and there is a range of candidates going forward on a stated stance of opposition to British Policing in Ireland.
The common thread is a unifying call for the Republican and Nationalist community to exercise their right to register their misgivings and opposition to the acceptance of the PSNI/RUC, MI5 and the whole British intelligence services operating illegally in Ireland.
It also allows the people to voice their opposition to the continued sectarian politics of the British inspired Stormont Deal as agreed under the St. Andrews agreement......
.......The Anti British Policing candidates come from varying backgrounds, however that should not deter anyone from voting for them . Equally the candidates should not interpret the vote as anything other than what it is, opposition to British policing and British law in Ireland.""
http://southarmagh32.blogspot.com/
That adresses the very issue you claim you want to explore but you make no mention of it and clearly didnt go to the bother of researching what the position is .
Glaringly ommitted from your article also is the dramatic upsurge of opposition in the north towards the Sinn Fein line on accepting the British crown forces as legitimate . No analysis or consideration of this central issue in the Fermanagh election at all .
The historic and current debate within republicanism on acceptance of the PSNI ? - omitted / ignored within your article
Any analysis of why republicans and nationalists would vote for McGeough in opposition to the crown forces ?
completely omitted /ignored within your article .
These are central issues you have no interest in exploring . Instead you fixate upon McGeoughs aversion to rubber Johnnies (which isnt even remotely an issue in the election) and ignore his aversion to rubber bullets ,which is a central and crucial issue in the election , his decision to stand and central to any electoral support he'll receive .
The urgent and pressing necessity of rejecting colonial policing in Ireland here and now is why republicans will support McGeough on this occasion , although many will in the final analysis be unable to offer him any support due to his religious baggage . The issue of McGeough building a platform for his other political activities on the back of this election is an issue that may or may not have to be addressed following the election but hardly a pressing one or a seminal moment in Irish or republican separatist history. But the issue of British colonial police building a platform of political respectability and cover following this election is one which will have to be addressed and opposed without a doubt . Its an immediate life and death issue and an issue you are both unable and unwilling to address at all and where this article falls flat on its face . No concept or analysis at all of the issue central to the election and central to any support McGeough will receive . As far as I can see you dont even include a single quote or remark attributable to McGeough himself on any issue at all ...thats just desperate in my opinion .
A poor analysis and poor effort Terry . Much like your last one . And as regards the historical examples of catholics in a largely catholic country having conservative catholic opinions.....is that supposed to be news or something ?
Barry kindly point out to me where I make a claim concerning the "intriniscally fascist nature of republican separatism"?
As I said Craobh Gál Gréine claim that is where they draw their membership from, 32 CSM, Provo Sinn Fein, Republican Sinn Fein.
I don't claim that members of RSF were involved in setting up Youth Defence, I claim that an extensive document from Catholics for Choice claims this.
You are informing us then that the 32 CSM is supporting McGeough in the upcoming election? To be honest little ol' anti-republican me would give youse the benefit of the doubt on that one and assume not until told otherwise, that press release not mentioning him by name.
Craobh Gál Gréine:
A quick look at the Craobh Gál Gréine website, will reveal an outlook similar enough to that in ‘The Hibernian’, though less religious, immigration is the new plantation/colonialism, the nation is under attack by a wide ranging world conspiracy, including Freemasonry, the need to go back to the values and standards of an idealised past, coupled with an anti-Agreement/anti-P.S.N.I. Republican stance, dressed up in racial terms ie ’Saxon’ and ’Gael’. Members of the group contribute to ‘The Hibernian’, they also however have their own publication. Barry everything I have said above in reply to you in regard to McGeough also applies to this group.
Here are some Craobh Gál Gréine quotes:
“At present our nation is under attack by what is known as 4th Generation Warfare. This is where unconventional weapons are used in the killing and control of our population by the enemies of our people. Our enemies are large and extend far beyond the Masonic tones of the European Union and the terrorism of the English state. Unconventional weapons include narcotic drugs, abortion, feminising the male population, gun-control and media propaganda.”
“Abortion, which has seen the death of 155,000 Irish babies’ has been used as population control, and now when our nations economy is growing significantly, the European Union is using the void created in our youth, to force through its Immigrant Plantation to de-nationalise the native population. The morning after-pill is another weapon of 4th Generation Warfare and below I have found it necessary to address an attack being foisted on young Irish girls by certain Liberals who are working towards a world agenda that will see the destruction of Nation States.” (the article goes on to explain why allowing the morning after pill to raped teenagers is a means of covering up child abuse)
“Fenianism is about propagating a wholesome nation built upon the traditions and maintenance of a Gaelic society. It believes it is an ethical duty for existence that every race to be allowed to be esteemed in their indigenous heritage. Therefore Fenianism will continue to counteract the plague of foreign multiculturalism being punished upon the Irish people. Fenianism understands that it is only a foolish and weak nation that would accept this dreadful colonialism and it is the aim of Fenianism to make the Irish nation, virile and red-blooded in its natural ideas.”
Barry, McGeough was politically involved before 2007, no shit, you know as well as I do, that any degree of success in the election will build his profile and give him more of a base for to build his movement, this is why small and marginal political groupings stand for election.
On public debate and so forth I’m not aware of any published piece of material emanating from anti-Agreement republicanism, apart from an article on a blog to which I linked to above, which criticises McGeough’s political perspective, the totality of it, not in regard to when he left Sinn Fein, or the fact he will take his seat should he get one, I hope such exists.
I don’t see why it shouldn’t. (I cannot see for instance the I.R.S.P. having any time for him).
“The urgent and pressing necessity of rejecting colonial policing in Ireland here and now is why republicans will support McGeough on this occasion , although many will in the final analysis be unable to offer him any support due to his religious baggage . The issue of McGeough building a platform for his other political activities on the back of this election is an issue that may or may not have to be addressed following the election but hardly a pressing one or a seminal moment in Irish or republican separatist history. “
O.K. leaving aside for one moment any consideration of any other issue other than we shall say the “national question”, and leaving the interpretation of that issue to be just your own, in what sense is supporting someone who publishes a magazine calling for a Catholic Ireland, meaning in so far as I can ascertain a religiously homogenous one, not just a state with Catholic social policy, useful to the realisation of republican objectives?
As to “pressing matters” basically its all not relevant then? Rights for gays, immigration, etc… not important, as long as he is a sound man on the border.
Thing is if “republican separatism” was “intrinsically fascist” as you seem to think I think, this wouldn’t be as bad, as you wouldn’t know any better. As you actually do know better and most of contemporary republicanism has some notion of equality and solidarity, then it is incredibly irresponsible to not only tolerate these elements, but to give them platforms, and seemingly endorse their candidacy, within, broadly speaking, your movement.
Also it is not necessary to vote for McGeough, even in that constituency, as you point out yourself, Sean McManus is standing. Logically therefore it is quite possible to oppose the policing deal in the election without supporting McGeough.
Likewise he is on the platform of a rally (Bundoran) and a public meeting (Derry) if there are, as you claim in postings and stories on this site, plenty of republicans now coming out against the Sinn Fein policy, it is not necessary that McGeough be given a platform.
Finally, you would say of Unionism, would you not, that it is a bigoted and supremicist ideology, and so forth, really what is McGeough but a Catholic version of the same.
Your willingness to tolerate him, doesn’t make your opposition to Unionism seem progressive, which would include opposition to prejudice and discrimination in general.
Oh and finally not much of the above in regard to historic right wing trends in republicanism, or The Hibernian, are bog standard conservative Catholic views, I mean seriously Freemasons running the Catholic church, a Salazar for Ireland, Hitler our ’gallant ally in Europe’. Get a grip, you would think I was writing about James Connolly’s line on divorce or something, everything I have identified, have been things that, in the context of their time, were to the far-right. With the sole exception of pointing out that the ‘social issues’ conflicts of the 70s, 80s, and 90s, took place within republicanism, much as within the wider society.
‘The national and racial characteristics of the English and Irish people are different, their political history and traditions are antagonistic, the economic development of the one is not on a par with the other, and, finally, although they have been in the closest contact for seven hundred years, yet the Celtic Irishman is to-day as much of an insoluble problem to even the most friendly English as on the day when the two countries were first joined in unholy wedlock’. - James Connolly [Erin’s Hope, The End and the Means 1887].
Chorus
Sons of the Gael! Men of the Pale!
The long watched day is breaking;
The serried ranks of Inisfail
Shall set the Tyrant quaking.
Our camp fires now are burning low;
See in the east a silv'ry glow,
Out yonder waits the Saxon foe,
So chant a soldier's song.
Didn't James Connolly speak in Racial terms, not to mind our National anthem today.
'The forms of heroes flit before my vision, and there is one the star of whose destiny sways my own; there is one the keynote of whose nature chimes harmoniously with the swan song of my soul. It is the great Florentine, whose weapon was not the sword, but prayer and preaching. The seed he sowed fructifies to this day in God’s church. Take me away and let my blood bedew the sacred soil of Ireland . I die in the certainty that once more the seed will fructify.' Tomás mac Donagh during his Court-martial.
It seems 1916 leader Tomás mac Donagh also spoke about the seed of Ireland.
I'd say McGeough is cut up about the IRSP not supporting him! The IRPs wouldn't get 300 votes in Fermanagh and Tyrone.
The Sinn Fein Ard Fheis adopted a pro-abortion policy in 1985. You can check this by reading AP/RN from that year, it would be October or November. It was changed the following year, which has always led to the theory that it was a trade off over abstentionism etc. I would say it was more likely tat the ex-People's Democracy, IRSP etc post 1981 recruits managed to get a majority while everyone else was at breakfast on Saturday morning. As for YD, O Bradaigh is a bit more flexible than you let on Barry. The MacMathuna family, key players in the formation of YD and its activities in the early 1990s are regulars at the RSF Bodenstown and play music etc at RSF events. I don't think there was any organisational link however. As for YD being wannabe Blueshirts, well Justin Barret was a YD spokesman and Gerry McGeough was his ally in the Nice referendum. Barret also contributes to The Hibernian under a cover name. And as far is Jim Cusack is concerned he has been promoting McGeough in the SINDO as an good old fashioned republican being smeared by Gerry and the boys. Ever wonder why?
This was passed at the 1985 Ard Fheis late on a Sunday afternoon when almost all the delegates had left. It was a bit of a stroke by Dublin lefties and was decisively overturned the following year. McGeough is not being "promoted" by Cusack. Cusack is simply using the fact that McGeough was on the AC as a stick to beat the Shinners. It does not reflect any sympathy on Cusack's part for McGeough. Finally, what is wrong with RSF having good relations with the MacMathunas? They are obviously republicans and their oppositon to abortion is shared by most republicans.
Actually Cusack has defended McGeough against charges of being far right and said the Hibernian is merely an 'Ireland's Own' type publication. Henry MacDonald and Liam Clarke have also talked up the bould Gerry and MacDonald, an obsessive baiter of all things nationalist usually has not mentioned once what McGeough's social views are. A plot me thinks...
Obviously people who dislike the shinners will use anything to attack them but that does not prove that they support McGeough. Anti-republican elements were only too happy to use all manner of ultra leftists who were anti-IRA when that suited their purposes as well. McGeough is not repsonsible for that.
Just for the record, I haven't been making up a host of user names. This is my only my second contribution to this subject. If Barry or any other independent republican feels that Terry and others are writing inaccurate articles about them based on "rumours' and what they've been able to find on the internet then Barry et al should take a step back and ask how it is that someone that's trying to find out about what they believe can come away with that impression.
So far I've got more information about the strands of Irish republicanism on inydmedia than anywhere else and I thank Terry for his articles. I don't see Barry's articles here, so if there's a failure in communication it's pretty obvious where it comes from. If it wasn't for Terry I wouldn't even know about McGeough and his disgusting views, or the apparent unwillingness of Barry and friends to tell him to get knotted.
As someone with previously a generally positive view of dissident republicans that has witnessed the gradual dragging out links that I'd consider to be unacceptable, and the hysterical response to Terry I'm not impressed.
Thank you Barry for replying to my question. You are aware that some republican publications are rather irregular in production and distribution, that is why I was unaware of the latest issue.
For the record I am gay and a former member of a republican organisation. I still see myself as arepublican and am very concerned at the recent trend to associate that noble tradition with reactionary opinion.
Therefore my concern is that people who promote the racist, homophobic and rigthwing nationalist organisation Craobh Gal Greine are undermining the cause of republicanism. I am disappointed that the 32csm cannot see that this concern is genuine or valid. I could not join any grouping that sees any value in endorsing or associating with Gerry Mc Geough or Craobh Gal Greine. I fear that republicanism will be damaged by the fact that the revolutionary wing of the broader movement has not rejected and called for the rejection of these people.
Sorry for being late in replying but I have a demanding job.
32 CSM have called for the rejection of the British crown forces and their illegal activities against this nation . That is the issue at stake in this election , not Gerry McGeough ,one candidate among many opposing the PSNI ,his religious hang ups and his hangers on . That is the issue being addressed by 32 csm , the absolute necessity to defend against the British forces attempt to neutralise once and for all the separatist constituency.. To cloud the issue with unrelated nit picking, navel gazing and supposition unconnected to the PSNI is to avoid the issue . The issue of Mr McGeoughs reactionary baggage is one that can be easily addressed come this Thursday by those who choose to . Until then the pressing necessity for republican separatists is to maximise the opposition to the PSNI and not to be sidetracked . After thursday the existence and a sense of scale of the republican separatist constituency in the north will be more easily gauged and God willing extremely difficult to ignore . Its also a safe bet that Mr McGeough and his Hibernians on viagra will not be providing either leadership or direction to that constituency ( not least because they posess neither the strategy , analysis or capabilites to do so ), which is why we've publicly reminded all candidates that a vote for them is a vote against the British crown forces and nothing more . None have contradicted that public statement by our Chairperson Francie Mackey because all know it to be the case .
The spectre of Gerry McGeough confiscating everyones rubber Johnnies and making them go to mass because of this election stands in very pale contrast to the very real and imminent threat of the final and decisive victory of the British state and their forces against our nation . Thats the issue at stake tomorrow and nothing else .
So Barry, you would aid a racist homophobic misogynist's election chances for the sake of your 'nation'. This proves the allegations anarchists and others have been making against you on this site for years. Your commitment to some "combination of chemical elements" is greater than your commitment to the people of Ireland. You and your ilk are a pathetic embarrassment.
Umbongo if you are a former or present member of any grouping linked to Republicanism, please substantiate this with proof. You have made enormous allegations against Craobh Gal Gréine as a society that is comprised of over 80 Republicans. If you intend to continue with your accusations by labelling certain individuals as either rascist or sectarian, provide substantial information on these; and also back up your claims in person rather than under some pseudo name. This mysterious posts carry no crediblity amongst Republicans as they are anonymous.
“Abortion, which has seen the death of 155,000 Irish babies’ has been used as population control, and now when our nations economy is growing significantly, the European Union is using the void created in our youth, to force through its Immigrant Plantation to de-nationalise the native population. The morning after-pill is another weapon of 4th Generation Warfare and below I have found it necessary to address an attack being foisted on young Irish girls by certain Liberals who are working towards a world agenda that will see the destruction of Nation States.” (the article goes on to explain why allowing the morning after pill to raped teenagers is a means of covering up child abuse) "
Terry, I just read the article which you extracted the above quote from. You fail to mention that the article was written in reference to Mary Harney proposing to give the morning after pill to girls as young as eleven, without parental consent. If I'm not mistaken wasn't there uproar among large sections of the Irish population when she suggested this, especially amongst parents of young children. This is a political view that is common amongst Irish people; while at least 50% of the Irish population still opposes abortion. I don't think these are very valid attacks on a Cultural Society that represents views of 50% of the Irish people. Has anyone actually asked the membership of Craobh Gal Gréine what they are about? Are is every speculation? And is the views of its chairman representative of the entire group. I ask this as in 1919 Arthur Griffith was chairperson of the 2nd Dáil and I don't think his views were representative of the entire Dáil at the time. Nevertheless he as Chairperson of the Dáil.
Specifically a section that many people would find bizarre and reprehensible. If you have a particular moral and political outlook then it doesn't matter (*) how many or what percentage of the population agree with you. It doesn't make the issue any more or less wrong. The only people that decide morality on the basis of popularity are politicians. If you think about it you'll be able to find many historical and/or foreign societies that will have unacceptable beliefs held by their populations.
* Obviously it's of concern if so many people have a retrograde desire to criminalise a woman's right to choose and finding a way of changing their minds is important.
As far as the "think of the children" example goes: if my 11 year old daugher were raped (or just decided that it would be a good idea to try having sex) and she were too embarrased or confused to talk to me about it I'd rather she were able to get a morning-after pill so that she didn't end up pregnant too if she didn't want to be pregnant.
It may well be that McGeough articulates common positions in our society, but what's interesting here is that there is apparently no condemnation from the various independent republicans of his position on these matters. Upon entering into the political system all high-flown principle about Liberty and Equality flies out the window in order to achieve a probable marginal vote. Independent Republicans end up sustaining someone with the most abhorrent views and giving him political air.
I think all the above is well worth knowing as it shows a distinctly unprincipled weakness in the strategy and tactics of the non-SF republicans.
If independnet republicans reflect popular opinions on abortion, what makes you think that you are right? Ever hear of democracy?
“Abortion, which has seen the death of 155,000 Irish babies’ has been used as population control, and now when our nations economy is growing significantly, the European Union is using the void created in our youth, to force through its Immigrant Plantation to de-nationalise the native population. The morning after-pill is another weapon of 4th Generation Warfare and below I have found it necessary to address an attack being foisted on young Irish girls by certain Liberals who are working towards a world agenda that will see the destruction of Nation States.”
O.K. let's look at what this, and the other paragraphs are saying, for sure it is possible that one could have shall we say 'traditional Catholic' views and take dim view of abortion and the morning after pill...I find it hard to believe that most people in Ireland would deny the morning after pill to raped teens or pre-teens..but that is beside the point.......
(1) Our nation is under attack, a facet of this attack includes abortion.
(2) The resulting population reduction, allows stage two of the attack, the "immigration plantation", now the remember by plantation they mean a process by which a native population is divested of their land, killed or expelled, and replaced by settlers, a process which it is heroic to resist by force of arms, ie the standard memory of the plantations in Irish history.
(3) This attack is part of a world wide conspiracy, a "world agenda".
These are not traditional or bog standard socially conservative views.
Craobh also say they are in favour of cherising all the NATIVE children of Ireland equally, which obviously implies inequality for the non-native, the question there is by non-native do they mean people of say Nigerian descent, or Protestants, or both.
This group ‘Craobh Gal Gréine’ are quite obviously not a republican group but an ultra nationalist group. As where a large number of the supporters of the original Provisional Alliance which emerged in late 1969/70/71. These people look at a certain period of fenianism around the late 1880s to the 1910s and for cover for their abhorrent views being brought into the republican fold. Republicans should make no excuse for clearly stating the position that these people sand in the way of the achievement of republican goals - they need to be challenged as the British presence was or loyalism. McGeough is not a republican, that he was involved in a number of feeble ‘military’ operations and a CIA sting and is now a analy obsessed homophobe and is a disgrace to any nationality just confirms that true republicans should take action against him.
It's peculiar that slagging McGeough still gets top billing on Indymedia a week after this debate was opened. Are there people here who are worried he might have polled well today?
The purpose of todays vote is to demonstrate opposition to the PSNI and the direction taken by the constitutional nationalist parties including PSF . Nothing else . That has been very clearly spelt out both to the electorate and the various candidates themselves , abstentionist and non abstentionist , they vary widely. Any vote they receive will be a demonstration of the rejection of British rule in Ireland by a republican separatist constituency . I dont support McGeoughs other views in the slightest and have no problem with anyone tackling his political position on social and moral issues because I thoroughly reject them . But thats not remotely what this election is about , not in the slightest. This election is about getting the republican separatist vote out accross the north in rejection of British colonialism and armed forces . Its not even about getting candidates elected , merely getting the vote out . Yesterday over 300 former republican prisoners including quite a number who were members of PSF until quite recently took out an advert in the Irish News urging people to vote for the Independent Republican candidates . Many among them possess strong left wing opinions and have openly criticised McGeough for his other political baggage . But whats important today is the rejection of the reformist and collaborationist constitutional nationalism of the provos and Fianna Fail , SDLP etc . The rejection of colonial rule in Ireland
The usual anti "dissident" slabbering shows just how out of touch with the issue at hand trendy lefty eejits are and their failure to even remotely comprehend the gravity of todays events . Such a grassroots revolt against the Adams leadership is unprecedented . The issue at hand hasnt even been touched upon in this article . I realise Im dealing with people who dont even attach any importance to the violation of our national sovereignty by a foreign power and who would most likely view the desire for a British withdrawal as sectarian and reactionary . Having talked to European leftists for years about their views on the Irish "revolutionary left" Im also well aware Im talking to the laughing stock of the European revolutionary fraternity . Bourgeouis petty and posturing and weak kneed to a ridulous level about the colonial domination of their own country they feel the need to categorise those prepared to oppose it as facists , sneaking regarders of fascists or amenable to fascism with a fascist ancestry to boot ... The complete lack of any sense of the importance of todays events and the rejection of colonialism called for by all the candidates on the "dissident "slate either escapes them completely or worries them .
I also notice no Irish anarchist political political prisoners signed yesterdays letter . I wonder why that was ?
Barry, can youtell us which of those prisoners were memebrs of SF until recently? I am interested to know whos who.
The purpose of todays vote is to demonstrate opposition to the PSNI and the direction taken by the constitutional nationalist parties including PSF
That may be the intent, but it seems you didn't think it through very clearly and although many might agree with you on opposition to the PSNI etc they would not be able to endorse voting for someone with McGeough's beliefs. A major miscalculation by whatever geniuses came up with this strategy.
The rest of your intemperate rant is irrelevant. Probably by selecting and endorsing this candidate dissident republicans have ensured that they've marginalised themselves by associating with fringe loonies. No need for MI5, petty-bourgeouis liberals or The Man: dissident republicans can eff it up all by themselves.
Going by Adam's performance last night, he knows he's the one who's effed up and handed Mc Guinness's dream job as Paisley's second in command to Durkin.
"The gorgeous Gerry McGeough
by Pete Wed Mar 07, 2007 19:46
This group ‘Craobh Gal Gréine’ are quite obviously not a republican group but an ultra nationalist group. As where a large number of the supporters of the original Provisional Alliance which emerged in late 1969/70/71. These people look at a certain period of fenianism around the late 1880s to the 1910s and for cover for their abhorrent views being brought into the republican fold. Republicans should make no excuse for clearly stating the position that these people sand in the way of the achievement of republican goals - they need to be challenged as the British presence was or loyalism. McGeough is not a republican, that he was involved in a number of feeble ‘military’ operations and a CIA sting and is now a analy obsessed homophobe and is a disgrace to any nationality just confirms that true republicans should take action against him."
Nowhere in history has the Irish Republican position being pro-abortion, until the Adams leadership took over. Holding conservative views on that issue is totally within the guidelines of Irish Republicanism. That is a moral position.
Secondly if I'm correct in reading the articles in Gal Gréine's magazine, they are opposed to mass-immigration. They have not suggested that all immigrants be driven out of Ireland, but mass-immigration should be curbed. This is a view point held by over 90% of the Irish people.
I have yet to read any articles, if any exist, of Gal Gréine being homophobic (although I assume they are). But as a historian, looking at the Republican newspapers in the 20's when accusations were tabled against Roger Casement, every article written on the subject by Republicans were homophobic; of both the pro-treaty and anti-treaty factions of the IRA.
While I personally detest the Catholic religion, the Republican position cannot be hypocritical and talk about Religious freedom, and then try to censor Catholics for expressing their beliefs. Further if Ireland is to progress to a 32 county Irish Republic, it will be the majority of the Irish people in referendum that will decide what is to be accepted in society and what is not. At present I would guess there is a 50/50 divide on most of the issues discussed here.
"Craobh..
by Terry Wed Mar 07, 2007 18:29
(1) Our nation is under attack, a facet of this attack includes abortion.
(2) The resulting population reduction, allows stage two of the attack, the "immigration plantation", now the remember by plantation they mean a process by which a native population is divested of their land, killed or expelled, and replaced by settlers, a process which it is heroic to resist by force of arms, ie the standard memory of the plantations in Irish history.
(3) This attack is part of a world wide conspiracy, a "world agenda".
These are not traditional or bog standard socially conservative views.
Craobh also say they are in favour of cherising all the NATIVE children of Ireland equally, which obviously implies inequality for the non-native, the question there is by non-native do they mean people of say Nigerian descent, or Protestants, or both. "
A plantation also involves displacement. The native American indians were often displaced rather than being murdered. It is also the case with Aborigines in Australia.
I find it hard to understand how Anarchists are supporting the building of a super-state in Europe. Mass-immigration under the laws of 'freedom to travel' in the EU, was never about giving workers the opportunity to become wealthy. These laws were designed to favour the capitalist class who wanted to exploit workers and reduce wages to increase profits. Mass-immigration in Ireland, while it might boost the economy short-term will create enormous problems both for the immigrants and Irish people when the economy collapses. It has also effected hundreds of small towns throughout Eastern Europe, in the same way Ireland was effected when our youth were forced to emigrate. Surely the discussion on Immigration, should be centred around the distribution of wealth amongst nations so people are not forced to migrate in search of jobs or a better standard of living. If the job losses continue and Irish people become unemployed because they cannot compete in the labour market, then I think the government will play into the hands of the anti-immigrant lobby in Ireland. If anyone has watched 'The Field', then I think Ireland could become a timebomb if things continue the way they are going.
Alan, none of the above, is a matter of for or against Catholicism, after all ’The Hibernian’ maintains that the Catholic Church is controlled by Freemasonry. These are, again, NOT the standard views of people who would say vote no in a referendum for abortion on demand. This should be apparent from reading the above article.
On homophobia, it is called context, in no way today could a movement claiming to stand for freedom and equality tolerate organised political homophobia in its ranks (at the very least).
On immigration. Note I said killed or expelled. Would a group which compares immigration to an invasion followed by the death or expulsion of the native population and the confiscation of their land be likely to (a) contribute to a ‘time bomb’ of ethnic conflict,
(b) mitigate such a conflict, or (c) neither. A no-brainer of a question. After all Enoch Powell’s
argument on immigration was the same as that you make ’time bomb’ or ’rivers of blood’. The illusion of Powell’s concern about this was perhaps just a little punctured by the fact he was prepared, politically, to contribute to a climate tending to increase the chances of ’rivers of blood’ . The "Plantations" analogy would suggest a little more than "curb mass immigration".
A controlled degree of anti-immigrant sentiment is functional to capitalism, as immigrants are more exploitable if they are also repressed or in a precarious position, e.g. illegal or dependant on paper work held by employers.
For this, and many many more reasons, and there is NO anti-immigration anti-capitalist position, which expresses itself as aiming to make life more difficult for immigrants. In an ideal world no one would have to travel, in non-EU cases in a very dangerous manner that often results in deaths, in order to make a living, and no one would have to flee persecution. We don’t have to address an ideal world but reality.
Standing in solidarity with migrant workers, eg GAMA, is what decreases the potential for migration to be used by capital to act as a downward pressure on wages and conditions.
Maybe I’m seeing a point where there isn’t one, but have you just compared the ‘displacement’ of workers by lower paid migrant workers, with the ’displacement’ of the indigenous populations of the Americas and Australia in, at the least, near genocidal invasions?
Barry it is highly naïve of you to argue that it is ok to advocate a vote for McGeough, as have apparently the 32 CSM and the list of ex-prisoners, on the basis that you have told him that the vote is just to “demonstrate opposition to the PSNI and the direction taken by the constitutional nationalist parties including PSF” and “the rejection of British rule in Ireland”, as if you are successful, and, it is unlikely, but McGeough gets a seat, in what way will you have any control over how he uses it, furthermore if he simply gets a higher profile out of a good showing in this election, you will have no control over how he uses that.
As was pointed out above you can advocate a vote for Micheal McManus, the RSF candidate in the Fermanagh-South Tyrone constituency, if you want to advocate an anti-PSNI, anti-Adams, anti-British sovereignty vote.
In any case this goes beyond an election, see McGeough being on the platform of republican events.
You cannot box the “social and religious views” expressed in ‘The Hibernian’ away from the views on the North, given that the same ideology informs both of them, and aiming for an ethnically and religious homogenous Ireland would not just inform a position on immigration, but also, obviously, a position on the Northern Ireland conflict.
The fact you, and others, know better than to give McGeough a leg up, damns you more than if you didn’t know any better.
“Such a grassroots revolt against the Adams leadership is unprecedented . The issue at hand hasnt even been touched upon in this article.”
As was pointed out to you above by another poster….write the article! You have had articles here before on Love Ulster, Sean Russell, independent republican candidates in the 2005 local elections, some of which were turned into features, you can throw an article together, so if your analysis sees as an important “grassroots revolt”, which you, being against the Sinn Fein policy, see as a positive, then write about it. You cannot criticise an article about McGeough’s views on the basis it is an article about McGeough’s views and not something else. If the article about the “grassroots revolt” represented by the independent republicans is missing from indymedia, it is, partly, your fault for not putting it there. Personally I’d like to see it, and more articles from you, while I, obviously, disagree with your political views, this would make for a wider range of topics addressed and views expressed, which would be good for the indymedia project. If you don’t have time try to get your colleagues to write it, or something else.
“they feel the need to categorise those prepared to oppose it as facists , sneaking regarders of fascists or amenable to fascism with a fascist ancestry to boot”
Kindly point out to me, where, in the above article (or any other) or any comment, where I have described republicans thus. I have identified a historic right wing trend in Irish republicanism, which is a matter of historical record, just as Connolly, the Republican Congress, the left turn in the 60s, and the left turn in the 80s, is a matter of historical record.
“I also notice no Irish anarchist political political prisoners signed yesterdays letter . I wonder why that was ?”
Many reasons, one of them would be that most anarchists, from circa 1900 onwards, copped on to the fact that assassinations and bombings, isolated from popular mass mobilisation, have no capacity to bring about meaningful social change. See this pamphlet: http://www.anarres.org.au/essays/terorism.htm
"On homophobia, it is called context, in no way today could a movement claiming to stand for freedom and equality tolerate organised political homophobia in its ranks (at the very least)."
But the difficulty on this subject is, if it is people's religious belief to be homophobic, how can we preach down to those people and tell them that the position is either outdated or unacceptable. Whether the arguments can be justified or not, technically it is religious persecution. Christianity has been responsible for thousands of similiar attacks on native religions throughout Europe since its foundation, and now when Christianity no longer has the power it once had, people are suggesting that we can be sectarian against Christianity itself.
The reality is Mc Geough holds the same position as probably 95% of the IRA and Sinn Féin in the 1920's, so traditionally he has kept faith with those who have struggled for Irish freedom. Whether people believe that society has evolved for better or for worse since then, we cannot claim that freedom and equality mean different things in different eras. If we accept that people like Terence mac Swiney and J.J. Kelly were Republicans, then we must accept that Mc Geough is also a Republican. If we reject Mc Geough then we bring into question 1,000's of Irish martyrs who struggled for Irish freedom in the past.
I would suggest that this is a moral question that should be placed outside the perimeters of Republicanism, and like Abortion should be dealth as a single issue, rather than being either a position of acceptance or rejection of who can be Republican.
"On immigration. Note I said killed or expelled. Would a group which compares immigration to an invasion followed by the death or expulsion of the native population and the confiscation of their land be likely to (a) contribute to a ‘time bomb’ of ethnic conflict,
(b) mitigate such a conflict, or (c) neither. A no-brainer of a question.
A controlled degree of anti-immigrant sentiment is functional to capitalism, as immigrants are more exploitable if they are also repressed or in a precarious position, e.g. illegal or dependant on paper work held by employers.
For this, and many many more reasons, and there is NO anti-immigration anti-capitalist position, which expresses itself as aiming to make life more difficult for immigrants. In an ideal world no one would have to travel, in non-EU cases in a very dangerous manner that often results in deaths, in order to make a living, and no one would have to flee persecution. We don’t have to address an ideal world but reality."
Ireland since it attained limited freedom in the 1920's has been run and still is run by Capitalist. Many who are tied into the English structure being absentee landlords in one form or another. I think most people here accept that the Dublin Government is corrupt, open to bribes, and working against the majority of the people of Ireland. During the Nice referendum, the Irish people were lied, bribed and fooled into accepting the EU laws that now govern Immigration right across Europe. Personally I'm opposed to Immigration, as historically it has been used to exploit the immigrant communties and the citizens of a country, where immigration takes place.
I agree with you that the state welcomes a controlled degree of anti-immigrant sentiment, so it can divide the people and cause conflict amongst those who are most vunerable, but what we have to do is expose those exact points and the corruption within the government. If workers are displaced by immigrants, there is no point in blaming those workers whose immediate reaction is to blame the immigrants. This would be like blaming workers if 'scabs' took their jobs in an industrial dispute. The problem here lies with the government. The governments program to exploit immigrants and further the governments program to have sections of the Irish society in conflict with immigrant communties. Long term I do believe Ireland is going to be a breeding ground for conflict, as judging by peoples reactions at present there is a fierce hostility to immigrants. I can't see intergration working, and if the European Union continues to grow, then I see furthe exploitation of immigrants and Irish workers.
"Maybe I’m seeing a point where there isn’t one, but have you just compared the ‘displacement’ of workers by lower paid migrant workers, with the ’displacement’ of the indigenous populations of the Americas and Australia in, at the least, near genocidal invasions? "
When the indigenous people of America and Australia were displaced, it was through an onslaught of murderous campaigns by the imperial powers of Europe. This was also the case when Cromwell was in Ireland in the 17th century. Imperialism today has disguised itself and is no longer working through the tyranny of invading armies (except in places such as Iraq), as it gives the impression now that it is politically correct, almost legitimate in its actions. The invading armies of the 17th and 18th centuries are now replaced with Multi-national companies that enslave people in a whole new manner. The poverty divide is just a perverse as it was then, and most workers still struggle to attain a decent standard of living. A plantation of a ruling class back in the 18th century, backed up by militias and hired mercenries is today reflected in multi-nationalist companies backed up by totalitarian police forces. We must accept even in our own circumstances, that when the English planted Ireland, all those planted were not part of the ruling class, but the vast majority were no more than pawns in a game of colonialism. It is the same today. The way the Scots Presbytarians were used by England as almost a servant class, is the same as the way immigrants are being exploited in Ireland today. Displacement unfortunately is one of the side effects of Imperialism. If we are to oppose displacement, we cannot just pretend immigration isn't an issue in Ireland. If we keep shying away from this issue, then others are going to capitalise on the subject, for thousands of reasons, none to the benefit of the people at the lower end of the poverty trap.
"Kindly point out to me, where, in the above article (or any other) or any comment, where I have described republicans thus. I have identified a historic right wing trend in Irish republicanism, which is a matter of historical record, just as Connolly, the Republican Congress, the left turn in the 60s, and the left turn in the 80s, is a matter of historical record."
I don't think it is fair to describe it as a 'Right Wing Trend, as these have always been the natural attributes of the Irish people. Even when John Mitchel and the Young Irelanders were rallying the people to fight during 1848, it was in the interests of the Irish people, not for their own personal gain. Yet people tend to categorize Mitchel as Right wing, in the same way as those who opposed the Republican Congress and the Militants who opposed Goulding's new departure in the 60's. Right wing philosophies are associated with Imperialism, Capitalism and Fascism. Traditional Republicanism cannot be put into the same bracket as those ideologies, as Irish Republicanism was build upon the traditions of the Irish nation down through the centuries. The National struggle should also be kept distinct from defining it as either Right or Left wing, as no section of Irish society should be excluded, even if people find their beliefs hostile or unaccepatable.
For anybody who doubts whether McGeough is right wing, just have a look at his blog.
He has nine points on his election platform. The only one to deal with economics is the following
- I am on record as having called for a reduction in Corporation Tax to the level of that in the 26 Counties, in order to benefit the local economy. My position remains unchanged.
He is calling for a massive tax cut on profits. Or, in other words, a huge redistribution of wealth towards the super-wealthy. Corporation tax is not a tax on corporations, it is a tax on the people who earn their income from shares in corporations - and that's pretty much only the super wealthy. Workers do not, in general, hold large amounts of shares.
And, to the person above who thinks that denouncing McGeough for being homophobic is persecuting his catholic beliefs - what utter tosh. He can have whatever beliefs he wants, the problem is that he wants to persecute others for their sexual orientation, and criminalise them. If he doesn't want to be gay, he can simply choose not to sleep with men - that's not what he wants, he wants to stop other people from sleeping with whowever they want.
To call this some type of oppression of his beliefs is exactly the same argument that the loyalists advance in favour of their supremacist marches. The say "these marches are part of our beliefs, if you oppose us, you are oppressing and persecuting us". In reality, if oppressing others is a part of your beliefs, it is simply justice to oppose you, not oppression of any kind. You can't have one rule for the loyalists and one rule for yourselves. If oppressing others is wrong, then it doesn't matter if you claim it is part of your tradition, people of integrity are still going to tell you to get lost.
Finally, it is worth noting that McGeough's curious mix of policies - social oppression allied to economic favouritism towards the super-rich is the classic fascist formula. McGeough is essentially a catholic fascist - and he knows it, he's a big fan of Primo De Rivera and Salazar - the Iberian clerical fascists. He's also a complete fruitcake.
As a good example of how utterly loonie he is, how about the following. In modern societies, public health nurses visit new mothers at home to give them various advice. As part of these visits, they ask them whether they have thought about contraception. McGeough has this to say (Article "Enemies of the Nation", hibernian issue 6)
"Aside from doing the devil's work by attempting to prevent God's creation, the Health worker in question is little more than a British agent and she soaks in that putrid cesspool of spies, informers and turncoats who for centuries have taken English money to destroy the Irish nation and undermine the catholic faith"
Or, in other words, he is a world-class fruitloop. Seriously, how anybody can even consider voting for this wingnut is beyond me. The dissidents' ambiguity towards McGeough is telling - they have descended into low farce by rubbing shoulders with the maddest man in Ireland.
Alan just to pick you up on one point:
“I don't think it is fair to describe it as a 'Right Wing Trend, as these have always been the natural attributes of the Irish people.”
Now in terms of “natural attributes” of the Irish people, by this I take it you mean we have a genetic pre-disposition to certain opinions, it is our NATURE to have a certain opinion, all Irish people share this nature, and hence we would all have the one opinion. This opinion we would share with our British neighbours - studies having shown the genetic make up of the populations of these islands to be more or less the same.
So by some process, I’m not sure how, the population of the north-west corner of Europe, is inherently predisposed to think well of Franco, Salazar and Hitler, as with what I describe as the right wing trend in republicanism above. This isn’t right wing, this is just our “natural attributes”, this would lead me to four questions: (One) with this inherent predisposition how come this was never a consensus viewpoint, Franco probably had mass support or sympathy in Ireland, supported as he was by the Irish Independent, Fine Gael, and the Church, but in 1940, when the ’War News’ of the I.R.A. was praising Hitler, far more Irish men were volunteering for the British Army, and pro-nazi political forces in Ireland were marginal (possibly more marginal than almost anywhere else in Europe).
(Two) How come a regime along the lines of that of Franco or Salazar was never established in Ireland?
(Three) How come if you go to anyone on the street and say fascist dictatorship, good idea?, they are most likely to answer no.
(Four) How come many of the groupings I identified were marginal, Aiséirí and Maria Duce certainly were, while others, like the Blueshirts were controversial and combated by many Irish people.
Again it appears that you actually havn’t read the article or the comments thread, but are assuming that by “right wing” I mean Catholic, or at least right Catholic.
If this was the case, we still couldn’t argue that this was the “natural attribute” of the Irish people, as both of us appear to be Irish and non-Catholic.
The major role of Catholicism, or at least the Catholic Church, in Irish life is historically specific, in modern times particularly dating from the post-famine period onwards, and in Gaelic Ireland social mores were quite different, but the genes or “natural attributes” would be the same.
Also, if you actually look at ’The Hibernian’, while being against abortion or being homophobic is fairly widespread in Irish society, in no way is there a majority viewpoint which is against contraception, divorce rights, sex except for procreation (I would love to see a referendum on that, if legislation were possible), or that thinks Ireland should be ethnically and religiously homogenous. I also don’t think there is a majority view point against abortion in all circumstances, basically most people think it is wrong but not murder, which is decidedly not ‘The Hibernian’ or Craobh viewpoint.
You would also have to account for why the majority of the population of shall we say the British Isles, are Protestant, rather than Catholic, despite the lack of genetic differences.
Also I have lived in Ireland almost my entire life and I have yet to meet one single person who thinks the Catholic Church is run by Freemasons.
Alan to say it again, in everything I have identified as a part of a right wing trend I have been very careful about historical context. That means I have identified individuals, or groupings that were to the far-right in terms of their time. Therefore I have not, for instance, picked up on James Connolly’s opinions on divorce, he may have been in the right of the Second International on that question, but was hardly on the right of Irish society on it.
You also tell us: “Right wing philosophies are associated with Imperialism, Capitalism and Fascism.”.
Interesting. See above in regard to ’War News’ published by the I.R.A. in 1940. Seems to be very positive about (some) imperialism. Particularly that associated with a certain fascist regime.
“Irish Republicanism was build upon the traditions of the Irish nation down through the centuries.” and “distinct from defining it as either Right or Left wing”.
These traditions must be awfully confused, or mutually contradictory. Seeing as you had ex-IRA men on opposite sides in Spain, or as you have some republicans who are calling for lower corporation tax, and others who are socialists, some who were pro-slavery and some who supported the ANC, or best of all as you have some republicans who were Protestant and some who, nowadays, want a Catholic Ireland Protestant free. Some of those Protestant ones seemed to have a very low opinion of Catholic Church as well, particularly the one buried at Bodenstown. Seem to remember some of them may have been Freemasons too, and quite enamoured of a very anti-clerical revolution in France. You also had Gerry McGeough leaving Sinn Fein for their stance on abortion, same sex marriage, and immigration.
"You would also have to account for why the majority of the population of shall we say the British Isles, are Protestant, rather than Catholic, despite the lack of genetic differences."
1) Ireland is not part of the "British Isles".
2) The reason the majority of England,Scotland and Wales are protestent is because Henry the VII cut the head off all those that refused to change when he was setting up his own church to facilitate his abuse of women.
As per my prediction, may I modestly point out that McGeough seems to have done shite.
For the record - 814 first preferences.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/643...1.stm
Hmmm. Wait until he does shite and then arrest him once you know that nobody supports him. Interesting.
if the latin numerals are difficult - just use the arabic ones. Henry 8. ok?
Geographers name archipelagos after the largest island of the group. Britain is the largest island of the group. Ireland is the second largest island of the group. So school-childer the continent across learn to call this dreary cursed archipelago "the British isles". Thankfully most of them have only read about Irish people in books and to them a genuine Irish person is as romantic as Sigmund Freud. But sometimes the "british isles" are only "the british isles". No need to read anymore into it. If the Scottish, English, Manx, Welsh and good people of Shetland, Orkney, Hebrides and Guernsey declared republics and repeal Sallic law next year - leaving only Sark and Jersey as monarchies - the name of the geographical entity will not change. It is geography. Not politics.
Her highness McGeough will make much propaganda play out of this, surely to promote this dismal bottom feeder can be the only reason why establishment has decided to act on this now. Can imagine Gerry banging on about this now
Ireland IS a part of the British isles and anyone who denies this basic geographical fact is as big a gobshite as those who deny the theory of evolution or insist that the Earth is flat !
Even the most patriotic of Canadians wouldnt deny that they were part of North America because they know well that it would make them look like an idiot but Irish nationalists can deny basic facts of history, geography and plain old logic if it threatens any of their sacred cows
""That may be the intent, but it seems you didn't think it through very clearly and although many might agree with you on opposition to the PSNI etc they would not be able to endorse voting for someone with McGeough's beliefs. A major miscalculation by whatever geniuses came up with this strategy.""
the person who came up with the strategy of Gerry McGeough standing was Gerry McGeough himself and nobody else . The decision of candidates to stand against the PSNI was spontaneous and often at the last minute
""The rest of your intemperate rant is irrelevant. Probably by selecting and endorsing this candidate dissident republicans have ensured that they've marginalised themselves by associating with fringe loonies. No need for MI5, petty-bourgeouis liberals or The Man: dissident republicans can eff it up all by themselves.""
Pointing out that those lecturing and pontificating to actual revolutionaries and scorning their revolutionary credentials are themselves as revolutionary as a boiled egg and present no danger to any state or establishment in the slightest and have no intention of ever being thus is hardly irrelevant to the debate . Again "dissident "republicans did not select Gerry McGeough . He put himself forward at the eleventh hour. A "dissident" organisation stood against him . His argument against supporting the PSNI is not one that a separatist could disagree with and that is all that was endorsed.
Anyway , news to cheer up Terry and his radical chums .The British police arrested Gerry McGeough this afternoon at the election count centre in Omagh for what they have described as "serious terrorist crime" , believed to include the attempted killing of a British soldier in 1981 . Im sure theyll be quite relieved this danger to Irish society is safely behind bars and the forces of law and oprder are doing such a sterling job . Why anyone would encourage people to vote against acceptance of this British police force is of course irrelevant to their entire argument .
“irish” don’t take it up with me, take it up with Alan, he is the person claiming “natural attributes” for the “irish people”, if you define the “irish people” in those terms, use of the term “British Isles” is the least of your trouble, as those “natural attributes” would be shared, genetic make up being the same, by the populations of the rest of the ‘archipelago of the north west of Europe’ (use of the term Europe not meant as an endorsement of the EU).
“The reason the majority of England,Scotland and Wales are protestent is because Henry the VII cut the head off all those that refused to change when he was setting up his own church to facilitate his abuse of women.”
Henry the Eight was the monarch of England, Wales and parts of Ireland, not Scotland.
If the populations of those countries have “natural attributes” tending towards Catholicism, it follows that England and Wales should have remained Catholic, as Ireland did. Pro-Catholic Rebellions like the Pilgrimage of Grace would have been bigger, more widespread and successful, later monarchs would not have faced revolt partly based around their suspected Catholic sympathies, proto-Protestant sects like the Lollards would not have existed in England before the Reformation, there would never have been popular Protestant sects in later English and Welsh history. If repression counter-acted “natural attributes” then the removal of the repression, would have meant that England and Wales converted back to Catholicism, also no one there would have ever adopted any variant of Protestantism which was also repressed, and it would have also meant Ireland would have became predominantly Protestant. How the repressors can act against their “natural attributes” is unclear.
The reformation in Scotland was more popular and thorough than in England or Wales.
Indeed Scottish Protestants invaded both England and Ireland seeking to extend their brand.
Incidentally defining the “Irish nation” around the culture existing several hundred years ago, Gaelic Ireland, and hence the “Irish nation” being the descendants of the population at that time, would mean that you would have to include all the descendants of Gaelic Scotland in your “Irish nation”.
And here is another problem for the republicanism ‘built on the traditions of the Irish people down through the ages’ viewpoint. The United Irishmen, in part, were part of the radical whig milieu which derived inspiration in part from the Glorious Revolution, or the Williamite wars, which led to the strengthening of the Penal Laws. Not quite sure you would class that as a “tradition of the Irish people”. Not to mention the other, less problematic, but clearly non-native inspirations from France and America. They first established the insurrectionary republican separatist platform, no one proposed an independent Irish republic before them (indeed there is very very little in the way of anyone proposing any form of Irish independence before them). Later groups clearly derived at least some of their inspiration from these pioneers.
This particular foundation was clearly a part of the international historical context of the time (America, France, Britain, Ireland) not some age old tradition of the “Irish people”, nor for that matter the radical whig notion of an age old tradition of Saxon freedoms. Profoundly anti-aristocratic, their connection as part of some “tradition” with earlier aristocratic revolts against the monarchy, is at best, very tenuous. If you wanted to stick them into a “tradition” it would be far easier to put them in with the Volunteers, the Glorious Revolution, and, earlier, the Covenanters and the Levellers and the other ‘wrong sides’ of the War of the Three Kingdoms (aka English Civil War, aka Cromwellian conquest of Ireland).
The history of everything classed as Irish republicanism over the course of two hundred years cannot be collapsed into some linear apolitical ahistorical timeless tradition. Both the left republicanism, and the right republicanism, of the C20th and today, would have been alien to republicanism in the 1790s. Literally alien, as the later are part of conditions and a historical context very different from the former.
They all stood, or stand, for some form of independent republic across the island of Ireland. But what form that state would take can differ sharply, and the reason why in a particular historical moment and context some people adopted this goal differs sharply from each moment and context.
Aye Sean. I'm sure Saint Gerry will soon be back out polishing his halo, rescuing kittens from raging rivers and helping poor old ladies over the road. After all the only reason he's been arrested is because he's a Republican. Its not as if there could be any other reason the evil PSNI would want to arrest him. Its a pity a few more people weren't able to see his goodness as well as you can. That way he might have actually got a decent turnout at the polls.
Mitchell McLoughlin of Sinn Fein has just delivered an explosive verbal protest over the arrest of Jerry McGeough over BBC1 TV in a TV interview and condemned the PSNI bitterly for their timing of the arrest, which he stated has horrified and terrified, as it was meant to, the nationalist community.
Mitchell stated that it was done deliberately for this purpose and for no other purpose but to let the nationalist community in Tyrone know who's boss by the PSNI.
Joe McGeough is therefore not quite the lone dissident as some make him out to be, but obviously has full support from the very top of Sinn Fein.
Mitchell McLoughlin delivered his protest, condemning the arrest of Joe McGeough for several minutes continuously in his most vociferous style.
"Old Friends are Best ! "
norn iron
the island of Erin
the united kingdom of Great Britian & Norn Iron
the archipelago between Rockall & Sealand
just so you know where you are here & why it is so wonderful that a Chinese woman be elected to a parliamentary assembly (even if she is a liberal ) [ the 19th century economic type not the ex-anarchists who vote on the sly ] here are the wikipedia pages on Rockall [sovereignty disputed] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockall and of course Sealand [sovereignty unrecognised] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealand
RTé the national broadcaster of smaller than little britain land reports she is the first chinese woman with our without a personal alarm for fear of racist attack to be elected in the UK. Because obviously the Dail is filled with migrant women. We just don't see them on telly because they are very reserved and keep themselves to themselves. Beir Bua! from all of us.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0308/nielection2.html
I think that critics of Jerry McGeough here expect too much of him. He was a simple IRA soldier (obviously a very effective one!) but not a politician, just your ordinary Joe. His community would naturally know this and hardly vote for him.
Intelligent, educated, articulate - that's not Gerry McGeough, but he did his bit for Ireland as he saw it.
I've heards this thing about the "British Isles" beiing a geographical term, but frankly, I think it's nonsense.
Why not just say Britain and Ireland, if that's what you mean?
Because you're very strict about using the correct geographical term in all circumstances? Come on now, who are you kidding?
Anyway, to settle this once and for all, I made a google fight :
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=B...Isles
I think this mans a bit of an eejit, but there is no doubt that the brits were acting in Gildernews interests when they quite clearly postponed arresting him until the day after the elections.
I see the British state are backing the Adams/McGuiness faction in the Republican movement again with the convenient liifting of Gerry McGeogh. Gerry A., a bit of a draft-dodger in his own way, is obviously terrified of him.
It must be great to be so strongly backed by MI5.
That''ll teach that upstart McGeough not to dare oppose us Freemasons in future !
(The Grand Master, PSNI Lodge, Free and Accepted Masons, Scottish Third Rite)
"He was a simple IRA soldier (obviously a very effective one!)"
Effective? At what, getting arrested? At trying to buy missiles from the US government? Twat.
And sure, wasn't Hitler only a simple soldier too, he didn't know any better. And Mussolini. And Franco.... What a ridiculous point.
"Joe McGeough is therefore not quite the lone dissident as some make him out to be, but obviously has full support from the very top of Sinn Fein."
It's called politics. By coming out with statements like that Sinn Fein are trying to maintain a veneer of standing up to the PSNI and appeal to supporters who think they've gone soft. Have you no analytic ability whatsoever?
Re British Isles etc:
Terry made a point about how the genetic makeup of inhabitants of the British Isles is the same as Ireland. As I read it, he never actually said that Ireland is part of the British Isles (in fact that statement could be interpreted as treating them as different entities with similar populations). Try to stay on topic, children.
Yes, but I accept your point about SF playing up to its hardliners by lashing the PSNI.
Still, if I was a Brit squaddie I wouldn't like to meet Jerry on a dark night !
And "Old Friends are best !"
Will somebody please tell Gerry McGeough to stop looking for Freemasons under the bed - the P2 Lodge have poisoned a Pope and are running his beloved Vatican !
Below is the genuine press release on the Hibernian site dealing with the McGeough arrest. I think people should start dealing with this case as the mental health issue that it is rather than some form of debate about politics.
* Today our editor was arrested on trumped up false charges to prevent further truth from being published.
* This very sad news was a shock but we can all imagine it was not unexpected.
* For details of the false accusations you can link to BBC News etc. and read the ridiculous explanations of arresting the ONLY CATHOLIC CANDIDATE who opposed the Masonic world. (Ulster Unionists and the infiltrated Sinn Fein party)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/643...1.stm
* It does not take a brilliant mind to understand that the so called "Northern Ireland Peace" is reserved for those who have surrendered to the Masonic overlord from London.
* Obviously, Gerry McGeough. in clear vision and full view presented his concept of The Kingship of Christ.
* Recent disclosures from Germany have revealed that his previous arrest many years ago was all planned by the German government.
* Please remember Gerry and his family in your daily Rosaries.
* We must continue the work for the return of Christianity to Ireland and the world.
* We hope and fully intend to keep all our readers informed through our publication and web site.
* Hopefully our website will not suffer the same fate as our editor.
I wonder what Gerry's views are on wee green men from Mars.
On one hand he might welcome them because they're green, the colour of Ireland!
On the other hand, he may not welcome them because green is also the colour of the British Army uniforms and they may be seen as an Alien army of occupation.
I guess it all depends on what religion they follow and their sexual orientation.
No Gay Aliens Here!
Despite the various constitutional nationalist parties obviously successful selling of the guarantee of a new non political PSNI to the electorate and their election promise that they had "put manners on them" the truth is a lot clearer today . A candidate who stood on a platform opposing the British police in Ireland was targetted by the British police for arrest as he left an election centre (despite their having ample opportunities to arrest him over the past number of years). Unfortunately people like Terry and Seedot dont regard this as fascism , or if they do its of a less heinous kind that doesnt concern them.
The British police have given a very clear signal that now this election is over theyll be coming after those Irish people who oppose them and speak against them. The constitutional nationalists are pledged to support them in their efforts and support them they will . Today their campaign of lies on behalf of the British police has been exposed . Its obvious to everyone the PSNI sought to assist the lies of the constitutional nationalists by delaying this arrest till after the ballot .
One can but note the interestingly muted response of those , such as Terry and others who got hysterical at McGeough standing in an election but have been completely silent at this sinister development . The British police have sent a clear message and it looks like some people including our resident "dissident" basher have no real problem with that message
Barry, consumer complaints and indymedia don't go together, because we are all indymedia, you are commenting on an article which was written nearly two weeks ago, you are right it doesn't mention McGeough's arrest, yesterday, much like the article you havn't written entitled 'PSNI harrasment of republicans' doesn't mention it, cause it doesn't exist, bit like the article you havn't written on PSNI, policing, St Andrews and the apparent grassroots rebellion against this. If there is silence about it, no indymedia coverage of, an arrest, of this or that about the PSNI, or of anything else, address this matter by writing the article. As I explained above.
The plausibilty of your anaylsis of McGeough's arrest is undermined by the fact a "constitutional nationalist" - a Sinn Fein councillor, was also arrested yesterday in connection with the same incident. This could be a political agenda, this could be a non remarkable event, given as you have a lot of political activists drawn from the ranks of an armed insurgency (after all McGeough was going around the place in the early 80s shooting at the "crown forces"), or it could be a bit of both.
Terry , consumer complaints and Indymedia do go together when its a case of criticisng an article for its failing to address the central issue and its author for a blinkered approach to its subject matter . As an Indymedia consumer Ive a right to take issue with a misleading article or one any media piece I believe to be blinkered , slanted and uninformed . You were replying and adding to this thread all week with your opinions about Mr McGeough standing in an election , why on earth republicans would endorse a slate of candidates that included him and the potential political ramifications of it , Yet here is a concrete political ramification as opposed to your imagined ones and you arent interested . The article is about this candidate standing in an election and when the same candidate who spoke out against the new RUC is arrested by that force at an election count centre you reply its not relevant to your article ? Its not helpful to your article , theres a difference . You demanded to know why on earth republicans could endorse a slate of candidates that included him and yesterday the new RUC answered your question for you but it simply wasnt the answer you wanted.
""The plausibilty of your anaylsis of McGeough's arrest is undermined by the fact a "constitutional nationalist" - a Sinn Fein councillor, was also arrested yesterday in connection with the same incident.""
No Terry . Mr McAnespie is not a sinn fein councillor nor has he even been acknowleged as a member of that party . His wife is . My father was a provo my mother a stick . My grandfather was an IRA officer and his wife was a hib . Mr McAnespies wifes political affiliations are completely irrelevant to what happened Gerry McGough .
The RUC have a long history of brutality , discrimination , torture degradation and murder of Irish catholics and direct collusion with murderous death squads. An election candidate speaks out against them and is arrested by a heavily armed group of paramilitary British police at the election count centre and taken away in an armoured car and you are unsure as to whether or not this is political ?
If this had happened in serbia to a candidate thered be a UN resolution about it .
They pass up umpteen opportunities to arrest him over recent years while hes a prominent member of Sinn Fein , but as soon as he campaigns politically against them they arrest him at an election centre ,delaying the arrest until immediately after the vote to assist Sinn Feins campaign in support of the British police , and you have doubts as to whether or not the arrest has any political agenda and reject the correlation between McGeough campaigning against them and their decison to arrest him after leaving him alone for years ? Thats stretching credibility somewhat and only underlines your blinkered and biased approach to the subject of the British crown forces .
McGeough has not got a hope in hell of leading any section of our society on any catholic crusade . Its beyond the abilities of 32 csm or any republican group to give him a leg up in such a crusade because nobody wants to know about it . Anyone with a bit of sense knows that yet you are painting an hysterical picture of blueshirt type mobs attacking gay centres and family planning clinics thanks to 32 csms decision to endorse a slate of candidates , one of whom was Gerry McGeough
. McGeoughs ultra religious babblings and those of the headers he has in tow are idiotic and carry no hope whatsoever of inflencing any section of our society . But his political rejection of the British crown forces is not idiotic in the slightest . As a movement our political position , our internal democracy and democratic practice must be consistent . Where we to start attacking McGeoughs rejection of the British police on the basis of his religious baggage which is unconnected to that coherent political rejection of the foreign forces violating our national sovereignty then we'd have to be consistent and advise people not to vote for any candidate that wasnt abstentionist on the basis we are ideologically opposed to anyone entering Stormont . We'd also have to attack anyone standing on an RSF ticket because of their refusal even to enter into any discussions with 32 csm or anyone else about constructing a strategy around these elections . How can we honestly ask anyone to support a particular anti PSNI candidate whose party refuses even to engage in discussion with us over a candidate who is prepared to talk to us and others? Therefore the postition arrived at after much democratic debate and discussion within our movement ( in which the issue of Mr McGeoughs other beliefs received a great deal of discussion and criticism) and with others outside it ,was and is quite simple and uncomplicated . It simply makes sense for republicans to vote for those candidates who are standing in opposition to the legitimacy of the British crown forces in Ireland without differentiating between any of them . That was and is our position . Your fears about the ramifications of anyone voting for McGeough are just that , fears . The reality of the British forces activities in Ireland and what they will do with an endorsement are well founded and quite immediate and in the face of that reality ideological navel gazing is of no use at all . .
I have no problem at all with anyone having a go at McGeough and his associates and their religious beliefs but what I most certainly do have a problem with is 32 csm being accused of being right wing , sectarian and helping to sponsor facism and attacks on gays and family planning clinics because we endorsed a slate of candidates throughout the north who stood in opposition to the legitimacy of foreign armed forces in our country .
The last time I looked Gerry McGeough was not a member or does not have any real ties to 32 CSM. Am I wrong?
What next. Accusing Colgate of being homophobes because Gerry uses their toothpaste?
Seamy, find the part of the article above which discusses McGeough’s links to the 32 CSM
- search hard, Paraic, there is no part which calls him a fascist.
On to Barry, the more substantial critic….
“Terry , consumer complaints and Indymedia do go together when its a case of criticisng an article for its failing to address the central issue and its author for a blinkered approach to its subject matter”
“I have no problem at all with anyone having a go at McGeough and his associates and their religious beliefs”
- That is a clear contradiction. Your first post is headed “ffs sake address the issue” in response to an article addressing “McGeough and his associates and their religious beliefs”, you say you are “criticisng an article for its failing to address the central issue”, that is, for failing to be about policing, but rather being about “McGeough and his associates and their religious beliefs”, yet from what you say you should “have no problem at all” with such an article.
That post, and your subsequent ones, are critical of said article because it doesn’t address policing, the PSNI, and so forth in regard to the election, much like the article about policing, the PSNI and so forth you havn’t written. Hence you are making consumer complaints, you are complaining that an article about McGeough’s views is not an article about policing, the PSNI, the RUC, and an apparent grassroots republican rebellion against the same, but you do not write an article about the RUC, the PSNI, the reasons for rejecting the Sinn Fein stance, etc. Indymedia is not based around just consumption, but also participation, including the participation that is contributing articles, you go and write the article about the policing issue that you want to see. After all just one of your comments here, the latest, is over 1,000 words long, a decent size for an article.
“but what I most certainly do have a problem with is 32 csm being accused of being right wing , sectarian and helping to sponsor facism and attacks on gays and family planning clinics because we endorsed a slate of candidates throughout the north who stood in opposition to the legitimacy of foreign armed forces in our country.”
- The article doesn’t mention the 32 CSM in connection with McGeough at all, or any stance the 32 CSM took in connection with the elections. It mentions them in passing in regard to a claim about Craobh’s membership. Again a contradiction, you say you have “no problem at all with anyone having a go at McGeough and his associates and their religious beliefs”, yet started making your case against the article, before anyone mentioned the 32 CSM and the elections (in fact it was you who brought the issue up). The article mentions the issue of other republicans and support for McGeough in the election only to say this “his candidacy has not been endorsed by ‘concerned republicans’, the umbrella group supporting most ‘independent republican’ candidates in the Assembly elections” and to mention support from Galvin.
The article, or any comments afterward, doesn’t say anything about the 32 csm sponsoring fascism, being right wing, sectarian, nor do they connect the 32 csm “to attacks on gays and family planning clinics”.
The comments say it is reprehensible and irresponsible to support McGeough, either by giving him a platform or by calling for a vote for him, as this will help HIM in building a movement which is right wing, sectarian, at least linked to fascists, and at least likely to carry out protests against gays and family planning clinics, and will contribute to a climate of homophobic and anti-migrant violence.
Quite apart from the elections, some anti-Agreement republicans are prepared to tolerate him, indeed embrace him. Indeed your counter-argument hasn’t been well we were a bit caught on the hop with the election, he announced his candidacy late, we needed to maximise the vote, but we should not have anything to do with him in the future. You have simply justified your stance, so there is no reason to think that similar stances will not be a feature of the future.
Yes his views are “crazy” but no “crazier” than Nick Griffin’s views, although Griffin’s presentation is a bit better.
‘The Hibernian’ world view can not be separated into two different boxes “the national question” and “social issues”. The same ideology informs both, and seems to include the expulsion of the Protestant population of the North.
You are totally blasé about McGeough’s far-right agenda (for the latest example see bracketing it with the RSF disdain for other republican organisations, or Hyland’s willingness to take his seat).
As for their potential Barrett and McGeough’s 2004 speaking tour was bigger than anything publicity wise the 32 CSM have done, Barrett got more votes in the Euro election than most of the ’dissidents’ did in the Assembly election, ’The Hibernian’ has a far wider distribution than the ’Sovereign Nation’.
By no means are they gonna get it together to make major legislative change, but yes they could get it together to cause trouble, after all just look at the fake agency feature up at the moment, about protests against the an action carried out by another small fringe element.
For or against the PSNI doesn’t come into it, again if one wanted to vote against the PSNI there was another candidate in the constituency, Michael McManus (not to mention McGeough’s presence on republican platforms long before the election).
Lambasting me for being critical of republicanism, doesn’t do your cause any justice, it is surely not to republicans credit that the article on indymedia about McGeough was written by someone who isn’t a republican. In any case, as a poster above pointed out “the noble tradition” of republicanism is besmirched by McGeough and Craobh, and I might say with far greater negative effect than anything I might write.
Responding to an article on the McGeough phenomenon by criticising the British government, Sinn Fein, or the Unionists, does anti-Agreement republicanism no credit, as those are things you have little control or influence over, you can however take a stance against bigotry within your own milieu with, one would imagine, some immediate success, but, in this case, you clearly havn’t.
Here is some snippets of a 32 CSM statement on racism from the Blanket website:
“Irish people throughout the years have been forced to emigrate across the world to seek refuge from hunger, political and religious repression, economic recession and social depression. As a nation we should extend the same opportunities that were afforded to us to new immigrant communities in their time of need. It should be remembered that these people have the same inalienable human rights as we do and that there can be no hiding place for those who discriminate against others on the basis of their national or ethnic origin.”
“The 32 County Sovereignty Movement call on all community leaders to do all in their power to stop such attacks and we urge all republicans to become involved in any anti-racist initiatives in their areas and not just pay lip service to their republican ideals.”
Perhaps you will take the point, better in that form, given as it comes from your own.
Barry go write an article about Sinn Fein’s acceptance of the P.S.N.I., it would be more productive than comments criticising an article of mine, for being about McGeough’s views, and not about the P.S.N.I.
Terry, I accept the veracity of what you say. Barry, you should indeed launch a separate thread as Terry suggests.
Barry, I have a horrible feeling to convey to you, and that is :
Time, Ireland - and England - are passing Gerry McGeough by. The N.I. elections are encouraging in that some few of the two Tribes actually left their tents to vote for Somebody Else, such as the Green candidate elected.
I don't like the Greens as I feel that they are upper middle class, but that movement , and all such movements out of the Tribe, are to be welcomed. The little spring has burst through under the ground, soon we'll see the well, and then, perhaps, a mighty river of change.
It's happening in the Republic for years, especially with many thinking people here acknowledging that the mindset of Southern Catholics is not yet ready to accommodate the Protestant/Unionist Tradition.
Northern Protestants look at the likes of Gerry McGeough aghast, can you blame them ? - and he paints a false picture of most Northern Catholics, and a totally inaccurate picture of Southern Catholics, the vast majority of whom want peace, at any price, in the North.
And almost every single Southerner I know either likes the English or has nothing against them.
Gerry's Catholic Church is rocked to its foundations as led by dirty old men, Catholic priests have to hide their collars at times in Dublin for fear of actual physical attack on the streets (which isn't right either) , oh but how the Mighty are fallen !
There is even a former Nazi in the Vatican as Pope trying to cover up the horrific crimes of Irish Catholic bishops and priests.
And Gerry McGeough is on his own, the last Defensor Fidei.
Find another hero, Barry.
In fact, if you read between the lines he seems slightly critical of him. But the problem is that Barry doesn't see those views as part of an ideology completely antithetical to republicanism. As Barry and others get to define their own view of republicanism we're entitled to judge them on it: it looks like a broad church that accepts anyone as long as they say they're against the British occupation. That apparently includes the frankly weird and disturbing likes of McGeough.
The overall impression is that dissident republicans haven't got a political program, or that if they do they're being very coy about it and most of us wouldn't like it.
Barry's assertions about no one on indymedia reporting the McGeough arrest are unfounded. A casual perusal of the newswire, especially the thread that recorded the poor showing of the dissident votes mentioned it soon after it happened.
For what it's worth, I agree with Barry that McGeough's arrest was obviously political. The timing of it - 26 years after the alleged crime and on the very day of an election in which he stood as an anti-police candidate is simply way, way too convenient to be coincidence. I have no idea what the security forces are thinking and why they chose to arrest McGeough now, but it does look possible that Barry is right and they were aiming to send a message to anti-policing republicans in the aftermath of their electoral debacle.
Given the revelations of the last few years, in which we have learned beyond reasonable doubt that the murderous loyalist gangs were, more or less, run by the security services, it seems to be completely ludicrous that they are still arresting republicans for things that happened 26 years ago. How many police, army, Mi5 or British politicians have been arrested in recent times for their crimes during the troubles? How likely is it that conservative politicians, many of whom must have been complicit in the crimes of serial killers, will be arrested in the aftermath of the next UK election? I'm not trying to justify anything that McGeough may have done, but he has already served hard time for his part in the troubles, as have many republicans, whereas the criminals within the British state apparatus have been more likely to win promotion as reward for theirs. In such a situation, it is glaringly obvious that the security services are not, in fact, acting in an impartial apolitical manner.
Also, what on earth is the point of locking up Gerry. He's clearly not all there and is seriously mentally disturbed. I mean, his beliefs may be vile, hateful and repugnant, but he really isn't that much of a threat. His grasp of public relations is so poor that he can't keep his masonic conspiracy lunacy to himself and he has such a bizzarely poor understanding of modern Ireland that he hasn't realised that there just aren't any sane people who are going to rally behind his movement for instituting "christs kingdom" on earth. I'm sure the shinners love having opponents like him. If I was a shinner, I'd have carried a copy of hibernian magazine around with me while canvasing, to show the electorate what type of lunatic the dissidents are supporting. "A vote for the dissidents is a vote for outlawing enjoying sex".
Terry . Your featured article is clearly titled" Fighting for Faith and Fatherland in Fermanagh" and is featured on the very week the election took place in Fermanagh in which Gerry McGeough stood as a candidate .. To a passing oberver it would appear reasonable to assume your article concerned the issue of Gerry McGeough standing in the Fermanagh election on a platform which you decribed in the title as "Fighting for faith and Fatherland in Fermanagh" . However now you claim thats not what your article was about at all and that it was about something else altogether . It appears therefore my own stupidity and nothing else led me to assume an article about Gerry McGeough with the title " Fighting for Faith and Fatherland in Fermanagh" featured on the eve of the election was about Gerry McGeough standing for election in Fermanagh . Therefore my criticism of you for failing to address the issue of the election , his election platform ,why he was standing against the PSNI and why people would vote for him was based upon this foolish assumtion that the issue was about Gerry McGeough standing for election in Fermanagh . Thankyou for clarifying that was not what your article was about after all..
Mea culpa , mea maxima culpa....as Gerry would have us all saying if he ever got his way .
My criticism of you is now confined to writing articles about Gerry McGeough that dont carry a single quote of anything Gerry McGeough himself actually said and giving them highly misleading titles in order for you to really write an article that claims the Irish struggle for national sovereignty is something probaly best avoided because from time to time people with right wing and conservative opinions have decided their national sovereignty was something worth struggling for too. And getting ticked off when I answer the questions youve put to me and dismissing these answers on the basis thats not what your article was about though . And your claim that McGeoughs arrest probably wasnt political . As well as that other article "inside the world of dissident republicansim" that nobody liked and was a load of rubbish and that you were unable to defend from he blizzard of criticism it received .
In reply to R.Isible .
""In fact, if you read between the lines he seems slightly critical of him. But the problem is that Barry doesn't see those views as part of an ideology completely antithetical to republicanism.""
Thanks for a much more open minded analysis compared to some other contributors in which youve picked up on that as Im actually quite critical of him but the difference is I confine my criticism to the proper time and place . When its not going to assit the PSNI and the British governemnt in their quest for dominance which I regard as a genuine physical and political danger to our people as opposed to McGeoughs religious stuff which I regard as plain embarassing .As in day AFTER the election . Had he not been scooped Id be quite vocal in my criticism today but I dont view it as appropriate in the circumstances given that Mr McGeough may be one of many heading for an interrogation suite in the coming weeks and months as the British embark on a round up of their opponents in this country assisted by the constitutional nationalists . I regard that "in your face" arrest of a man who is today most definitely unconnected to any armed insurgency grouping or ever likely to be as a clear and unmistakable political message the British are sending to anyone who dissents from their carefully constructed and imposed consensus . Therefore my reaction to their arrest is not going to be bashing the man theyve arrested at an election centre for opposing them . I may well do it on another day but not anytime soon .
McGeoughs opposition to the PSNI and his wish for a British withdrawal arent antithetical to republican seperatism . His desire to see a clerical theocracy is , as is his and Davy Hylands decision to contest the elections on a promise to enter Stormont , a foreign imposed puppet assembly and a violation of our national sovereignty . A crime against our people .
. Therefore the choice is pragmatism in encouraging people to vote against the PSNI accross the board in the knowlege that it makes sense to do so and to reveal themselves as a constituency (and that neither candidate will get to implement the part of their stance one finds unnaceptable or even be able to offer political leadership and direction to that constituency ) - or total inconsistency in ones position by rejecting one and favoruing another despite positions which contradict ours ideologically . Or picking apart every last candidate for reasons not to vote for them .
Both candidates are separatists in outlook, but both also have political positions and contradictions that we would regard as antithetical to republican seperatism . Despite our respect for both candidates lifetime of commitment to separatism and commitment to rejecting foreign forces the issue of their standing in the election presents us as a movement with clear ideological problems .Therefore the only choices for 32 csm to make are to ask people to vote for ALL the anti - psni candidates or to make up our position as we go along in an inconsistent fashion (which is highly dangerous and open to all sorts of undemocratic abuse) or to remain silent on the issue altogether .
As it is our intention as a separatist movement to implement a democratic political strategy centred firstly upon the constituency these candidates attempted to bring out in opposition to the PSNI the sensible option was to encourage that constituency to come out . It is from that constituency identifying itself that we can begin the project of providing that constituency with a framework , strategy and forum in which to address the criminal violation of their national sovereignty - whether territorial , political , economic , neutrality or resources ,
""As Barry and others get to define their own view of republicanism we're entitled to judge them on it: it looks like a broad church that accepts anyone as long as they say they're against the British occupation. That apparently includes the frankly weird and disturbing likes of McGeough. ""
No . McGeough and a number of others were candidates in an election that opposed accepting foreign occupying forces as legitimate. We encouraged republicans to come out and identify themselves as a constituency by voting for anti PSNI candidates . Nothing more . That was made very clear in our statements . Its an essential part of our democratic strategy . The people who should be giving leadership within republican separatism are the people who voted for the candidates . Not the candidates themselves . Top down republican structures are not just undemocratic they are deeply unhealthy and simply do not work . Its up to the grass roots to mobilise and speak out . The candidates afforded an opportunity for them to do so and nothing more .
""The overall impression is that dissident republicans haven't got a political program, or that if they do they're being very coy about it and most of us wouldn't like it. ""
While your criticism of us for not getting our message and strategy accross forcefully and publicly enough is quite a valid one 32 csm most certainly do have a political programme , an open one ,a democratic one and not a party political one . Because we are not a political party .
http://www.32csm.org/pow.html
http://www.32csm.org/unsubmission.html
http://www.politics.ie/wiki/index.php?title=NO_OTHER_LA...nt%29
http://www.politics.ie/wiki/index.php?title=The_Necessi...nt%29
http://www.politics.ie/wiki/index.php?title=REPUBLICAN_...nt%29
The links to all documents are hosted on this blog due to repeated problems with our current website soon to be replaced altogether .
http://southarmagh32.blogspot.com/
32 CSM are not a political party but we seek to promote and advise upon the concept of a debate , framework, position and forum in which the issue of the repeated and criminal violations of our national sovereignty north and south can be properly addressed in a democratic fashion. Its clear the partitionist assemblies are inapable of addressing these issues democratically or acting in the interests of the Irish nation and its people and a national democratic programme and forum may well be the way to begin addressing these viiolations. Id be interested to hear your opinions on what it is you dont like about that programme .
I can't see how the religious viewpoints can be linked to Gal Greine. There magazine has more innuendos towards Paganism that they have towards Christianity. If Mac Cormaic is the editor I can hardly see him endorsing anything associated to Christianity. From what I gather, he only writes historical articles for The Hibernian and Sovereign Nation. While he opposes mass immigration, he has kept his religious views seperate from his politics. From my reading he is promoting Brehon Laws which were written thousands of years before Christianity ever came to Ireland, and those laws are based on Natural Law, which was almost universal before states fully came into formation.
To a number of posters above, I havn't said anything to the effect that McGeough's arrest was NOT intended to send a message to 'dissident' republicans. It certainly could have been, it could have been a number of other things either.
I see little reason for some securocrat or PSNI brass to be too concerned about McGeough, and, really, they would want to be slow learners at this stage to think two arrests will send shivers down the backs of dissident republicans, in fact, as Barry has pointed out, this rather than being a threat to them, could be said to validate their position on policing.
It could be that someone really has it in for him, it could be that the bloke he allegedly tried to shoot now has some pull, it could be a conspiracy not to silence PSNI critics (a tall order), but to promote what is a liability to dissidents by giving him some martyrdom kudos, or it could an indication from the PSNI to anti-SF republicans saying 'we can come after youse to our hearts content', particularly in the aftermath of the election, given their isolation and lack of a popular mandate (compare with SF vote, compare votes of 'hard' dissidents to 'soft' dissidents). It could be that some in the PSNI want to keep fighting the war, eg busting people for things that were done years ago. The other arrestee is being reported as a member of (Provisional) Sinn Fein.
The timing - straight after the election - is obvious, busting him during the elections would increase an anti-PSNI vote, or perhpas anti-agreement unionist vote (when SF give out about it).
It is of course hypocritical from a "rule of law" point of view, eg plenty of state officials could be in the dock, but "rule of law" has always been a fig leaf for defence of the state.
and I certainly don't accuse the PSNI, or any other police force for that matter, or implementing 'impartial policing'...when I say it could or could not have a 'political agenda', I mean a 'political agenda' as in an attempt to expressly influence politics in Ireland today, either by intimidating 'dissident' republicans, getting rid of a couple of contemporary republicans, or promoting McGeough.
As opposed to say settling scores, or investigating "crime" within the framework allowed by the state.
In the absence of evidence we just have speculation. The speculation this is a specific anti-dissident action, meant to send a message, is reasonable, as are the others.
Mike says,
"Ireland IS a part of the British isles and anyone who denies this basic geographical fact is as big a gobshite as those who deny the theory of evolution or insist that the Earth is flat !"
WRONG. The following is a statement regarding this matter from the Minister, Mr. D. Ahern:
"The British Isles is not an officially recognised term in any legal or inter-governmental sense. It is without any official status. The Government, including the Department of Foreign Affairs, does not use this term."
For your further edification Mike, the the Lions rugby team's official name was changed in 2001 from the "British Isles Lions" to the "British and Irish Lions" All part of the lets "respect each other" brave new world being created to allow Britian shuffle out of Ireland.
Other posters should also note that Ireland is a "mainland" in it's own right and it is incorrect to refer to the "British Mainland" when drawing a distinction between Ireland and Britian.
The British police have applied for and received a further 48 hour extension to keep McGeough and Mr McAnespie for further interrogation in the serious crime suite in Antrim PSNI station
If an island has a separate governmental structure then it is generally not referred to as part of the larger island. This is why Irish people get so annoyed when some people call Britain the "mainland", and why we are irked by references to the "British Isles", because it is taken to imply that Ireland is defined simply by being an off-shore island of Britain's.
The terms ''Britain and Ireland'' and ''British Isles and Ireland'' refer to two different land masses.
''Britain and Ireland'' refers to the islands of Britain and Ireland, plus some small islands off them that in effect have no separate governmental structure.
''British Isles (and Ireland)'' refers to the entire archipelago, meaning Britain, Ireland, their small off-shore islands, the Faroes, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands and others. (Technically the Channel Islands aren't part of the archipelago but are included in the definition.)
Both terms are used in law, and have legally defined meanings.
Similarly British legislation now uses "British Isles and Ireland" .
The Govt. of Ireland has an official policy of not using "British Isles".
McGeough and McAnespie have now been charged with attempting to kill a British soldier in 1981 . British riot police (non political of course) ringed the dock and courthouse as the both men were charged .
Thank you Barry for providing information and political analysis that would otherwise not be available.
from the Sunday Indy and their fellow travellers.
An Indy media activist, living in America, the heart of the beast.
comrades, this has been an interesting discussion. please permit a contribution from far away from the "Irish Isles":
I appreciate the work Terry has done to highlight a fascist center of gravity (however small) within the broader Republican scene. Whatever this character's personal nuttiness might be, I think it is important to be alert to these kind of developments. (and don't doubt that nuts can become players. see the Christian Right, Farrakhan or the National Alliance for U.S. examples)
I think it is probable that this type of fascist grouping will become a more regular feature of the Irish political scene. Anarchists in Ireland should probably begin to think about what this will mean in terms of street politics -potential confrontations and face-offs over abortion or immigration, but potentially being on the same ant-imperialist marches, etc.
(This may be the one area where Irish anarchists actually have something to learn from their brit and amerikan comrades as opposed to vice-versa!)
Terry's article and the discussion also drew out the weakness of much of the "dissident" Republican camp. Basically a willingness to overlook deeply authoritarian, antiwomen, racist and antiworking class politics as long as it is anti-Brit. This is very disappointing. But as Terry has shown, historically not surprising.
One point that I think should be drawn from this (one that Terry doesn't make, and probably disagrees with) is the need for anarchists to intervene in the anti PSNI "movement" as an antifascist force. How can a community trying to resist the "Legitimization" of the State's police force be abandoned to the fash and apologists for the fash?
I can guess that Organise! would be opposed on "principal " to intervening in the communities against PSNI meetings. But what about the WSM? Has this been discussed at all? It seems to me that an anarchist perspective that was serious would actually be welcomed by many in that scene, and would be a challenge to the rightwing nationalists.
Finally. About the arrest. Its an interesting question as to Why Now? It seems that motivation from the RUC/PSNI hardliners (as opposed to places higher) may be at work. But I wanted to raise another possibility. That this arrest is an attempt by the State to further "credentialize" this fascist among the dissident Republican scene/organizations/communities. Thrust him into a more secure leadership position or at least a continuing "seat at the table". This would not neccesarily include the fascist's involvement or knowledge Its a basic counterinsurgency method. Determining one's opponent.
I think it would be worthwhile for irish anarchists and antifa to follow this case closely.
Hello Kdog, thanks for the positive comment.
The premise of what you are saying there is false, there isn’t an anti-PSNI movement, there is a small scattering of republican groups and individuals who left Provisional Sinn Fein at some stage over the last 20 years, plus the Irish Republican Socialist Party, aka the dissidents, though properly speaking the IRSP wouldn’t fit into that term, having a longer, separate history.
When Sinn Fein signed up to recognition of the PSNI in the most recent agreement, the dissidents focused on this. There has just been elections in the North, with one exception the anti-PSNI Republican candidates got really derisory votes, ie around 500 per candidate, in a PR election.
Of the dissident candidates the soft ones, ie the ones not affiliated with non-ceasefire paramilitary organisations, did much better than the ones who are.
Sinn Fein and the SDLP are both signed up to co-operate with the PSNI and go into the Policing Boards, and they are overwhelmingly predominant, see this thread for details on the election http://www.indymedia.ie/article/81394
So there isn’t an anti-PSNI/anti-St Andrews Agreement popular movement. The political groups opposed to SF’s acceptance of the PSNI couch this in terms which I don’t think have much parallels with a libertarian anti-state case. Personally I don’t think a progressive opposition to the peace process is possible, and I’m decidedly unconcerned with Sinn Fein and the IRA “selling out”, their “selling out”, while having arguably negative impacts in terms of state legitimacy, would have to count as a positive if you compare it to the negativity of their participation in armed conflict, and very obviously they were not just gonna call a ceasefire one day and leave it at, but negotiate some reforms and a share in power for themselves.
The ’policing debate’ is essentially a dispute among republican activists, with the more sensible variety found on both sides of the dispute I think. For instance the only recent protest marches about police behaviour here took place in the South, about the Southern police.
This article here below ‘the St. Andrews Agreement and the Left’, is written by a Belfast anarchist (member of Organise! I think), on one of the better dissident sites:
http://www.phoblacht.net/DC031106g.html
I think it is a fairly accurate analysis of where people generally are at with ‘the policing debate’, as reflected in the recent elections.
Here http://www.wsm.ie/story/1679 is an earlier WSM article on punishment beatings, community restorative justice and policing.
This is an earlier Indymedia feature on SF acceptance of the PSNI - http://www.indymedia.ie/article/80682#comments
(with, in the following thread, one anarcho advocating that the structures should be used to hold the police to account)
Organise! tend not to use this site, you would be better off asking them elsewhere.
"" Terry's article and the discussion also drew out the weakness of much of the "dissident" Republican camp. Basically a willingness to overlook deeply authoritarian, antiwomen, racist and antiworking class politics as long as it is anti-Brit. This is very disappointing. But as Terry has shown, historically not surprising.""
Sorry K-Dog i take issue with this . Terrys article didnt draw any such thing out, nor did the discussion unless your taking the hysterical denunciations of republicans as evidence of that . It didnt for example refer to the 32 csm statement on the elections calling for people to vote against the PSNI by supporting the slate of candidates standing against them , one of whom was Gerry McGeough , and engage in any analysis upon it . RSF stood in direct opposition to McGeough , yet you regrd this as "overlooking" his negative attributes as well . It made no mention of the fact all candidates were told that any vote they received was a vote against the PSNI and nothing else . Nor did Terrys article refer in any manner to 32 csm strategy and analyse why republicans were asked to vote for all of the candidates . The strategic reason why was spelled out very clearly indeed by myself and there has been no rebuttal , critique or analysis of that strategy to condemn that stragtegy as "fash apologism" or anything else (is it that difficult to read a few documents ?).
It was not just about being "anti brit" . It was about attempting to get a grass roots led democratic republican project off the ground by encouraging a separatist constituency to reveal itself .
Im sorry but this is an analysis , like Terrys , that prefers to breathe life into a text book leftist stereotype of republican separatism rather than engage in an analysis of actual reality and separtist strategy . To dismiss the strategy adopted by 32 csm as plain "anti brit" is either blinkered or just plain lazy .
As for the rest of your comment Gerry McGeough will never be in a position of leadership within the republican separatist "scene" . He possesses no strategy , separatist base , organisation , or framework and asides from his opposition to the PSNI his politics and religious meanderings would be laughed out of town within the separatist constituency , as they indeed are . His electoral intervention was last minute and unsolicited and as was pointed out above left 32 csm facing an ideological conundrum, as did Davy Hyland for similar and different reasons . The call to support an entire slate that included him as well as an alternative to him was justified in relation to our democratic strategy . To overlook the reality of an occupying paramilitary force in favour of almost hopeful conjecture on the phantom menace of a Gerry McGeough led Hibernian army is indulging ones obsessions to a ridiculous degree . Not every fascist opposes abortion or has the imagined potential to pose some threat in the future . The real fascists were the heavily armed colonial scum that arrested an electoral candidate at a polling booth and who pose a clear and immediate and definite future threat to political activism all over this country . Unfortunately many on the left think its sectarian to oppose these fascists and fret about a tiny knot of religious fruitcakes . Talk about taking the path of least resistance .
In the immediate aftermath of that election not only have the British jailed McGeough and McAnespie they engaged in a massive security operation is south armagh and opened fire in the middle of a busy street in Belfast . We have little doubt what the fate will be for many political activists now that this shower of tramps can point to some semblance of acceptance thanks to PSF ,the SDLP and Fianna Fail .
P.SN.I at West Tyrone count
Are none of the socialists out there in the least concerned about the arrest of Gerry McGeough.
Surely political policing is just that whether you like or dislike one of it s victims.
Like many on the links I dont personally agree with many of the positions taken by Gerry McGeough over the years.
All the same his arrest by the P.S.N.I at this time would seem to be very disturbing,.
If someone like him can be arrested to-day it can be someone else next week.
Also if he was so much part of a golden circle of religious fundamentalist power brokers could they not have done
more to protect him. I suppose the message is that one can over demonise someone who maintains some
traditionalist conservative views as archaine as some of us may feel they are.
He is also an Irish man . Those who would like him locked up and the key thrown away would have similar plans for
Socialists Anarchists Radical Ecologists etc.
Would they?
I find it amazing that on a whole range of issues, the political "Left" always seem to reinforce the aims of the "establishments" they claim to oppose. This is another one of those instances.
Many of BICOs 1970s documents have had a deep and lasting influence on the left throughout the island . Stil too busy proving their credentials by not going to mass and other outrageous actions while pondering the issue that its not really a big deal for a foreign power to militarily back a national minority in order to subvert national democracy and sovereignty . To oppose this is sectarian in many of their eyes . Their ignorance of the importance of national sovereignty and even its rejection means they dont even have a coherent argument against the theft of our resources and abandonment of national neutrality save for complaining its something to do with capitalism . Progressive as a boiled egg ..
So he should get his nazi pals in youth defence and the catholic church to protest against his arrest.
Lefties should be again his arrest but do nothing for this fascist.
Ridiculous blather, BICO's influence on the Irish Left today is completely negligible, the Stick position on the North which was worked out under their influence is totally discredited. The Left has been mobilising strongly in support of the people of Rossport and argued strongly against the theft of natural resources by foreign multinationals. Not subscribing to your bankrupt, dead-end version of traditional die-hard republicanism, with its endless conspiracy theories about how the 'RA would have been able to drive the Brits out no bother if it wasn't for the traitors in the leadership, is no handicap at all - in fact it's a huge advantage for anyone who wants to connect with the vast majority of the Irish people. The RIRA have nothing to offer, absolutely nothing at all, and anybody who follows their lead will be going up the garden path. Thankfully there won't be many of them
The traditional failures within republican seperatism have been as a result of its fundamental lack of internal democracy , not just the traitors who exploited that for their own ends .
As for the rest of your rant the issue I raised was the issue of sovereignty , not conspiracy theories (a point youve just made up in your own head while waffling some nonsense about the Real IRA , an organisation Im neither a member of and that I never even mentioned in my post) . By refusing to address the issue of national sovereignty and the undemocratic methods used to violate it and indulging in made up waffle instead youve pretty much proved my point about the lefts incoherent stance on issues of national sovereignty . Now why is that ?
It's obviously impossible for anyone to post any comment in response to your rantings without confirming the views you already hold. You've ignored the simple fact that the Irish radical left has been rock solid on the issue of Rossport, supporting the local community and arguing for the gas to be nationalised. They don't need your dead-end die-hard republican politics. They don't need your pompous lectures either.
Readers will be sad to note that Hibernian Magazine is to close. The current issue will be the last to be published.
So get into Easons and get a copy to show your kids- they won't believe such a magazine ever existed unless you have proof.
Who now will detail the machinations of the Illuminati and the Freemasons as they attack Irish Catholic culture?
Gerry blames the British for shutting down the magazine but no doubt they had some help from other subversive elements many of them in Ireland.
Its terribly sad to have to read about this magazine in the past tense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hibernian
Possibly a main reason for the demise of The Hibernian is that it didn't grab enough readers with its zany devotionalism (the Third Secret cult is so passe) and Catholic-Calvinist idea of the (Catholic) Irish being an elect race destined to accomplish a divinely-inspired mission in the contemporary decadent world. Plainly stated it was a commercial failure. If a publication doesn't generate circulation and attract enough advertising it's going to succumb to financial reality. This has happened to dozens of fringe left magazines as well in Ireland from the 1920s onwards. (Whatever happened to The Workers Republic after Connolly was executed? Nowadays its memory is honoured in the occasional footnotes of history scholars.)
Conspiracy theories of the right and the left appeal to the hyperactive emotions of individuals who are unhappy with the state of the world. Some conspiracy theorists have posted on the threads of indymedia, drawing on themes found among rightwing theorists i.e. the illuminati and the Bilderberg world banking network. Emotionally souped-up individuals can be induced to believe anything. As nazi propagandist supremo Joseph Goebbels noted, the biggest lie is the one to go for when you want to hold the public in emotional captivity.
Good riddance to The Hibernian and the antique A.O.H. that apparently sponsored it. The irrelevance of AOH to society in the republic (and to Northern Ireland?) is evident. The appeal to unreason and the peddling of social and religious fantasies failed to impress sufficient readers this time round. But there will be other attempts. Human anxiety is a fertile breeding ground.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-12509836
Gerry McGeough, who was arrested in 2007, was convicted of trying to kill Samuel Brush, who is now a DUP councillor in Dungannon.
McGeough was also convicted of possessing firearms with intent and holding IRA membership.
McGeough's co-accused Vincent McAnespie was acquitted of the charges against him.
Looks like we won't be seeing McGeough in action for several years then. Much as I dislike McGeough's politics and violent acts, I can't
say I approve of him being sentenced by a non-jury court.
"Looks like we won't be seeing McGeough in action for several years then. Much as I dislike McGeough's politics and violent acts, I can't say I approve of him being sentenced by a non-jury court."
Starkly speaking, this does not add up. Why not come down on one side or the other? Do you support him or not?
Ever hear of a little thing called "trial by jury"? Everyone suspected of a criminal offence should have the right to one. And to argue that McGeough should have had a trial by jury does NOT in any way support him.
http://www.iol.ie/~iccl/crime.htm
"Looks like we won't be seeing McGeough in action for several years then. Much as I dislike McGeough's politics and violent acts, I can't say I approve of him being sentenced by a non-jury court."
Starkly speaking, this does not add up. Why not come down on one side or the other? Do you support him or not?
http://www.preciolandia.com/br/ Brasil