Comments on The Pensive Quill: Heil Mary

Right simple aul Belfast speak nothing fancy since...

2009-05-12T05:12:00.000+01:00

Right simple aul Belfast speak nothing fancy since I lack a formal education.
I had originally wanted to respond to the Hail Mary article which was sound enough as it set of the reactionary dogmatic defense mechanism, a result of growing up a taig.
Well that notion was passed by when the comments avoided the article.
Was disappointed reading the many personalities of Stan or Sean or whoever you are today.
I only arrive at the blog for a wee read and a different opinion, pass a half hour and then done.
Maybe it’s just me and my simple world though the many personas of Sean are a little on the weird side by a little I mean almost schizophrenic and definitely paranoid, delusional.
Why attack the articles with a pointless rant, and why attack very personally Carrie Twomey. Not being the brightest human on the planet I was just wondering how much time you spend playing internet cop?
It would be decent if you would actually pick a topic and at least make an effort to defend it without the childish banter.
If the blogger took the time to write an article and you have a comment on it by all means comment.
Personally I find your comments odd to the point of ridiculous, maybe I lack the education but I do know the difference between debate and your obvious lack of it.
Point, what does being pro American and writing prose have to do with “Heil Mary?”
Being a Roman Catholic and a right winger I liked the article but unfortunately couldn’t get into it as the comments had become more of a laughing matter.
Should I worry the blog owner might not print my comment, no!
If he refuses I can always use the childish reply, it is because I am a right winger.
Well I did get back to Heil Mary but the comment section is lost to me.
The blog owner seems more diplomatic and rational and I would have to agree with him.
Remember Sean some of us actually like to read different opinions and don’t make a song and attention dance out of them.
Crack a window open and take a dander now and then your anger is as obvious as your poor responses.

Sean, good to see you have finally settled on a fi...

2009-05-11T20:18:00.000+01:00

Sean, good to see you have finally settled on a fixed ID for the purposes of posting. Moving from Never Marry A Neo-Con to Stan to Mick to Sean From the Murph was good crack for me to watch if tiring for you to maintain. If you had taken the hint from as early as my second reply to Never Mary A Neo-Con you might have saved yourself a lot of trouble. You were certainly causing me none.
But ultimately we can only watch the life of Brian for so long before it too loses its fun value.

You are more than welcome here if you treat others as they treat you. But if you use sock puppets again you can go elsewhere. Like any blog owner I have a responsibility to those who use the forum to keep the debate fair and not abused by the users of multiple IDs. Leaving is not an option I want you to pursue as you make a valuable contribution and represent a perspective which is probably not heard enough. And you have demonstrated that you are more than capable of making a case without resort to bile. The choice is yours: you can either waste your time trying to score points or use your time making points.

While I have never been a fan of anonymity, feeling that people should stand over what they say, I understand fully that you will not want to use your real name. I appreciate that it would leave you open you up to a certain amount of ridicule given that you were writing on Organised Rage that there should be no engagement with me – I should be sent to Coventry – and here you are engaging with me. If anyone doubts that it was you they can read your posts on Organised Rage for themselves and compare it to your posts under the pseudonym Never Marry A Neo-Con.

But ultimately if you want to genuinely inform and shape a discussion then none of that matters. Whatever has happened has happened and it is of no consequence one way or the other. It is not my intention to drag this thing out or engage in spiteful debates. I think I have been fairly measured in my exchanges with you. I have no reason to change that. You will be treated the same as everyone else here. How long you stay is a matter for yourself. Nobody is forcing you to go. No one is trying to out you.

The issue is simplicity in itself. You stay as ‘Sean’. If you switch, pretending to be someone else, you will leave.

I’m not sure whom you mean when you talk of natura...

2009-05-11T16:09:00.000+01:00

I’m not sure whom you mean when you talk of natural allies, not Obama surely? I am not being dogmatic here just pointing out that Obama has quickly shown that he is up to the job of being no.1 imperialist in the world and with the same relish as his predecessors. The question here is how we engage ourselves politically, is it a case of participating in politics on politics’ terms, being forced to decide which is better Democrat or Republican, Labour or Conservative, Fianna Fail or Fine Gael when in reality the difference is an illusion.

One is reminded of the words of the 17th century philosopher Geulincx when he said “ubi nihil vales, ibi nihil veils” which roughly translated reads as: “Do not invest hope or longing in an arena where you have no power.”
In Ireland, Republicans, (some, not all) have invested hope and longing into a process where they have no power, the power they once held had to be surrendered as an entry requirement.

We should not be afraid to aim high. Don’t have hope in the hype that is Obama.

I hope this clarifies my position non-dogmatically.

Your dogmatism and your rhetoric makes it difficul...

2009-05-10T20:08:00.000+01:00

Your dogmatism and your rhetoric makes it difficult to respond. You are red-baiting from the left. You are alienating your natural allies. You want instant change and make life much harder for those who are in it for the long haul. You are worse than in-effectual. You are counter-effectual. Your apparent purity of motive comes across as holier-than-thou ranting and serves no purpose.
Chomsky is right when he says that the major parties are to the right of public opinion. But the difference between Obama and Bush, to the unwed mother or the homeless or the pensioner in need of medical care, is too obvious for me to spell out for you - even were you to stop ranting for one minute.
You haven't read enough Chomsky or you'd know that he talks about change as gradual, and improvement as incremental.

You had illusions in Obama but the reality shows h...

2009-05-10T19:45:00.000+01:00

You had illusions in Obama but the reality shows him to be the opposite of what you thought or as it seems still think. There are obvious parallels between Blair and Obama, Blair like Obama was young and charismatic (if that is how you like your politicians) and like Obama replaced a discredited government. The Blair government quickly showed that they were fundamentally the same as the outgoing government and in some aspects even surpassed them with their right wing policies. Even Chomsky himself as said that both the Democrats and the Republicans are well to the right of the people. When Obama says that fighting in Afghanistan is in America’s national interest then what can that be other than imperialism? He is not the first US president to talk like this.

There are still some in Britain who believe that Labour is the more progressive of the two main parties. The imperialist wars and occupations, the widening gap between the rich and poor, the open corruption of Labour MPs, it’s as if it never happened. Holiday from history or should that be reality.

I have been an activist for over fifty years. I vo...

2009-05-10T18:07:00.000+01:00

I have been an activist for over fifty years. I voted for Obama reluctantly. But I understand, as I think you do not, that one inch of forward momentum is better than none at all. Call names if it makes you feel better. But it's a shame to let your vision of the perfect obscure the good, or even the better.
Do you think anybody who works within the system is an imperialist? You should read Chomsky's "Imperialist Ambitions" before you alienate your natural allies.

Saying Obama is not an imperialist is what I mean ...

2009-05-10T15:32:00.000+01:00

Saying Obama is not an imperialist is what I mean when I talk of those who are on a ‘holiday from history’. Obama is in many ways a puppet of the military-industrial complex you seem to be saying this yourself when you say “If he were effective they would kill him”.

Obama is a tailor’s dummy of a politician, the election was nothing more than a popularity contest like high school kids choosing a home coming queen but the politics of the man are undeniably imperialist in nature.

I agree with the comment regarding "...the racist ...

2009-05-10T08:34:00.000+01:00

I agree with the comment regarding "...the racist totalitarianism of the US airstrikes in Afghanistan and the Sinhalese racist totalitarian genocide in Sri Lanka..." However it isn't objective to conflate Obama with US imperialism. Obama is contending with a vast machine that encompasses the largest military with enormous financial interests. If he were effective they would kill him. Bush was able to subvert the process because the money was on his side. Obama isn't as lucky and has to tread very carefully.
Obama is not "... the same as what went before." It cannot be done all at once or in 100 days. It takes time and patience to build a solid movement to reverse American foreign policy of the past 100 years. To think Obama could do it in 100 days is just wishful thinking. Keep protesting US policy and keep the pressure on Obama, but don't expect miracles.

Is Stan short for Afghanistan? The other day Obam...

2009-05-10T02:31:00.000+01:00

Is Stan short for Afghanistan? The other day Obama said it was in America’s national interest to be fighting in Afghanistan. It only took a hundred days for him to show he is the same as what went before. America really is a land of equal opportunities, blacks can be imperialists as well now. I was wondering what people on here feel about the racist totalitarianism of the US airstrikes in Afghanistan and the Sinhalese racist totalitarian genocide in Sri Lanka? I feel this is perhaps the last place to raise such questions as most seem to be on an extended holiday from history. Hail to the thief!

My friend Stan is a funny old man oh yeah I guess...

2009-05-09T21:14:00.000+01:00

My friend Stan is a funny old man oh yeah

I guess if you are as old as me Stan you will know where the lyrics of that one come from. Its appropriate because this is a funny old post.

‘Dear Anonymous, Have the courage to admit that you are none other than Carrie Twomey.’

This would appear to hoist you on your own petard. Does Stan not have courage? What else am I read into it? Whether we call ourselves Stan or Anonymous the difference hardly amounts to something other than standing behind a cloak of anonymity. I have found that some anonymous posters are cowardly but most are not. They merely get their argument out without sniping at someone who does not avail of the same cover.

‘You will of course not publish this which only shows that your whole free speech no to censorship is a load of reactionary prattle.’

Having allowed yourself to fall hostage to fortune and ending up being proved absolutely wrong on this one you assert:

‘You fell for my bluff and posted my comments but still do not own up to your handy work!’

I doubt if anybody is falling for your bluff Stan. The bluff is that having walked into the trap you set yourself you are trying to bluff your way out of it by pretending you were bluffing to begin with.

It is me that decides to publish. It is my blog so I choose what goes up – just about everything I imagine. So why would I ‘of course not publish’ you? You said nothing that was libellous – you didn’t call anybody a thief or a drug dealer or a sex offender or any of the other things that might constitute libel. You expressed an opinion. So what? Had you said Eamonn McCann was the anonymous poster I would still have published you provided you did not libel him. And if you continued to bible thump citing verses 3:1, 3:2, 5:1 ad infinitum that it was him I wouldn’t be enlightening you one way or the other. That’s the point about anonymity; on this blog people are entitled to use it just as you do yourself. What is the point in allowing it and then screaming at those that use it, ‘I know who you are.’ It’s a blog, not Cluedo.

So as I posted your comment, what ‘handywork’ is it that I should own up to?

‘Big Mac’ – haven’t been called that from school. But if anybody thinks I am going to sit and obsess that you might be someone from my long forgotten school days they will be a long time waiting on a conclusion. I simply don’t care who you are. Doesn’t interest me in the slightest. The same with every other anonymous poster whether they are supportive or critical. Over the course of this blog – it is running about 18 months - I have been criticised by posters. I suppose I could accurately guess at who some of them are but what does it matter? It’s a blog that allows anonymous comment. So anonymity is what I am going to get. It gets a bit rich however when one anonymous commenter tries to out another, thinking that wins them an argument. There is a certain parallel for one anonymous commenter trying to out another. What are we to think of one gay person trying to out another? Sounds like bullying to me. It has been suggested to me that ‘Anonymous’ under various cover names has carried on some sort of personal obsession that now borders on the creepy.

And if you really think I am going to answer every comment you must think I have little else to do with my time other than sit at a keyboard all day. The blog is something I do in my free time of which there is very little. And if it is a chore rather than relaxing I couldn’t be annoyed. And where a commenter puts an answer that would explain my position – great - saves me having to reinvent the wheel. And some of the anonymous posts you refer to were so well argued it seems a bit self defeating for you to flag them up again. I’m tempted to say I wish you had have accused me of being the author of such well constructed posts.

Away from that altogether, your post raises an interesting dimension – on the issue of free speech. Can free speech really be inhibited or prevented in the blogosphere? If, for example, I don’t let you on my blog for whatever reason or you don’t let me on yours are we interfering with each other’s free speech? The blogosphere is so wide that the ability to speak freely comes with the ability to get a blog. Everybody as far as I am aware can do that. For someone to be denied free speech requires more than simply denying them access to one of the many blogs out there. It would also require intimidating them out of speaking and denying them any platform. I might have a right to free speech but I can’t march up to your door and read out the bible to you. Well, I could but you could rightly tell me to clear off and I could hardly claim I was being denied free speech.

When Sinn Fein would say that certain articles could not be carried in the AP/RN they could have denied using censorship if they were prepared to allow the same articles to be submitted elsewhere. Problem is they didn’t. They sought to prevent anything critical getting out in any forum and used intimidation to achieve that end. That’s what made it censorship. I suggest it is the same with the blogs. They are personal things. If somebody does not want to carry me on their blog I can hardly claim to be denied free speech. I could if I was attacked and then denied the right to reply.

You fell for my bluff and posted my comments but s...

2009-05-09T16:44:00.000+01:00

You fell for my bluff and posted my comments but still do not own up to your handy work!

Posts no 20,24,26,28 are the work of Carrie Twomey. Not only do they mysteriously contain highlighted links to other articles, Big Mac tells other posters to refer to them rather than answering questions himself. A dead giveaway!

Dear Anonymous Have the courage to admit that you...

2009-05-09T01:35:00.000+01:00

Dear Anonymous

Have the courage to admit that you are none other than Carrie Twomey. It is hard to know what is worse your pro US imperialist politics or your adolescent prose. You will of course not publish this which only shows that your whole free speech no to censorship is a load of reactionary prattle.

Those curious re: religious tolerance or its lack ...

2009-05-09T00:09:00.000+01:00

Those curious re: religious tolerance or its lack by a late Corkonian, the poet and Examiner journalist Seán Dunne, may be interested in an agnostic Catholic's acceptance of what can be salvaged from the Church for one who cannot believe its tenets. I reviewed his "The Road to Silence" (1995) recently:

"REVIEW"

ModernityBlog, do you specialise in rubbish and gu...

2009-05-08T23:00:00.000+01:00

ModernityBlog, do you specialise in rubbish and guff or is it just something you do in your spare time?
Having first tried and failed to bamboozle readers with an assertion that criminalising or outlawing holocaust denial (despite the threadbare cover of the word ‘primarily to conceal the fact that you did not research it as well as you tried to dupe people into believing) was specifically an Austrian and German thing and rooted in the specific Nazi history of each country, you have shifted position to tell us that ‘the original anti Nazi laws originated in Germany and Austria.’
‘There was a reason for those laws, as imperfect as they are, they keep the resurgence of National Socialism down.’
Torture, shooting the believers of Nazi ideology, sending Nazi adherents off to death camps and gulags, arguably might keep the resurgence of National Socialism down, but we don’t argue for them to be used. At least I don’t. You might think it all a good idea.
I am aware of what Nazi ideology does and hardly need to explain to someone driven by censorial impulses seemingly dressed up as anti-Nazi sentiment my deep hostility towards it. So hostile that when Israel perpetrates Nazi-like acts of racial violence against the Palestinians of Gaza and elsewhere I am not found silent but rather speak out strongly against it. But if people who support the policies of the Israeli state wish to be war crime deniers then I don’t advocate that they be denied the freedom to deny what they do. I certainly abhor it. But that is something different and most likely escapes you. They should be pulled out into the open where their arguments can be demolished.
Is Holocaust denial any worse than Rwandan genocide denial? That genocide, fuelled by the hate ideology of Hutu Power took more lives in a much shorter period of time than the Holocaust against the Jewish people did. But perhaps you think that Rwandan blacks who experience genocide should not have the same protection as white Europeans who experience holocaust. If that is not racist …

When I do search the web I sincerely hope I find something more coherent than you.

There was a reason for those laws, as imperfect...

2009-05-08T22:25:00.000+01:00
There was a reason for those laws, as imperfect as they are, they keep the resurgence of National Socialism down.

Now you might ask why that is important?

Or you may ask why it has not worked as a solution to violence or to keeping people away from the ideas that birthed the Nazis?

Arguing against censorship is not arguing for racism or Nazism or to say that the Nazis were correct or to agree with Holocaust deniers. Obviously the Holocaust happened; obviously it was also not the only act of systemic genocide which is what the argument of this blog was about, not denying the Holocaust but pointing out the hypocrisy of defending the denial of the Holocaust as a means to prevent racists while at the same time remaining blind to other - and in some cases contemporary - Holocaustic acts of genocide.

To quote the relevant paragraph of the blog:

"It alone as far as I am aware is the one thing we are not allowed to deny in parts of the Western world. Denying one holocaust in the past is a punishable offence but denying others while they happen is a pretty alright sort of thing. Both the US president and the head of the United Nation's peacekeeping office denied the holocaust in Rwanda in its midst. Denying something as it unfolds seems a much worse crime than denying something that happened years ago. In the here and now denials, as they did in Rwanda, can have terrible consequences for living beings. Neither Bill Clinton nor Kofi Annan, unlike Irving, were ever jailed for their genocide denial."

Or maybe you don't "give a shit" about the actual point, and would rather -- somewhat like Never Marry A Neo Con -- continue to pound a square peg into your dogmatic round hole?

Or maybe you don't give a shit one way or the other, be that as it may, when you have a significant rise in Nazi activity you have associated racial violence.

If that doesn't trouble you, then please acknowledge the fact that you don't care if the Nazis firebomb immigrant hostels, attack people in the streets, etc

In other words, "If you don't agree with me then you are a racist" - is that your only logic?

How does it follow that someone who is pro-free speech and anti-censorship, and clearly not supportive of Holocaust deniers, must also be a racist or "not give a shit" about immigrants being firebombed, because they disagree with the effectiveness of laws against denying the Holocaust?

I understand the reasoning behind the origins of the law in Germany and other places ravaged by the Nazi's, and the need to not forget what was done in order to not repeat it.

But I also am capable of understanding an anti-censorship argument against such laws, or at least the application of such laws in countries where the Nazis did not rule, without resorting to knee-jerk assumptions that the arugment is pro-Nazi, or the person making it a racist.

As someone who supports the concept of free speech I much rather that the cockroaches be brought into the light and challenged, where everyone can see them for what they are, than to let them continue to scurry and breed in the dark, away from public eyes, where they are never challenged and the public has no idea how widespread they actually are.

An argument ill founded should be easily defeated in the open.

The original anti Nazi laws originated in Germany ...

2009-05-08T21:48:00.000+01:00
The original anti Nazi laws originated in Germany and Austria.

There was a reason for those laws, as imperfect as they are, they keep the resurgence of National Socialism down.

Now you might ask why that is important?

Or maybe you don't give a shit one way or the other, be that as it may, when you have a significant rise in Nazi activity you have associated racial violence.

Please do search the Web, you will see how they go hand-in-hand.

If that doesn't trouble you, then please acknowledge the fact that you don't care if the Nazis firebomb immigrant hostels, attack people in the streets, etc

Your choice.

‘Well, if you took the trouble to research the top...

2009-05-08T20:48:00.000+01:00
‘Well, if you took the trouble to research the topic, then you'd see that the laws primarily relate to two special countries: Germany and Austria.’

Perhaps if you took the trouble to research the topic you might have come up with the following

But a string of European countries already ban it, including France, Belgium, and Poland, as well as Austria and Germany, arguing that such views have no place in societies which reject outright the crimes of the Nazis.All of which weakens the thrust of:

‘I hope you see the connection? And why those particular countries might want to have exceptional laws in this case?’

Your argument sounds more like a case for censorship and less one of making a case against the Nazis. The Nazis become a useful hook to hang the censorship argument on.

People should be free regardless of what country they live in to believe or disbelieve what they want. If people want to deny the existence of god they should not be jailed or stoned for it; same with holocaust denial. In the case of the latter they merely look stupid.

Alfie, fine. There is nothing which compels you to...

2009-05-08T20:31:00.000+01:00
Alfie, fine. There is nothing which compels you to think as I do. But at least you can live with people thinking differently from you. I accept fully that some in the SWP saw the cartoons in a racist context. But not all. Shortly after the issue blew up I had a drink with one of them and asked how they ended up in such a position making the argument that the cartoons were unambiguously racist. I put it to him that it was not about racism but about building Respect. His candour disarmed me. He made it very clear that racism was not the issue but the building of Respect. Then he went on to vigorously defend adopting the stance on the cartoons in that context. I could see a sense in his logic although it wasn’t mine. He did however, think, that the signatories to the manifesto were reactionary and did not want to support them in any way.
Overall I thought there was an honesty to his position so lacking in the public discussion.
It is not that I get concerned about the SWP to the point of being angry at them or dwelling on them. They never loomed in my life like the way Sinn Fein did. Having them as critics or opponents hardly figured. I expected better from them overall rather than see them confirm the Peter Wright type characterisation.
I don’t collapse them and the left in general into one phenomenon. I think this is made clear in the HJS interview. I think their good people will continue pushing left through other avenues and fora. I think the totalitarian left or vanguard left are a lost cause. So I don’t see any strategic relevance emerging there. I believe that left ideas are the only ones worth pursuing. The challenge is to disarticulate those ideas from their current carriers and have them promoted through a new project.
This was something I always found when in the Provisionals. It was not left ideas that repelled many of us – it was the people who made up the left. It was impossible to get anybody to take them seriously. Time out of number I was asked ‘if there was a socialist armed struggle how many of them do you think you would find in jail?’ There was just this lack of belief in the seriousness of the left.

AM wrote: "I just dislike the way the denial of it...

2009-05-05T21:31:00.000+01:00
AM wrote: "I just dislike the way the denial of it is an offence only for that particular genocide"

Well, if you took the trouble to research the topic, then you'd see that the laws primarily relate to two special countries: Germany and Austria.

The laws are aimed at the resurgence of Nazism.

As such they treat the minimalising of the Nazi's crimes as part and parcel of an effort to re-create National Socialism and present a sanitized version of it.

It is hardly a coincidence that the most active Holocaust deniers/revisionsists are either neo-nazis, Hitler lovers or their close mates.

I hope you see the connection? and why those particular countries might want to have exceptional laws in this case?

PS: with the growth of the Far Right in Germany/Austria there has been an increase in attacks on immigrants, etc. Even the fire bombing of hostels by neo-Nazis.

Anthony, I appreciate that you have good reasons t...

2009-05-05T18:26:00.000+01:00
Anthony, I appreciate that you have good reasons to be critical of the SWP, though I don't think 'totalitarian' or 'racist' are words I myself would use to describe it. Personally, I did not think the cartoons were racist though many people, including the SWP, honestly saw them as such. In a way, the arguments they made were similar to those of the Jewish organisations who contended that Mel Gibson's film The Passion of the Christ was anti-Semitic. Nevertheless, I saw the cartoons controversy as a freedom-of-speech issue, plain and simple. By the way, you seem to conflate the SWP with 'the left' in your critique: are you fed up with the left in general, or just the SWP?

Never Marry A Neo-con I think this is more or less...

2009-05-03T19:10:00.000+01:00
Never Marry A Neo-con
I think this is more or less reaching its denouement so I will try and wrap it up from my end.
‘In May 2006 you were interviewed by Martyn Frampton in an interview which appeared on the Henry Jackson Society website http://www.henryjacksonsociety.org/stories.asp?id=273

He asked you “When the initial controversy erupted over the cartoons were you surprised by it?”

You replied “Well, no, because I have come to expect that this is the way that totalitarians operate.”
I think this goes to the point. What response was he talking about when he posed the question other than the violent one that sought to intimidate and burn and in some cases kill? It was clear to me, if not to you, that the only people I could see involved in the racist violence against the Danes and demanding the suppression of the cartoons were Islamist totalitarians and not Islamic believers. Throughout the range of articles I wrote on the matter, which you chose not to cite, Muslims per se were never attacked but were robustly defended against the human rights abuses inflicted on them by the theocrats.

This interview in fact was what clinched the issue for many people. It was so clear from it that the Blanket was not into the business of backing racists or racist imagery but was defending people against theocrats.

In my view the left that did seek the censorship of the cartoons – much of the left did not – had one reason for doing so. It had nothing to do with anti-racism but with outreach work to the Muslim constituency in Britain which was linked to the building of the Respect coalition. The imans set the pace by fuelling the issue to begin with, and some in the left rather than face them down in defence of secularism (a left position for as long as …) the left tailed them. And in order to mask its abandonment of the secular position had to come up with the fig leaf that it was an anti-racist impulse that was governing its stance.

Whatever about you joining the dots and reaching the wrong conclusion I think you inferred too much from too little. Even if you felt the interview did not give you what you specifically required the whole ambience surrounding the publishing exercise provided enough to allow a much more accurate inference to be drawn.
‘Others should read the interview in full and judge the tone for themselves.’
Probably the one item of agreement that we will reach on the matter.
Maybe Alfie does think I play loose with the term ‘totalitarian’ but he will have to answer for himself.
On the racist nature of the SWP I think anonymous answers it in a way that I would. But it all depends on a different way of conceptualising racism and one which you probably don’t agree with so you would not see the criticism of the SWP as therefore valid.

Declan, I will pass on this if you don't mind. Ano...

2009-05-03T19:08:00.000+01:00
Declan, I will pass on this if you don't mind. Anonymous answered it in a way that I would. Thanks for the comment.

Alfie, you asked why I felt the SWP was totalitari...

2009-05-03T18:01:00.000+01:00
Alfie, you asked why I felt the SWP was totalitarian. There is probably a book in that topic alone. Firstly, I think it goes with the turf for parties rooted in the Leninist tradition and those that subscribe to a totalising metanarrative that its adherents think can explain virtually all social phenomenon. I have found that democratic centralism is rarely democratic and for the most part centralist. The SWP in my view exhibited this trait. Its history is one of pulling power and control to the centre and keeping its own activists woefully misinformed and marginalised from decision making processes. There is an intellectual and ideological absolutism about the set up. This is something we frequently find in the criticism of the party levelled by those who leave it or its critics who through engagement with it find this to be so. There is plenty of written material out there about it. It is always worthwhile to talk to former SWP members or read their writings as they provide insight on the totalitarian tendencies within the party. Or for that matter with those on the left who have had the experience of being in alliances with the SWP both in Ireland and the UK.

The SWP were very quick off the mark to defend me when the Provisionals started a serious campaign of intimidation as was Socialist Democracy. Eamonn McCann was brilliant and we were appreciative of his interventions at the time. But at a local level in Belfast they became increasingly intolerant of differences of opinion. They sought to have material suppressed that they did not like. SWP people would come to me and try to argue for nothing to go up on the Blanket about theocratic Iran. They would even get upset about an article critical of the theocratic killing of a four year old Irish girl on one of the 9/11 planes. They were wasting their time but the impulse towards censorship always irked me. I have always found that impulse totalitarian I character. I quickly saw signs of a totalising control on how the membership behaved and thought.

They would through entryism move into groups and seek to control them while denying it. And opposition to the line of the day was suppressed. This is something you can read about in accounts of the SWP almost anywhere. When a person with considerable insight approached the Anti Racist Network in Belfast about abuses against women linked to the Islamic Centre in the city which the person concerned had documented they were urged vigorously not to tell anyone. This to me constituted a totalitarian sentiment. And it gave me a certain view of the minds of the people involved.

I had always a leaning towards the radical left, feeling that even what limited reforms were achieved through parliamentary politics and the like, always hovering there were people in the radical camp making the arguments and acting as the brake on the impulse towards the right. In prison when I would make the case for the left it would be listened to up to a point (I was hardly alone in making it). What turned matters round was those volunteers who had left prison and returned. When we discussed with them why they did not push left politics the response was invariably the same – ‘have you see what the left is?’ They were regarded as incessant squabblers who had no interest in anything other than sectarian infighting and having a go at each other. These were guys whose activities risked their lives and freedom pitched as they were in the front line against the British state. They weren’t toy town revolutionaries and were serious about the business. Their view that the left lacked any gravitas was not one to be easily dismissed. Nevertheless, I would still write for their journals and read their stuff but could not afford to ignore the advice of experience.

When I got out I was happy to meet with the left and go to their events although it became a challenge. However over the years all their activists seemed to churn out the standard line whatever it was that came down from on high. And it would go through young people very quickly who I felt quickly came to the conclusion that the party existed for the leadership rather than the other way round.

At a meeting in Dublin of the left in general when the main movers were referring to themselves as the radical left or the revolutionary left I proposed they call themselves the irrelevant left in a bid to get them to reflect on their complacency and how out of touch they were with wider society. Needless to say it is not title they opted for, being somewhat reluctant to give up their sense of self importance. And at the end of the day that self importance combined with the penchant for controlling others I think drew many to the SWP rather than the politics of the party.

Don't worry; not everybody anonymous is an idiot.

2009-05-03T18:00:00.000+01:00
Don't worry; not everybody anonymous is an idiot.

9/11 was a lie. It was the biggest hoax since NAS...

2009-05-02T03:58:00.000+01:00
9/11 was a lie. It was the biggest hoax since NASA faked the moon landings.