Comments on The Pensive Quill: Dying In Geneva

Anthony and may it reel all the way to its hell,cr...

2011-07-17T14:30:10.896+01:00

Anthony and may it reel all the way to its hell,criminal is the proper description of that bunch of perv,s mo cara.

Marty, I understand that. However, I was referri...

2011-07-17T11:28:45.349+01:00

Marty,

I understand that. However, I was referring to the situation today. The criminal Church is reeling like never before.

I would vote against a 32 county republic if any c...

2011-07-17T11:20:26.608+01:00

I would vote against a 32 county republic if any church was given the authority that the rc church was given in the 26 Anthony,and as it turned out wouldnt that be a bad mistake for the people to make again.

Alfie, ‘do you still believe that a 32-county rep...

2011-07-17T07:29:42.359+01:00

Alfie,

‘do you still believe that a 32-county republic is a good thing? Would you vote for it in a referendum’

I would vote for it. I can think of no reason to vote against it.

Alfie, ‘OK, Anthony is mocking you a bit, but I c...

2011-07-14T22:08:24.652+01:00

Alfie,

‘OK, Anthony is mocking you a bit, but I can't see why you think there is something incongruous about being a non-violent republican.’

I don’t think there is anything incongruous about it at all.

‘Armed republican campaigns were mounted several times in the past and all failed to achieve the goal of a 32-county republic.’

But today they are being repudiated in principle, not tactically.

‘Whatever popular support existed in the past for such campaigns has long since disappeared.

Support will come and go. This is a low period, where all that can really be achieved is to keep the pilot light alight, and show the world that British rule is not accepted.

‘So why can't a republican argue that further violence is pointless?’

The tactical use of ‘non-violence’ is not wrong at all. If an attempt to rule our armed-resistance on principle then I would disagree, but I don’t dispute that it is a valid position to hold.

‘Why should holding that belief invalidate his/her republicanism?’

It shouldn’t and doesn’t. Many Republicans hold that view. Good luck to them. But Anthony said Republicanism has no future. If I were to say that I remain a Catholic because of my youth, but it has no future, I would take that as apostasy. I can’t see that you can say Republicanism is something in the past, without a future, adopt constitutional politics and yet claim somehow you are not like other parties who have done exactly that. Anthony has said he accepts the legitimacy of both British States in Ireland. That is what I reject, and not his espousal of ‘non-violence’.

John McGirr, OK, Anthony is mocking you a bit, bu...

2011-07-14T14:34:33.307+01:00

John McGirr,

OK, Anthony is mocking you a bit, but I can't see why you think there is something incongruous about being a non-violent republican. Armed republican campaigns were mounted several times in the past and all failed to achieve the goal of a 32-county republic. Whatever popular support existed in the past for such campaigns has long since disappeared. So why can't a republican argue that further violence is pointless? Why should holding that belief invalidate his/her republicanism?

John McGirr, say a Hail Mary for me

2011-07-13T19:23:51.111+01:00

John McGirr,

say a Hail Mary for me

AM, 'But if you are not clever enough to figu...

2011-07-13T19:16:23.233+01:00

AM,

'But if you are not clever enough to figure it out then I won't do the work for you.'

Your tendency to rudeness towards those who disagree with you has not gone unnoticed.

I have worked it out. You are currently no more of a Republican than the Shinners are. You, like they, have quit and have become constitutionalists. I respect you for your past, but you can't live on that forever.

John McGirr, too busy watching the news about pri...

2011-07-13T19:01:29.666+01:00

John McGirr,

too busy watching the news about priests raping kids in Cloyne to do much else in terms of giving you a response. But if you are not clever enough to figure it out then I won't do the work for you.

AM, The 'ad hominem' is always useful whe...

2011-07-13T18:37:29.503+01:00

AM,

The 'ad hominem' is always useful when lost for a response.

I'll try for a third time;

Given that you do not believe there is a Republican future in what way is your position different to any other constitutional party such as PSF, the SDLP, or Fianna Fáil, the ‘Republican Party’?

St John, patron saint of the demented!!

2011-07-13T17:31:23.999+01:00

St John,

patron saint of the demented!!

AM, ‘The problem with the Shinners is that they d...

2011-07-13T16:27:43.059+01:00

AM,

‘The problem with the Shinners is that they deny much of the past.’

Similar to how you deny and deride what was accepted as mainline Republican beliefs prior to the take-over by such luminaries as Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness.

‘They revise it and distort it beyond all recognition. And contrary to what you think they do see a future but it is not a republican one.’

So neither you nor PSF see a Republican future. Given that you do not believe there is a Republican future in what way is your position different to any other constitutional part such as PSF or the SDLP, Fiana Fáil, the ‘Republican Party’?

‘The republican future you see, regrettably, is like the afterlife you also see.’

As it was to the men of 1916, who aptly chose Easter as a time of new life, motivated by the Resurrection of Christ. It seems to me that you have lost more than one faith. My position, on both politics and religion can be summed up in the old saying:

“We are what you once were.
We believe what you once believed.
We worship as you once worshipped.
If you were right then, we are right now.
If we are wrong now, you were wrong then.”

Hence I reject the bastardised ‘Republicanism’ of PSF and the bastardised 'Catholicism' of those who defected at the Second Vatican Council.

‘Those Shinners who believe in god must have prayed ‘Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.’ And god gave them you!’

You flatter me, Anthony. I don’t figure on their radar, have no communication with them and do not run a Blog. The fact that my views express what they once believed in, and you apparently never did, will hardly make them notice me.

John McGirr It would be so easy for you to be a ...

2011-07-13T14:53:34.316+01:00

John McGirr

It would be so easy for you to be a Shinner given that shared ability to believe nonsense.

The problem with the Shinners is that they deny much of the past. They revise it and distort it beyond all recognition. And contrary to what you think they do see a future but it is not a republican one. The republican future you see, regrettably, is like the afterlife you also see. Those Shinners who believe in god must have prayed ‘Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.’ And god gave them you!

Anthony, I think you do nuance better than me or ...

2011-07-12T21:30:34.918+01:00

Anthony,

I think you do nuance better than me or John McGirr! Seriously though, do you still believe that a 32-county republic is a good thing? Would you vote for it in a referendum?

Alfie, the analogy is limited but not redundant. ...

2011-07-12T17:31:33.243+01:00

Alfie,

the analogy is limited but not redundant. It serves the purpose of illustrating things that have no future.

‘But is this a good enough reason for remaining a republican?’

It is a good enough reason to remain a republican given that being a republican is not a bad thing.

‘I mean, republicanism is something you choose to believe in.’

It is, yes. It is also about what parts of it we choose to believe in. I believe in its past existence as a force that challenged repression despite its own less than salutary record; the comradeship of the prisons, in particular the protest years; the sacrifices made by so many that we continue to honour; much of its discourse and its function as a critique.

‘I don't like Ireland and want to leave it, but I can never change the fact that I'm Irish.’

But it would have no meaning to you were you to choose to abandon the label Irish. It would only be something that other people would call you. People should be free to give up their nationality just as much as they are free to give up their religion. An Irish person might wish to redefine themselves as a European. Gays and Blacks are different categories in that the room for flexibility is much more circumscribed.

‘it would be silly to cling wistfully to the Catholicism of my childhood now that I no longer believe in God.’

In any intellectual sense, yes, but it differs when you move to the cultural.

‘Republicanism is an ideology; you can renounce it if you don't believe in it anymore.’

At one level it is an ideology, on another it is a cultural phenomenon, a history. That does not privilege it in any way or protect it from criticism. It merely emphasises that there are non-ideological reasons for being something. Social phenomena are often multi-dimensional, one element of which is ideological.

‘There is no shame in changing your mind.’

But I don’t want to change my mind. Republicanism is not a monolith which must be swallowed in one bite.

AM, 'I remain a republican not because of any...

2011-07-12T11:59:35.266+01:00

AM,

'I remain a republican not because of anything to do with the future as republicanism has no future in my view.'

If I thought that I would be a Shinner. They live on its past and don't see a future.

Anthony, I remain a republican not because of any...

2011-07-11T21:43:23.533+01:00

Anthony,

I remain a republican not because of anything to do with the future as republicanism has no future in my view. I am a republican because of the past. It is what I grew up with and spent my years in prison being.

But is this a good enough reason for remaining a republican? I mean, republicanism is something you choose to believe in; it is not the same thing as being German, black or gay. I could decide in the future that I don't like Ireland and want to leave it, but I can never change the fact that I'm Irish. On the other hand, it would be silly to cling wistfully to the Catholicism of my childhood now that I no longer believe in God. Republicanism is an ideology; you can renounce it if you don't believe in it anymore. There is no shame in changing your mind.

John McGirr, ‘Do you accept the legitimacy of the...

2011-07-11T11:32:51.261+01:00

John McGirr,

‘Do you accept the legitimacy of the 26 County State, styling itself the 'Irish Republic'?

It is The Irish Republic. Democratically mandated by the majority of Irish people as such. Authority always derives from the people. Me wishing it was a 32 county Irish Republic does nothing to negate that fact. My republican viewpoint allows me to dissent from it because it is not inclusive of everybody in the country. But because I dissent from something does not make what I dissent from illegitimate. It has been legitimised by the majority of Irish people. My dissent from it is also legitimate so long as I do not try to coerce my position through the democratic will.

‘Do you accept the legitimacy of the 6 County State, styling itself 'Northern Ireland'

It is legitimate. I don’t like it but the majority of people of Ireland have mandated it such. And as I can’t persuade a substantial body of people to the contrary then I defer to the legitimacy of the national will while continuing to dissent from its expression.

I remain a republican not because of anything to do with the future as republicanism has no future in my view. I am a republican because of the past. It is what I grew up with and spent my years in prison being. If Germany were to sink beneath the sea never to reappear Germany would have no future. But Germans would not cease being Germans. So it is with our mythical republic. It does not exist but it does not stop us claiming to be republicans.

Republicans have a choice, either to behave like republicans and defer to the will of the people or to act like monarchists and pronounce themselves as having some authority not vested in them by the Irish people.

AM, Do you accept the legitimacy of the 26 Count...

2011-07-11T09:59:50.179+01:00

AM,

Do you accept the legitimacy of the 26 County State, stying itself the 'Irish Republic'?

Do you accept the legitimacy of the 6 County State, styling itself 'Northern Ireland'?

If you answer 'no' to both, where do you see that authority lies?

If you answer 'yes' to first and 'no' to second, on what basis are you making this distinction?

If you answer 'yes' to both, in what way are you a Republican that PSF, the Stoops or FF etc are not?

John McGirr AM, ‘This was believed by Provision...

2011-07-11T09:03:12.432+01:00

John McGirr

AM,

‘This was believed by Provisional Sinn Féin and the wider Republican Movement until 1986, so I am not alone.’

I recall very few in the Provisional Movement who believed it, dismissing it as republican theology. People were embarrassed by it. Do you really think we sat on the blanket protest thinking we were the government of Ireland? What sort of delusions would we have laboured under? The current army councils, as many as there may be, have no authority over the Republic whatsoever. It is all in the mind of a few who have no bearing whatsoever on what most other people believe.

‘Without such authority how do you differentiate the armed struggle from terrorism?’

Quite easily. In as far as it is possible to pin down a definition of terrorism it is the deliberate targeting of civilians. But saying the armed struggle is not terrorism adds no legitimacy to the armed struggle whatsoever.

‘That is why the recognition of Leinster House led to the inevitable collapse of armed resistance.

The demise of the armed struggle was planned well in advance of that.

‘The powers were delegated by Sean O’Ceallaigh, George Count Plunkett, Professor William Stockley, Mary MacSwiney, Brian O’ hUiginn, Cathal O’Murchadha and Tomas Maguire on behalf of the people of Ireland … They are the surviving representatives of the Irish Republic, elected by the Irish people whose authority was de facto usurped by two illegal States.’

Which gives them no authority over us whatsoever. We decide who shall have authority over us. The notion that authority can be imposed on us by some sect that calls itself an army council is laughable. It becomes all the more ridiculous when it is treated with derision by the people it claims authority over. These people of authority, given that they even believe this nonsense, which I doubt, have all the authority over Ireland that Canute had over the sea.

AM, JM “‘In 1938 the surviving members of the Se...

2011-07-10T17:26:19.242+01:00

AM,

JM “‘In 1938 the surviving members of the Second Dáil delegated their authority to the Army Council. Similar statements were made in 1969 and 1987 by the then sole survivor, Thomas Maguire. There are a variety of groups which claim to be working under that authority and it may be that it is now a shared authority.’”

AM ‘What part of it is dealing with the health of the Republic, or its airports? Who in the current authority administers the education system?’

The authority was delegated. It has been de facto usurped by two British States, and is currently ruled illegally by those who claim there are two States In Ireland.

AM ‘They are not in charge of the Republic and both you and they are deluded if either of you think they are. They don’t even have the authority to drive a bus. What sort of alternative world do you inhabit where all this make-believe has any relevance?’

This was believed by Provisional Sinn Féin and the wider Republican Movement until 1986, so I am not alone. Without such authority how do you differentiate the armed struggle from terrorism? That is why the recognition of Leinster House led to the inevitable collapse of armed resistance and the eventual recognition of Stormont led inevitably to its criminalisation.

JM “‘The powers were delegated by Sean O’Ceallaigh, George Count Plunkett, Professor William Stockley, Mary MacSwiney, Brian O’ hUiginn, Cathal O’Murchadha and Tomas Maguire on behalf of the people of Ireland.’”

AM ‘Did the people of Ireland have any input into this decision by those operating on their behalf or is it just one more piece of make-believe and mysticism?’

They are the surviving representatives of the Irish Republic, elected by the Irish people whose authority was de facto usurped by two illegal States.

John McGirr, ‘In 1938 the surviving members of th...

2011-07-10T16:09:19.877+01:00

John McGirr,

‘In 1938 the surviving members of the Second Dáil delegated their authority to the Army Council. Similar statements were made in 1969 and 1987 by the then sole survivor, Thomas Maguire. There are a variety of groups which claim to be working under that authority and it may be that it is now a shared authority.’

What part of it is dealing with the health of the Republic, or its airports? Who in the current authority administers the education system?

They are not in charge of the Republic and both you and they are deluded if either of you think they are. They don’t even have the authority to drive a bus. What sort of alternative world do you inhabit where all this make-believe has any relevance?

‘The powers were delegated by Sean O’Ceallaigh, George Count Plunkett, Professor William Stockley, Mary MacSwiney, Brian O’ hUiginn, Cathal O’Murchadha and Tomas Maguire on behalf of the people of Ireland.’

Did the people of Ireland have any input into this decision by those operating on their behalf or is it just one more piece of make-believe and mysticism?

AM, There are a couple of issues that I will get ...

2011-07-09T17:58:00.585+01:00

AM,

There are a couple of issues that I will get back to you on, arising from your last few posts. Meanwhile, just to take your last post:

‘Who has charge of the Irish Republic?

In 1938 the surviving members of the Second Dáil delegated their authority to the Army Council. Similar statements were made in 1969 and 1987 by the then sole survivor, Thomas Maguire. There are a variety of groups which claim to be working under that authority and it may be that it is now a shared authority.

‘And did we place them in that position?’

The powers were delegated by Sean O’Ceallaigh, George Count Plunkett, Professor William Stockley, Mary MacSwiney, Brian O’ hUiginn, Cathal O’Murchadha and Tomas Maguire on behalf of the people of Ireland.

John McGirr, Always be wary of how you answer que...

2011-07-09T16:07:53.317+01:00

John McGirr,

Always be wary of how you answer questions because as you know people are being charged with expressing views on line that the cops don’t like. So feel under no obligation to respond.

On Ronan Kerr ‘If it was not carried out by volunteers of the Irish Republican Army, there is no possible justification for it. If it was, it is not for me to say as I defer to the judgments of those who have charge of the Irish Republic.’

Who has charge of the Irish Republic? And did we place them in that position? If not what obligation is anyone under to defer to their judgment?

John McGirr, ‘Why should not each make up his/her...

2011-07-08T18:46:21.823+01:00

John McGirr,

‘Why should not each make up his/her own morality?

Many do. Look at the Vatican, thinking it more moral to protect the reputation of the church than to protect children from the rapists it harbours. You think spiking a wafer cum Eucharist is a greater crime than genocide. Those are moral values that you choose. I choose different and clearly much better ones. I think a priest raping a child is an infinitely worse crime that stabbing a wafer/host. But many stick to a moral code not because of god, who in the bible urges the murder of children, but for the simple reason that society would collapse and the individual’s place in it would not be secure. And many human beings accept that.

many atheists are much more ethical than believers - ‘there seems to be no compelling reason why they should be.’ Absolutely. And many believers are much more ethical than atheists – but there is no compelling reason why they should be. It works both ways. The point is that religion has no claim whatsoever to being more moral than the non religious or other religious who hold a different religious opinion.

‘I accept that on faith alone, which is to believe without proof.’

A fair enough point but how can you get so enraged about it and claim that people who have a different opinion based on proof are stooping lower than low or support a crime greater than any other? You have a religious opinion, others don’t. All society can do is allow us to hold our opinions but not permit us to inflict them on others.

‘But most, throughout history have been convinced that God can be seen through His works.’

Just like the fairies at the bottom of the garden. Delusional.