Monday, October 6, 2014

Tagged under:

What the Proclamation Means to Me

Nuala Perry with her thoughts on the meaning of the 1916 Proclamation. Nuala Perry is a member of the Anne Devlin Society Belfast and has been a regular commenter on TPQ. She is a former republican prisoner and actively campaigns on behalf of imprisoned republicans. The piece first appeared in the July/August edition of the 1916 Societies' magazine.

OPINION: WHAT THE PROCLAMATION MEANS TO ME – NUALA PERRY
The Proclamation

I can’t remember a time when the Proclamation was not visible in our home, it usually had pride of place beside the Sacred Heart. Occasionally though the seven signatories would have found themselves placed beside Pope Pious XII or Ireland’s pride across the waves John F. Kennedy, depending on whether church or politics were uppermost in my mother’s mind at that particular time.

When I was very young my father did a lot of work in the local convent. He was a fluent Irish speaker who also spoke quite a bit of Latin, the latter he learned in school and built upon whilst in prison. His work in the convent would mostly consist of helping the nuns to translate certain religious texts from Latin to Gaelic and vice versa.

One Christmas, in recognition of his work, the nuns presented him with a huge, beautiful silk-threaded picture frame. For days the green, white and orange frame remained empty, causing a bit of anticipation as to which of the many religious images that adorned our home would be placed in it. Then, the night before Christmas, the vacant spot was finally filled, not with any of those who my mother claimed ‘had earned their spot at the right hand of God’ but with an image that had hung beside my grandmother’s bed for a forever-time, the Irish Proclamation.

My awareness of the reverence my parents placed on the text inside the hand crafted frame grew around the time that I became aware of the cause of the escalating conflict. The green, white and gold frame containing the Proclamation remained a constant during the house raids and wreckage, the sandbags and the petrol bombs, the arrests and internment and sentencing of friends and family.

The immortal script stood with us as we protested against injustice. It walked with us behind the perpetual stream of coffins. It was there at the moments of hope and glory and it remained like the Sacred Heart light through the darkest hours of sacrifice and loss.

The promise of equality, the revolutionary message of universal suffrage, the entitlement of the Irish people to the ownership of Ireland and the blessing upon our arms was as much on our lips during the conflict, in the prisons and at the gravesides as our silent prayers.

This rebellious claim was no longer just a piece of paper inside a beautiful frame that held pride of place in every home our family lived; the declaration came down from our wall, stepped outside the silk threads and became a tangible and intrinsic part of our lives. Taking shape the message walked with us, it talked with us. It provided us with clarity and justification, it lived and breathed through us and we in turn learned through it.

The words became the living testimony of their authors – the Proclamation was the active verification of its reading on Sackville Street. The statement of revolt thrived outside the stone breakers yard, transcending death and firing squads. The call to arms gave birth to a terrible beauty and the blood spilled onto the rose.

This progressive text would produce an inextricable link; between revolution, patriotism, socialism and the power and the glory. The self sacrifice that fuelled every line not only found its way into our home but every heart with a republican beat and that is what the Proclamation means to me.

114 comments :

sean bres said...

Maith thu Nuala, a thoroughly enjoyable read... Brilliant

Henry JoY said...

In other homes throughout the province there were copies of 'The Ulster Covenant' framed in red, white and blue, hanging alongside portraits of the British Royal family.

Regardless of identity (identities that were after-all and in truth created for us) ... it beholds all decent thinking people ... for our own sake, for the good of our children, for the benefit of our grandchildren to forge a better society, where citizens can if not necessarily co-habit in mutual respect ... but can at least tolerate ambiguity and difference.

Relentlessly clinging to icons that are in essence emotional soothers for the socially and politically stunted, icons that needlessly raise passions and have in some cases become talismen for hate-mongers don't serve that laudable and worthwhile goal of peaceful co-existence.

grouch said...

fair play perry, u didnt get it from the stones o' the road.

larry hughes said...

That would save Liverpool university £250,000 research investment. It says it all doesn't it?

Fionnuala Perry said...

Henry Joy,
That was the problem and remains the problem , those who hung the 'Ulster Covenant' weren't too tolerant of anything else.
As for soothers, this little state is forking out £40''000 a day in comfort blankets just to quell the Fleggers baying for blood.

Fionnuala Perry said...

Larry,
A bit of elaboration on that point, might help people pick up on it better?

DaithiD said...

Henry Joy, Nuala writes of the ideas expressed in the document, the aesthetics are mere details, thats hardly inconography. But it allows you to neatly sidestep the article, into your fantasy realm of tolerance and equality, of which you appear to be the only citizen/dictator.

sean bres said...

The chameleon Henry Joy serving up another dish of pure shite for anyone still fool enough to pay heed to this idiot. At the end of the day we should suppose the Proclamation would have no place in your home, with you and your mother avid supporters of the SDLP and that, but don't place inference on the homes of those who see things differently. Truth is you don't know what you are you're that full of shit. When you first came on here you were in the RSF mould, so-much-so you actually went as far as insinuating the Loughall men were not full republicans as I recall. Now you're doing your best to impersonate Mandela or Ghandi this past while, since about the time you informed us you and your mother were for voting SDLP. You couldn't write it but it's par for the course on the internet I suppose where trolls like yourself and spout as much garbage as they wish

Fionnuala Perry said...

Henry Joy,
What you are saying, is that anyone who thinks outside the window dressing, which is sold as a peaceful settlement is stunted.
Did you ever have a thought in your life that actually involved getting off the fence and taking a risk.
It was always easier to be anti Republican and pro status quo, but in real tems I would say you are the one with impeded growth.

AM said...

Sean,

often, merely having the courage to publicly stand over your convictions is enough to win the day. At that point there is no mileage to be gained from vitriol. You can of course choose to do so by invoking the principle that invisible people have invisible rights and we would have a hard job making a case that the nameless should be protected on a par with the named. I just wonder what it achieved by a descent into this.

It is great that Nuala is writing. I think a series of pieces from people about what the Proclamation means to them would be useful.

menace said...

'The words became the living testimony of their authors'
True Nula, unfortunately not for their political successors either then, or now!

Barry Fennell said...

Great piece Nuala - written from the heart

Fionnuala Perry said...

Menace,
Sadly not all of their successors, for for quite a few.

Henry JoY said...

No Nuala, that's not what I'm saying. Please don't put words in my mouth.

What I'm saying is that I, like a vast majority of people on the island would prefer to give the imperfect settlement a fair chance. Having been involved in the 'struggle in pursuit of the republic' for over forty years, including rejecting recognition of partition in '86 and campaigning against The GFA referendum, I have changed my mind with regards to the validity of that struggle.
And by the way I'm not seeking external approval from anyone for having made that change.

I like you Nuala have major concerns about how the process has been presented (window dressing). It brings us no closer to 'The Irish Republic'. However, for me ... and this is a personal and, I believe, an informed choice ... the potential that currently exists for citizens in general, my family in particular, to live in peaceful co-existence trumps any aspiration to the mythical republic. Given the hard won changes, risking re-igniting hostilities just doesn't cut muster with me any longer.

When I look at the 'Flegs' crowd and those that cling to the ideal of implementing 'The Irish Republic' I can't reconcile either with a mature political nor social model. Based on all the information to hand, that's my opinion. That you Nuala have a different opinion is ok. I don't need to personalise this; I don't need to make you or anyone else wrong for me to be secure in my choices. I don't wish or need to make comparisons with you as to when I've taken a stand to validate myself.
Of course in truth I could be wrong, I sometimes am, but this is as best as I can figure it at this point in time. Many people would say you know Nuala that complex situations cannot be processed through black and white thinking. Unfortunately as it appears to me, fundamentalists, whether Loyalist or Republican, tend in get stuck in such absolutist modes.

By the way Nuala I enjoyed the narrative of your piece. I apologise if it seemed I were trampling on your personal history. Definitely not my intent ... sometimes I get caught up in my own process and loose sight of the fact that there's another heart and soul behind the comment!

Feadh an tsaoil,
HJ

Henry JoY said...

Sean,

Sir John Lavery in his memoirs recounts a meeting in his London residence in the days preceding the signing of the treaty between Mick Collins, Moya Llewelyn Davies and Lady Lavery. He records that there were very heated words exchanged, with Collins losing his temper.

Without clarifying further what the argument was about, he wryly comments;

"It always seems to me, that when someone is losing their temper ... they are losing the argument."

And in an not unrelated vein Tony de Mello the Indian Jesuit, psychotherapist and spiritual teacher suggests in one of his talks that when you find yourself reacting angerly, particularly when your beliefs are challenged, you ought consider perhaps that you're brainwashed!

Fionnuala Perry said...

Henry Joy,
In your original post, I was of the opinion that you were saying, anyone who clung to beliefs of a purer Republican ideology and the pieces representative of that, in this case the proclamation were both deluded and stunted.

Peaceful co existence is an ideal, all people strive for. But sadly that's not what was achieved here and it's not likely to be achieved either.

The ideal of a United Ireland isn't mythical, that's the one with the fairies and the leprechauns .
The removal of Britain was a realistic and tangible concept and although it has been sold and sullied, it remains.

In relation in absolutism and fundamentalism, come and live in Clonard to see the reality of a peaceful co existence under Sinn Fein.
Next to South Armagh, Clonard, a once Republican area is suffocated under both those dreaded ideals.
Nothing breathes in this area unless it exhales through a Sinn Fein nostril.

The area is run by former Republicans who have elevated themselves and their families to dynasties, built of course on the people's money.
They enforce the pay as you go peace and ensure Republicanism is kept at bay.

Reading the Proclamation may be a soother to some but to me personally, it signifies as I said, a pure time and a time before the rot, deceit and lies and absolute betrayal kicked in.

sean bres said...

Brainwashed it is then.... Or maybe it's just galling to see a nameless troll taking a swipe at the honest efforts of others. Slan

Fionnuala Perry said...

Henry Joy,
Something else you said that was relevant, many people on this island would prefer to give an imperfect settlement a chance.
That's just it Henry Joy, it's a precarious settlement British led and paid for by Europe and America.

Spoils of war and dividends of peace saw people, even the more principled, not only somersault but remould themselves and refashion their entire thinking.

I'm glad you enjoyed the piece. It was Sean's idea and written for the 1916 Society Magazine.
I think people, especially people who see things differently from people like myself, should avail of Mackers suggestion to compose their views on the Proclamation.
If Larry gets in on the act, it would make for quite an interesting read.

grouch said...

henryjoy, the peace process only happened because the globalist warlords saw it as a great opportunity to portray themselves as international statesmen of peace while they bomb the shit out of everyone in their way to global domination. im all for peace, but not doublespeak peace. innocent people tortured being extraordinary renditioned through shannon. some peace. we sold out to globalist warlords who will have us fully on board with their coalition sooner than we think. its good we are not killing each other here obviously, but look who this process was serving. scary diabolical war criminal scum who wudnt give a fu*k for ireland save for the voting leprechauns in america, all 70 or whatever million of them. the leaders of 16's republic is anathema to these globalist scumbags who were slaughtering people by the tens of millions when pearse stood up and read out our proclamation. it will always be relevant.

God bless gallant pearse and his comrades who died,
tom clarke and mcdonagh, macdiarmuid, mcBride,
and heres to james connolly who gave one hurrah,
as he faced the machine guns for erin go bragh.

Henry JoY said...

Nuala

I have come to the opinion that as a general rule those who relentlessly cling to icons and ideologies often use them as emotional soothers.
All of us at times use such props to sustain ourselves, comfort blankets of sorts to wrap ourselves in.
It's a recognisable human trait that most of us will try to ameliorate existential angsts provoked by uncertainty and/or ambiguity in such ways. This manifests in many forms of behaviour and ideation, the more intense the angst ... the more compulsive the adherence to the behaviours and the more entrenched the thinking becomes.
It's a recognised and predictable defence mechanism against the vicissitudes of life and we're all prone to it to some extent ... the extent varying only in terms of frequency, duration and intensity.

Couple of points;
I presented this in my original post as an absolute and permanent rule (a form of black and white thinking by me) and as such, was an error on my behalf.
I could have, and ought have, allowed for exceptions by including the word 'often'.

"...clinging to icons that are often in essence emotional soothers ..."

More later,
HJ

Henry JoY said...

Thanks Nuala for reminding me that I am indeed privileged enough to have and live a life where most of my needs including security and esteem ones are more than adequately met. From this place of relative privilege many of my higher needs for self-actualisation are reasonably accessible too. I guess it's not that difficult to take a philosophical and psychological perspective from where I luckily stand.

If I where living in Clonard?

Wow! That's a scary thought ... no disrespect to the people of Clonard ... that'd freak me out.
I'd be dead, wasted, strung out or banked up.

And in all truth and probability if none of the above applied I'd be more absolute and fundamentalist in my opinions and beliefs ... so much so I'd probably be standing shoulder to shoulder with you and Sean Bres (Lol)!

Later
HJ

grouch said...

u just dont get it henry, its about liberty versus tyranny, genocidalist maniacs versus we the people. whats 'ameliorate existentialist angsts' about the gaels rising up against the tyrants which near genocided them off the face of the earth. maybe if you were a clonard head youd be the only 'self-actualised' existentialist in the village.

Henry JoY said...

grouch

liberty from globalist war lords and genocidal maniacs?

Have you considered getting some help?

menace said...

Nula, forgive my lack of clarity, but you know who I mean, from Griffiths to Gerry.

grouch said...

yes henry, i hope to get help so 'my higher needs for self-actualisation are reasonably accessible'.

David Higgins said...

AM,
Your idea about people saying what the proclamation means to them is a very worthwhile thought provoker. Where do you start with the proclamation? your first thought is one of pride, pride at the fact that our ancestors fought the biggest empire, at a time of empires, to eradicate colonialism, injustice and inequality. Pride about the fact the first workers army was Irish. That in a lot of ways Ireland showed the world a thing or two about social justice. Pride in the solidarity shown to these fighters, I know Larry or somebody will remind me the men of 16 were abused on the street, but that doesn't matter, they inspired a multitude. For me it is hard to talk about the proclamation without thinking of the enormous sacrifice taken by these men. The ability to stand up to such an empire shows tremendous mental strength and for that the men of 16 will always have my thanks.
The other emotion the proclamation stirs up is despondency I suppose at how things turned out, we went from freedom fighters to civil war engagers. In that brief moment in 1920 it must have felt as if we would expel England's tyranny forever. Instead we ended up with an apartheid, sectarian statelet and the heartache continued. I suppose when I think of the proclamation I get the same feeling as when I think of Ireland, pride with a hint of sadness.

DaithiD said...

"i hope to get help so 'my higher needs for self-actualisation are reasonably accessible"

grouch, im reading this as an autofellatio reference?

AM said...

David,

feel free to write a piece for us on it. That would be most welcome.

David Higgins said...

Anthony,
I'll give it a go, see what comes out.

grouch said...

yes, i was quoting henry there daithi. im thinking of becoming an existentialist as well as an autofellator.

Fionnuala Perry said...

Barry,
Thank you! That means a lot.

Fionnuala Perry said...

Henry Joy,
I don't think people have a tendency to cling to ideologies or icons.
I believe individuals are shaped by ideals and ideologies ,and often quite a particular set of beliefs become intrinsic to the person.
I don't think that's a bad thing, I remember a truly remarkable woman telling me, she believed Republicanism was part of our DNA.

Ideals tend to be more of a cross than a comfort and clinging them in the context of refusing to shelve them can have serious repercussions.

I think the flip side of this is a nonchalant and fickle attitude to beliefs and ideals.
Politics here is defined by precarious ideologies that often appear to be interchangeable.
Principles slide on the breeze, and that goes someway to explaining how revolution was replaced by a unrelenting process of perpetual apology and reform.

Fionnuala Perry said...

Menace,
'From Griffith's to Gerry.'
I sent you half an answer for some reason?
But yes, you're right.

AM said...

David,

thanks a lot.

Fionnuala Perry said...

Henry Joy,
Apologies for getting some of the words back to front, but I'm sure you knew what I meant?
I think there is a real difference between idealism and symbolism, although people would argue, that symbolism for many provides secular people with the void left by the absence of religion.

I don't think the Fleggers fall neatly into any category, infact I would say psychology hasn't the capability to delve into that one.

As for idealism and ideals, as I said, more often a cross than a comfort and if somewhere , somehow people can take comfort from a time that was marked by the purity of idealism, well then, why not?

Henry JoY said...

Nuala

Yes in a generalised way we are shaped by ideals and ideologies ... and yes they often appear to become intrinsic to the person.
That they sometimes become so deeply embedded in the personality that they could be referred to as being part of the DNA is more than likely metaphorical rather than factual ... a metaphor to explain to oneself, perhaps justify ideals and ideologies that often do require great sacrifice and have indeed become a heavy cross to bear.


If we were to try to model this ... to build a schematic of sorts ... I think we'd both eventually agree that ideals and ideologies are not in themselves the launching pad for either behavioural or cognitional patterns that make up personality.
They are a response to more innate drivers and to the degree those innate drives are supported or thwarted in the environment. They may be a source fuel, but they are not the launching pad nor the rocket.

We do have fundamental needs, undeniable physiological and psychological needs. Fundamental needs are the launching pad for all our behaviours including cognitive strategies.
One of the most fundamental needs is a need for security, security in the present moment and ongoing security into the future insofar as we can anticipate and make provision for one (a future).
As cognitive beings we quickly become aware that there are various threats to a secure future. The adaptive response of herding that evolved as a primary survival method continues into the present time. Hence we form strategic alliances in myriad forms - forms manifested in extended family identities through to allegiance to state and even alliances of states.

The herd is not a static entity. Herding a dynamic fluid process with 'in groups' and 'out groups' always vying for control, status and prestige. That's how it was on the African savanna and that what's been re-enforced up to the present day.

To cling to an ideology that doesn't adapt to such primal imprints is futile. To give air to the dying embers of such maladaptive ideation is at best naive and to the degree that it gives encouragement to vitriolic elements to destabilise a shaky and a very, very, very imperfect peace is anachronistic and reckless.

The woman I currently live with (10th anniversary coming up!) often used chide me that 'every adult is a broken heartened idealist'.
Growing into an adult in your late 50's isn't a bundle of laughs. I certainly haven't found it so. None the less it's been immensely fulfilling and enriching too.

It is possible to let go of perceived core identities and any status pertaining to those identities. Yes, it requires courage. Though it is scary by times, it can be done. And it creates space for new possibilities, fresh and further adventure.

There are many decent, generous people who were left shipwrecked after the scuttling of the republican vessel. It has taken me considerable time to realise that my preferred destination has evolved and changed. That the boat is now a wreck is no longer as important to me as it once was. Whether it was ever a sound sea-going craft at all is questionable.
Whether it is salvageable is a moot question that I'm sure will be discussed here and in other fora for a while to come. And while I may hurl from the ditch occasionally I won't loose any further sweat or sleep on it.

For those like Sean and you (Nuala) who wishes to give of their energy in attempting to re-float the boat I wish you no harm.

For me such effort is no longer a worthwhile option I'd rather pursue different goals, be of service to others in a more effective and in what I perceive as more positive way.

frankie said...

Fionnuala I'm not sure what (if any thing TBH) ' The Proclamation Means To Me.' I'm still not sure what Republicanism is.. Every now and then Liam O'Ruairc ask's questions that I stuggle with...

Here are two examples of what I mean... Some Hard Questions for Serious Republicans and The Elusive Republic. I'm still trying to work my head around other pieces he wrote..

Fionnuala Perry said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fionnuala Perry said...

Frankie,
I apologise if this reply has come through twice. I answered earlier, however like some of the posts I sent to in response to HJ, it appears it never went through?

Frankie every now and again Liam asks questions that not only make us think, but they demand we step up a gear in a bid to answer them.

Liam himself provides a very comprehensive explanation as to the meaning of Republicanism.
A dictionary meaning however, provides just that, it doesn't allow us to delve much greater into, what Republicanism means to each and everyone of us.

In relation to the Proclamation and the signatories having authorisation, in reality what country ever consulted with its population before going to war.
It was a rebellion and it was a rebellion by those hoping to overthrow tyranny and form an elected government.

In relation to Nation and Nationalism, which defines which and it is natural or a social construct, I don't know?
I should imagine that' what's important is the will of the people and how they are treated within that Nation, irrespective of whether Nationalism produced the Nation or the Nation produced Nationalism.

As I said to HG, I think we are defined by our ideals and beliefs, but that doesn't mean we don't struggle with them.
Finding a niche where you feel comfortable is not an easy thing for Republicans to do.

I have never struggled with the concept of Republicanism but I've struggled greatly with other people's definition.
I see it as a way of life and too be honest I've never known any other kind of existence.

People like Liam challenge the acceptability and they provoke us to stand back and find the answers to hard questions.

Just as the ideal of Nationalism continues to evolve so does the entire concept of Republicanism, are Republicans static or are they evolving with it, I honestly don't know that either.

AM said...

Nuala,

anything not getting through send it again. It might take a bit of time getting to them all if neither of us are online but anything that comes thru goes up. Occasionally in a rush I have hit the wrong button and the thing is deleted but there will always be a copy of it that comes via e mail so can be recovered if we are alerted to it.

Fionnuala Perry said...

Mackers,
I sent that comment twice. I deleted the initial one in the hope it won't cause confusion.

AM said...

that's fine Nuala. Just let us know of something doesn't appear after a few hours.

Fionnuala Perry said...

Henry Joy,

I'm going to start from end of your comment, because something you wrote automatically brought Brendan Hughes into my mind and I would like to ignore the arguments of whether we construct ideals or ideals construct us and the need to adapt to the evolutionary process and look at this.
You said, 'For those like Sean and you (Nuala) who wish to give of their energy in attempting to re-float the boat I wish you no harm.'
If you are using the boat in this context as a metaphor for remaining on the same Republican path that I have walked all my life, then you would be correct.
However, Brendan also used that same metaphor in relation to the boat only he perceived the boat very differently from you.
Brendan compared the process, the one that you profess to be evolutionary, as a boat, however, he saw the boat sailing off and leaving the majority of the people who launched the boat as well as the ordinary people, as standing, 'In the dirt and the muck and the sand.'

All the psychological, philosophical and perhaps to a lesser extent sociological theory does not detract one iota from the fact, that people were sold out for something so far removed from the starting point, that in true Orwellian theory and in keeping with the non stop revisionism, many no longer remember where that point was.

We can talk to kingdoms come about idealism, symbolism and to what extent they provide or do not provide 'soothers.'
We can go down the Darwin route of survival of the fittest and evolutionary theory and the dangers of remaining static, animals deal with it brilliantly through inherent instinct.

None of this however, makes a dent in the fact, that the end provided no justification for the means.

If you want to invest in a pay as you go precarious process well then, you can be assured I wish you no harm, just don't ask people who still retain their principles and ideals to follow.

Tain Bo said...

How far has republicanism drifted from the declaration of Poblacht na hÉireann with 2016 approaching will we see a renewed interest in the proclamation or shall it be pushed to the margin to accommodate the foreigners it declared independence from.

Republicans should observe the anniversary to honour those who challenged the might of an empire and keep in mind that which they fought and died for has yet to be obtained. When the Free-State and the occupied State are united then we can call the island a republic.

Fionnuala Perry said...

Mackers,
I think the fault could be at my end.

frankie said...



Fionnuala... "
I sent that comment twice. I deleted the initial one in the hope it won't cause confusion.
"

What you really mean is you had a blonde moment.

Fionnuala Perry said...

Mackers,
I've never had a blonde free day in my life lol .

AM said...

Nuala, it was Frankie said it, not me!!

Fionnuala Perry said...

Apologies Frankie,
Never a day free of them and the reply confirms it lol.

Fionnuala Perry said...

Henry Joy,
I've read over your last piece again and too be honest it sounds as if your talking to yourself in the mirror.
Please tell me you were, please don't tell me you honestly think, that pseudo ideals, dressed up as forward thinking are going to sink into the hearts and minds of people outside of revisionist fantasy land.

I think it's arrogant that a person like yourself who appears to have somersaulted from one political extreme to another ( which is your entitlement) should even imagine others would be shallow enough to follow.

If the worthwhile option your pursuing involves the betterment of yourself and others then , well and good.
However, if you are trudging down that road of selling your imperfect peace to,people , especially in a climate where the puppet parliament are about to have their strings cut back even more, please don't!

grouch said...

the great thing about the Proclamation is, some young fella or girl in a few hundred years from now or even longer, might come across it on the net, someone who might know nothing about ireland or history. after reading it that young person might feel inspired to google the names on the proclamation. that hypothetical young person in the future will be able to read their writings, poems, stories and the story of their own lives and the story of ireland. that young person might then research the awful war that was raging in europe at that time the Irish Republic was proclaimed. that young person i believe will then be in awe at those fearless men but few who rose up for HUMANITY and not just ireland.

God bless gallant pearse and his comrades who died,
tom clarke and mcdonagh, macdiarmuid, mcBride,
and heres to james connolly who gave one hurrah,
as he faced the machine guns for erin go bragh.

Henry JoY said...

"just don't ask people who still retain their principles and ideals to follow."

A gentleman may ask Nuala and a lady may decline.

Thanks for the opportunity to explore and discuss thoughts and ideas in a free-flowing and respectful way. It's rare enough for debate here on the Quill not to descend into exchanges of personalisations and insults, so you have my respect and gratitude for that.

We find ourselves in agreement on several scores ... absolutely 'the end did not justify the means' ... all the carnage and slaughter, and then to settle for a deal not much different than that available twenty years previously! Hence my reluctance to avoid anything that would re-ignite hostilities. Even Sean Bres, if I remember correctly, has said we must never allow another Omagh. Though I'm not sure how we can reconcile a deep commitment to that with elaborate public commemoration of republican combatants and expect that will not be perceived as antagonistic.
The social psychology model indicates that future security is a predominant predictor and driver of behaviour. I refer you to a quote of Fr O'Flanagan taken from Liam O'Ruairc's article 'Some Hard Questions for Serious Republicans' which addresses the contextual implications of this;

"O’Flanagan concluded by stating that as Antrim and Down looked to London as "the centre of their patriotic enthusiasm", it would be wrong to compel them to love the rest of Ireland by force."

Those words were written two months after the posting of the Proclamation and only weeks after the executions of its signatories. Flanagan recognises the implications of forcing Unionism and how that may impact on the securing and maintaintenance of a stable society. The moral filter, he perceives this through, resolutely in service to the social psychological drive for a secure and workable future.
The challenge then to my mind is if such a view were valid then and if we truly acknowledge that coercing Unionism is equally invalid today (and here I think it's safe to say that there's only an infinitely small minority of the people on the island who would now advocate the use of force to make them accept a UI at this time or at any in the future) then how do we reconcile and integrate how republicans performed in the in the interim.

But let's place that hot potato to one side for another day and focus on what the 'correct' republican response is to Unionism. Explain to me if you can what was it then and what is it now. And set that out with reference to the Proclamation.

That sort of clarification, in my opinion, is what is needed if there's any hope, even in the far distant future, for geographical unity. And when we're at it let's hear the future strategy too, let's see a time-line, tell us about the expected road-blocks and anticipated de-railers and plans to fix them as they arise. Show us figures and costings, reassure us that it's doable and achievable if we're to be motivated and renewed in this quest.

It's a tall order and you've got to convince us that you won't upset the apple-cart as we're not going back to the dark days of the past.

Republicans may be principled idealists but unless they can show middle-ground pragmatists a workable, well thought out and peaceful path to something that's better, with collective gain and is inclusively advantageous to society they're not going to follow.

Those that do choose to follow run the risk of ending up like poor old Brendan ... gravely broken-hearted and betrayed by an ideology (as well as people) that couldn't in truth ever deliver on it's over-sold promises.

That I guess is about all the proclamation now means to me; an idealistic oversold & unrealistic ideological manifesto.

Henry JoY said...

Nuala, I'm not selling anything, just utilising the platform that Anthony generously provides for all (another donation long overdue), including those like myself who were touched and damaged by the conflict. If in the outworking of that I sometimes come across as arrogant and aggressive please afford me a cathartic space to let of steam. If sometimes I log on because I'm plain bored or lonely kindly afford me a connection to a familiar world!
At other times I'm writing to formulate my thoughts, developing them further or practising articulating them with hopefully more clarity. After all and as I've said before, you don't have to agree with everything I say, in fact you don't have to agree with anything I say.
Feel free to express yourself Nuala and if that means that sometimes we don't agree then so be it.

grouch said...

someone swallowed a dictionary.

Fionnuala Perry said...

Henry Joy,
When I initially read your posts, way back when. I assumed, maybe wrongly that you were a Unionist.
Sean, however posted that you were a supporter of the SDLP?

Given the fact that I'm not sure, I'll view you as an inbetweener and a perspective Sinn Feiner, because in truth, in terms of ideology there isn't much that separates any of them.

Your question about Omagh and IRA commemorations in terms of reconciliation does not pose a quandary for me.
Too be honest HJ, if Unionists have a problem with Republican commemorations, so what?
O' Flannagan may have been concerned about the prospect of compelling the Black Northerners who swear allegiance to London into loving the rest of Ireland, I do not!
Those Unionists that you fear run the risk of being coerced against their will into a United Ireland, were not put out when they took and held an entire state through coercion and mass murder.

Now you believe HJ, that if we don't all clamber on board the pay as you go Peace Process, we will end up like 'Poor Old Brendan' who was failed by both people and an ideologies that could not be fulfilled.
Brendan Hughes was not failed by an ideology, he was betrayed by people who he mistakenly thought had integrity.
If you read about the life of Brendan Hughes, you will realise, that he epitomises the very ideals that you can't reconcile yourself to, because you think they are 'over sold.'
Unless 'oversold' in this context a euphemism for, beyond your own personal limitations ? No shame in that!

Fionnuala Perry said...

Henry Joy
Your right! Everyone is entitled to formulate and utilise their thinking.

In the post above I should have written prospective, rather than a perspective shinner, but I'm sure you got the general gist.

Yes, a platform for a divergence of opinion is good, but too be honest in this exchange, I still remain clueless as to why your regard core beliefs and ideologies as being emotional 'soothers'
Yet, at the same time, you remain concerned about reconciling people who have built an entire 'culture' on triumphalist 'soothing' at the detriment and terror of others.

Henry JoY said...

Nuala

Life and the world by it's nature is full of ambiguities and uncertainties. It challenging to come to terms with uncertainty and ambiguity.

We humans are reluctant to accept all of that and put great efforts into distracting ourselves from that.

Ideologies, like religions, often serve that function of distraction. In some circumstances that is positive and useful. Sometimes they outlive their usefulness and end up as a dysfunctional expression of what was initially useful.
What was originally conceptually useful and motivational is sometimes hijacked by the greedy and become self-perpetuating power structures (PSF).
Sometimes they degenerate into dogma-driven cults and fossilise (RSF).

For the ideology to survive it must serve the people who adhere to it in some way. My best guess is that republicanism serves those outside the above identified groups as an emotional soother. It ameliorates suffering no doubt ... perceived suffering and real suffering too ... the greater the suffering, the deeper and greater the attachment to the dogma.

"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

However as Marx suggests the drug merely relieves the symptoms and doesn't address the causal issues.
Irish republicans in their blind adherence to nationalistic outcomes fail to acknowledge current realities.

"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.

If republicanism has, as I believe it has for many, become a 'secular religion' so to speak ... then it would in most likelihood benefit us all if it was confined to the realm of history.

Henry JoY said...

Yes Nuala its a challenge to make peace and reconcile ourselves with those who once oppressed us.

Yet if we truly aspire to a more tolerant and just society we must first be that change ourselves. If we strive to be free from domination we must relinquish our need to dominate.

Effective change processes are in reality 'an inside job'.
Like an egg ... if it's cracked from the inside, new life emerges ... cracking it from the outside prevents that possibility!

grouch said...

That's what Obama is doing, consigning the republic and constitution to history, and replacing it with the nwo. And he's a Marxist too. Sovereignty Abu. Down with the Marxist nwo.

Fionnuala Perry said...

Henry Joy,
I know all about Marx and how he viewed religion as being the drug, that provided people with a false hopes and false Gods to dull their pain.
In saying that, there is a counter theory that suggests , that religion also provides its followers with a light in dark times. It gives hope, and can provide support and succour.

Secular society has many, many outlets that you could say performs the function of religion. Money, prestige, Capitalism, socialism, Marxism, Neo liberalism in fact anything where a individual feels they belong, feels totally integrated or they simply just fit.
Red shoe wearers could be a secular religion, they all have a common bond and they are all united in that one trait.

Many of those isms are dysfunctional. We are told by Marxists, Capitalism will devour itself, Neo Liberalism is both beneficial and destructive and red shoes are detested by some and loved by others. So which feature is the decider as to whether or not they should be or will be confined to history?

It's fickle to say something no longer serves a purpose on a whim and it is a whim, because there is no evidence to say that Nationalism is spent, just as there is no evidence to suggest your 'soother theory' is more applicable to those outside of PSF and RSF and even more pronounced amongst the suffering.

' Blind adherence to Nationalist outcomes fail to acknowledge current realities'

In all likelihood your blind adherence to Republicanism stifles you from separating your 'soother' concept from principles.



Fionnuala Perry said...

Henry Joy,
In saying it is a challenge to make peace with an oppressor you are maybe inadvertently drawing on the dogma of turning the other cheek.
Marx was guarded against this very concept and rightly so. Because often turning your cheek or forgiving an oppressor who continues to be just that, is the same 'soother' that religion applies in the context of the opium of the people, basically let them trample all over you, because surely you know your reward will be in heaven.
That logic is right up there with the meek will inherit the earth, only they didn't they were crushed on it.

Republicanism is not some panacea for people nursing pain or looking for it to be remedied, religion still performs that duty quite well.
Secularism is a choice of many Republicans, however it does not necessarily follow through that republicanism replaces a need or void in the absence of religion.

As I said in the post above, The recession begged serious questions around the whole theory of neo liberalism, it certainly showed the ugly face of capitalism. The Welfare cuts which the imperfect peace processors are going to allow through, will show the real harsh underbelly of both those ideologies, why not have them consigned to history?
Why call time on an ideology that was born out of pure intent and despite the parasites that sucked its blood and then dropped off along the way, it still has the capability of repairing itself and carrying on.

Henry JoY said...

Red shoe wearers aren't posing a threat ... they aren't hell bent on collapsing a negotiated settlement to what turned out a futile war ... a futile war that merely lead back to a point not that much different than we were at some twenty years before.
Viewed from many perspectives its an imperfect settlement. Certainly so for those those (and I was amongst that number) who swallowed whole the ideological promise that we were on the road to an All Ireland socialist republic.

Going back to your allegorical red shoe wearers; lets suppose that they had some capacity ... they had some influence ... they promulgated their belief that by wearing red shoes everything would be just rosey ... their ideation is seized upon by the vulnerable and the marginalised ... the movement gains some traction ... the ideation has function and red shoe wearing becomes embedded in large sections of a population ... transcends several generations ... an identity of red shoe wearers is established.
That identity survives for as long as the common bond serves some useful purpose.
When numbers of that populace become less marginalised, when they find meaning and purpose apart from wearing red shoes the strength and popularity of red shoe wearing (the ideology) diminishes and wanes.

If someone points out that this process is under way, that in the new context its somewhat immature, I guess its unrealistic to expect 'principled' red shoe wearers to be appreciative!

Fionnuala Perry said...

Wolfe Tone,
The red shoes worked for Dorothy, and although that was in a fantasy land somewhere Over the Rainbow, it doesn't differ entirely in terms of story telling from the fabrication that has been regurgitated by senior imperfectors, especially quite recently.

Sean Murray a senior, senior imperfector offered a 'soother' recently which is at odds with your analysis, but backed up never the less by your fellow travellers, Walsh and Mc Guinness, 'People are living lives they couldn't have imagined twenty years ago' they claim.
Although, in all probability they were all facing mirrors at the time, the fact remains, there was little utterance from any of them that 'dissent' would blow or indeed collapse their big house down.

In truth, all three revisionists may have been clicking their red shoes like mad, but sadly at the end of the rhetoric there remained vacant spots still to be filled by courage and brains.

Enough of Over the a Rainbow and the red shoes though, because although the negotiated settlement may have delivered Mc Guinness a seat beside the Wizard of Oz, it delivered little else.

In truth, we never moved on in forty years, never mind twenty! Why was that, why was a settlement which criminalised an entire struggle agreed to.
Why was British legislation that would not have dared raise its head in the 70s implemented and legalised via the imperfectors?

The last twenty years has been the direct result of the imperfectors totally inability to secure anything outside of personal kudos and gain.
Eggs were cracked internally alright, as were champagne corks. Unfortunately though, the Liberal economics that they built their precarious empire on didn't allow for the trickle down effect Thatcher advocated.
Cream rises to the top was their war cry, as they scrabbled to promote themselves as power brokers, while disguising the real power behind the throne Mi5.

In their pursuit of power they conveniently ignored a gaping hole of injustice that an army of red shoes could fit neatly into.

Amongst lifelong Republicans, the poor and the marginalised, the popularity that the imperfectors once enjoyed has waned, and every time they turn their well slapped cheeks away from another welfare cut and blatant injustice, it will continue to do so.

grouch said...

well said perry, they are part of the shitstem now, in fact for quite a while now, and the independent guy who beat them in the bye-election here said as much last night, fair play to him and the voters.

Henry JoY said...

Nuala if we were to sit down and break the seal on a bottle (or have a tea or a coffee) I think we'd find plenty of common ground ... there'd be no difficulty keeping the conversation going exchanging yarns about past experiences. And having reviewed the history of the campaign, looked at significant choice points, revisited various forks in the road and evaluated which was the right turn and which was the wrong one, I believe we'd find ourselves substantially in agreement on many things.
Despite that though, we'd still, in all likelihood, differ on fundamental interpretations of the validity of the starting point and our understanding of the processes that have led us to where we now find ourselves. Those differences in understanding also underpin our divergent current and future paths and strategies.

My 'red shoes' story is an allegorical attempt to understand the life-cycle of a meme. My analysis suggests the meme (Irish Republicanism) is nearing death, certainly the variant that I once adhered to and the one to which you claim to still do.
You seem to hope that this is merely a hibernation phase whereas I propose that the meme is entering a long senile stupor before inevitable demise (also predicted and annunciated by Anthony).
Any potential for meme transmission or 'thought contagion' that Irish Republican ideology once had is shrinking fast and diminishing by the day.
Despite undeniable strong 'Perservational' and 'Adversative' * patterns that are indeed evidenced by you and people like Sean Bres this won't be enough to prevent the imminent and inevitable stupor that I believe now awaits Irish Republican ideology.

* See Aaron Lynch's seven general patterns of thought transmission and definitions for Perservational and Adversative here under Memetic lifecycle: Transmission, retention.

grouch said...

However, Lynch's aim is severely handicapped by his decision to ignore over a century of ECT in particular and social science in general. Instead, Lynch declares that he independently reinvented memetics in 1978 (p. vii) and embarks on a confused and largely uninformed account of how, according to him, ideas about masturbation, breast fetishism, circumcision, psychoanalysis, abortion, firearms, dieting and crucifixion are supposed to spread through society.

In this exposition, Lynch draws on little besides Dawkins' "meme" label. He redefines memes somewhat mysteriously, and without elaboration, as "actively contagious ideas". (p. 2) A modicum of clarification is gained 148 pages later when he states: "Though not exactly a contagion of thought, the addiction to a specific drug can become a replicating brain condition, and hence a meme." (p. 150) Confused? Well, things get even more confusing when Lynch talks of 'ownership' as "a kind of "transcendental meme"" (p. 19) and focuses on what he calls thought contagions, a sort of sub genus of memes, which (we are told) are made up of memes that do not spread through "passive adaptation". (p. 25) For the reader who requires further clarification, Lynch points to an "extremely technical" journal article "filled with propagation diagrams and mathematical equations" on his home page at . I have read this paper and, perhaps because of my own shortcomings, I am no more enlightened. A review of this paper can be found in Gatherer (1998).

Googled that guy lynch and came across the above.Thrilling stuff altogether.

grouch said...

Brits out

Henry JoY said...

Ouch grouch!

Down with that sort of thing (lol)!

grouch said...

brits out. memes out.

Fionnuala Perry said...

Henry Joy,
I'm very flattered. I don't think I've ever turned down a glass of wine.

Having said that, I can read but not write at the minute because I am minus my glasses.

I got the general gist of your argument though and of course I'll disagree, but I think Grouch put it much better than I could.

Henry JoY said...

Holed below the water-line ... an' by 'grouch' of all people ... humiliating or what?

Not following through and checking out Wiki referenced sources ... careless of me. Worse than failing to check your detonators!

It never occurred to me that anyone could consider memetics to be anything other than analogical.

I think that considering ideation as analogous to viruses is useful in potently understanding the waxing and waning of an ideology.
And also for explaining the ease of mutation as evidenced in Irish Republicanism.

Enough done on this thread for now.
Thanks for dancing Nuala!
(have you checked on your head for your glasses? lol)

grouch said...

henry joy, i fear u will never be a marxist-lennonist, as opposed to a marxist-leninist, because u read too many books. the moon waxes and wanes and sometimes disappears, but she is always there. the marxist-lennonists of ireland are constantly mutating. memes out.

Fionnuala Perry said...

Henry Joy,
If you have read over your comments thus far you haven't really earned yourself a lol.
You are no great shakes in the argument stakes.
Persistent, yet inconsistent, you wonder into and out of theories that sound disjointed and vague.
Worse still, you write the anti-Republican rhetoric under the name of Henry Joy.

I don't think you and I would find too much common ground.
Not that I would shy away from a glass of wine or healthy debate.
The problem for me is, once the Joy is taken out of the equation, I suspect what we would be left with is an absolute Henry and therein lies the problem.









Henry JoY said...

McCracken, Orr and Tone were involved in a true attempt at emancipation which had broad support that transcended cultural and religious differences. There was no viable alternative and hence a justifiable popular and bloody uprising.

1916 and what followed ignored the non-violent alternative for progress contained in the Home Rule Bill and exacerbated an adversarial template for relationships between religious and cultural variations within the population of the island. We're still living through the consequences of that.

I believe that Republicanism of the '98 variety is where we need to be at and now tend to view action, strategy and policy through such a prism. Ironically the actions, strategies and policies of the renegade groupings and their supporters generally bring us further from such a position.

The ongoing Republican challenge is to bridge that gap, not widen it. Tolerance rather than intolerance, forbearance rather than aggression, patience and understanding rather than reaction-ism and justification, are the qualities required of those who claim to be republican in their outlook.

ozzy said...


@ Henry Joy
Absoulute rubbish I have to say regarding your comment about Home rule and the Easter Rising.

I am surprised just how much traction neo Unionists such as Joan Brutal et al make of the Home rule Bill.

Let me engage is some ALT history to tell you how THAT would have played out.
Firstly I will give you the benefit of the doubt ( Massive doubt BTW - but still) And allow you your Home Rule in say 1919.
Ok Done.
Now You and your ilk go on to say that this would have led to "more freedom".
And I shall tell you why it wouldn't have. For certain.
And the simple facts are that by 1936 Britain was re arming for WW2.
They would have looked at Ireland as a base of operations and they would have NEVER granted any further attempts at Irish freedom post 1936 for that reason.
Second WW2 showed how vulnerable the sea lanes of communication were. The Soviet Union had access to German technology like the Wartime and later NATo allies did.
NOw, for this next bit you shall need an Atlas. You will need to look up the Soviet Red Banner Northern Fleet and their bases in Murmansk etc. You will need to find a thing called the Greenland Iceland Uk Gap so called GIUK Gap.
And you will need to act as either a Russian or Nato Admiral for five minutes, with your Atlas and act the part of a Soviet Navy Red Banner Fleet trying to break out into the Atlantic or their opponents trying to stop them.
In short you will see the geo-strategic importance of Ireland in that sceanario.
And Once you do. I will continue to make my point as to why Home rule was a dead end.
The USA would have not wanted Britain to give Ireland any further freedom ( even If the Brits themselves wanted to) so as to keep Ireland in the Nato umbrella.
To further rap this up. I find that Home Rule theory bogus is that Even if you allow maximum benefit. You will have to conclude that Ireland would have had a small window between 1919 ( earliest possible date for Home Rule) and 1936 ( British military re armanent) to get greater freedom.
A point completely ignored by neo unionists and revisionists.
It is simply a pipe dream.
Ergo 1916 and 1919 War of Independence were necessary.
Otherwise the CIA would have been rigging Irish elections just like they did in Italy after WW2.
So, for you to preach about Home Rule is to invite the CiA in to Ireland.
Nice one Jim.
And Why the CIA. Simple. back to your Atlas.
It boggles the mind that no serious journalist or historian has ever followed up this ALt history thru the prism of both WW2 and NATO and why Ireland would have been a prize worth having/keeping to the Brits and the Yanks.
I am mystified.
because it is just so obvious. That I am shocked that people are allowed peddle this Home Rule myth.

frankie said...

Ozzy allow me to help HJ....

Now, for this next bit you shall need an Atlas. You will need to look up the Soviet Red Banner Northern Fleet

and their bases in Murmansk etc. You will need to find a thing called the Greenland Iceland Uk Gap* so called GIUK Gap.

And you will need to act as either a Russian or Nato Admiral for five minutes, with your Atlas and act the part of a Soviet Navy Red Banner Fleet trying to break out into the Atlantic or their opponents trying to stop them.

In short you will see the geo-strategic importance of Ireland in that scenario....


*Shows the importance of th GIUK Gap to Germany during WW2

larry hughes said...

The GIUK gap is where they first spotted the Bismarck to I believe.

menace said...

Cracker Lorenzo, though its also possible that's where the Lusitiana went also.
Jaysus Nula, you opened the quare can with a simple analysis. What the Proclamation means to me, and one member of my family was in the General Post Office, is that our Irish Republic will, when it comes about, treat all our people with the equality our fathers fought for, regardless of religion, social status or gender.
Like your Father I have my own copy, still hanging in the dineing room and reminding me daily of what Republicanism is about.

grouch said...

home rule me hole. the germans won the first world war. fact. they battered everyone. fact.brits planning to surrender. fact. until the zionists approached brit war cabinet and told them theyd get america involved if brits backed their claim to palestine. balfour declaration. yanks get involved and germany gets their head kicked in and no wonder there was a rise in anti-semitism as its called in germany. there has been war thanks to those zionists for 100 years now (and more), they back both sides. win win. their forerunners backed cromwell too. fact. they have had us 'goyim' at each others throats a long time now. they were intent on wiping out us irish because we were a beacon for christianity and evangelisation. their man cromwell went a long way.

Fionnuala Perry said...

Henry Joy
You are wrong! Your reading of these events differ from the historic analysis of both events.

Yes, 1798 did have its roots in Catholic emancipation , however, the quick realisation that the Irish Parliament would in no way grant it , led the Society to believe the only way that any type of real justice and emancipation would be achieved was through breaking the connection with England.
The 1916 Rebellion was under pinned by the self same thinking.
Home Rule provided little more than medicore reform,. The country would still be under British control, therefore, the cause and the only viable means of dealing with it remained the same, a rebellion to break the English connection.

Tolerance for you appears to be a one way street.
I have yet to hear you even hint at the intolerance that has blighted tthe country, and has been woven into it's very fabric via the British and their subjects.

You speak about the tolerance that Republicans must show . Yet, since your first comment you have argued Republicanism is a spent force?

Fionnuala Perry said...

Menace,
I have just gotten a new copy of the Proclamation!
I have always had one. Not for the reason HJ suggests, that it provides a 'soother' but rather as you say, it provides us with the guiding principles of what Republicanism is about.

ozzy said...

Thanks Frankie.
because my blood was boiling I forgot to mention
SOSUS.
The Sound Surveilence System.
This was a series of listening devives placed on the Ocean floor in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans which allowed the USA to track movements of the Soviet fleet. Especially their nuclear Submarines.
This is where Ireland and the GIUK Gap really comes into it.
The USA would have built listening posts in Ireland for SOSUS and CORK is the Worlds second biggest Natural Harbour an ideal Navy base. And Of course aircraft would have been based in Ireland.
So, that Home Rule nonsense doesn't really fly.
We would have been trapped.
Why do you think Scotland only got a vote AFTER the cold War was over???
Eoghan Harris, Ruth Dudley Edwards. Joan Brutal and Kevin Myers who publish that shite are complete Gobsh*tes.
The CIA supported 50 years of rule by Christian democrats in Italy.
They would have used Useful idiots like Harris, Myers and Fine Gael to keep Ireland under the Brit yoke too.
Those Yankees were paranoid by "Reds under the Bed".
No way on God's green Earth they would have stood for Irish nationalism.NEVER.

ozzy said...

PPS.
Heres an old docmentary on YouTube
by Titanic discoverer and oceanoghper
Robert Ballard. A reserve Officer in the US navy.
It is reckoned that the Titanic exhibtion was done to show the Russian Navy. Just what the USA could do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5umT7wzwnU

Henry JoY said...

"1916 and what followed ignored the non-violent alternative for progress contained in the Home Rule Bill and exacerbated an adversarial template for relationships between religious and cultural variations within the population of the island. We're still living through the consequences of that."

It might perhaps have been more correct to say rejected the non-violent alternative rather than having said it was ignored.

Ozzy there no doubt that Britain's Naval requirements were paramount throughout most of the 20th century and indeed to the Treay negotiations too. De Velera's proposed Treaty of Association (presented to the Dáil in secret sitting in July 1921 and not significantly different to that signed by the plenipotentiaries) between Ireland and The British Commonwealth clearly recognises this and make provision for the concerns of the British. Hence the Treaty Ports clauses. The 'Treaty Ports' were returned in 1938 as the result of the ending of the 'Trade War'(much to the chagrin of Winston Churchill, it must be said). The British freely negotiated the return which somewhat contradicts the necessity you propose post 1936. Non-the-less I cede to your general point.

That aside I refer to my actual words and what meaning you have attributed. Though I pointed out that the non-violent option to progress was rejected I didn't in fact claim that it would have led to more freedom. In all likelihood it wouldn't. It would though have laid down a different template for relationships between nationalists and unionists. It would have reduced the potency of nationalistic fervor and avoided a War of Independence and The Civil War that followed the Treaty. It would have prevented the stifling grip that the Catholic Church got on society. Economic development may not have remained as stunted, certainly not to the degree as in the economic war. Emigration may not have been as widespread and pervasive.

The executions of 1916 coupled with fears of conscription generated momentum for Independence and put end to The Home Rule possibility.
Had not the Easter Rising happened Home Rule, with an opt out for the Northern Unionists would have been implemented. I contend that where we've ended up in terms of outcomes, particularly in terms of outcomes as set out in The Proclamation, wouldn't be that significantly different from where we actually find ourselves if 1916 had never happened at all.

In terms of Tone's Republic we're as far away from it ... as we are from Gerry Adams speaking the truth.

Henry JoY said...

Nuala

The republic outlined in the Proclamation is a noble enough aspiration of itself.

The problem was and is it's not grounded in reality. It wasn't realistic and achievable in 1916 and it isn't today. Unionists were literally up in arms over the proposed Home Rule solution; who in there right mind could think that out and out separation from the mother ship was workable. Anyone with a brain in their head has to concede that pursuing that strategy could only lead to slaughter on a grand scale. In fact over time it did.

If you don't see the implausibility of your aspirations that's the way it is. You're entitled to your aspirations.

I'm pointing out people move on.
The southern State has a president who's father was sentenced to death by the State he's now the first citizen of. Bertie Ahearne the former Taoiseach, prime mover in the GFA own father was interned by De Velera for 4/5 years. They moved on.

Gun-runners, IRA Army Council Members, former hunger-strikers are sitting in 'partitionist assemblies'. They've moved on.

We can make value judgments from now to Easter 2016 on the rights or wrongs of their acts and there'd be no changing the fact that support for the republican ideology you hold dear is diminishing ... diminishing continuously.

It is and was a noble aspiration ... unfortunately an unworkable one.

It's a form of madness to cling to something that has failed, failed to deliver over several generations.
It's like watching a punch drunk fighter climbing back into the ring time after time only to be sent flying through the ropes once again. As he picks himself up he assures us that next time it'll be different!

grouch said...

bit like urself on this thread

Henry JoY said...

tits out grouch.

grouch said...

wow, a comment made totally of monosyllables. are u not feeling well?

Fionnuala Perry said...

Henry Joy,
Your analysis on 1916 could be likened to, cutting someone intentionally with a knife and then blaming them for getting in the way.
Your entire thinking is skewed in favour of Unionism, their wants, their rights, their thinking, their terms of reconciliation.
Is it any wonder we are back on our bloody knees?

As for the 'Mother Ship' I assume it's not the Starship Enterprise, so it's England?
Half the planet fought to unleash that greedy, twisted grasp, and thankfully some kicked her into cyber space.

Listen to yourself! Your are blaming a people for wanting to rid itself of a tyrant and the orange scourge it's forever appendage.

Of course having principles is viewed as madness in the new dispensation. You can't rightly sell off your principles and be daily reminded of what you once were.
So you tarnish the bearer with a derogatory label, and the madness term is in vogue as is quite a few others.

1916 was noble, transparent and achievable in terms of rebellion.
1969 onwards was quite something else. No one is clear, nor will they ever be about what could or could not have been achieved.
No one, except the sellers know at which point it was decided that an entire struggle would be reframed, refashioned and repackaged at the behest of the 'Mother Ship'

In your lists of 'moving ons' you left out the agents and gangsters and schemers' , well you would of course, because it tends to lose it edge a bit when the mercenaries and the traitors are added to the list.

Moving as you very well know is a euphemism for a big fat zero!
Provide the evidence as to where we have moved and I'll provide you with a page, that will show, they got nothing and in terms of Republicanism they moved backwards.

In relation to the punch drunk fighter? The Sticks were thirty years in front of you with that old chestnut.

Fionnuala Perry said...

In the second last sentence I should have said, 'Moving On' was a euphemism for a big fat zero, not simply moving.

We haven't moved an inch in terms of forward moving, but we have regressed.
Republicans now have a badge to add to the madness badge. No! It's not the moving on star, it's criminality and it was signed for and fully implemented in 1998.

Sinn Fein pushed through what was rejected in 76 and how many graves was filled in that phase?

Henry JoY said...

Nuala at this stage our exchanges on the proclamation are probably as useless and fruitless as discourse between a devout Catholic and a lapsed one on the nature of transubstantiation.

In our educated and liberated society the numbers who believe that bread and wine becomes the body and blood of some ancient middle-eastern prophet during the mass diminishes rapidly.

As likewise does the numbers who embrace Irish republican ideation. That some defiantly or freely hold on to either or both belief systems is their right. Its their right and beyond rational influence too!

Keep the faith Nuala.
I no longer need nor want it.

Fionnuala Perry said...

Henry Joy,

This exchange began when you suggested, that the Proclamation meant as much to my family as the Ulster Covenant did to others.
You suggested it provided nothing more than an emotional 'soother'
You never offered anything concrete to support either claim.

In fact, when challenged you just rattle off theories of rationality, religion, psychology and I think at one stage philosophy, never anything nailed down or factual.

Rationality does not sit with your comparriison between religion and Republicanism, because once more any ism would fit neatly into that scenario, even Marxism.

'Keep the faith'
Given the fact, I don't live life in the fickle lane, I intend to.

Henry JoY said...

What some perceive as fickle other observers may deem as adaptive.

It's not uncommon for those that have become enmeshed in cults not to have the capacity to make such distinctions.

Those that become so entrenched in their thinking, sometimes so entrenched that they're prepared to die for their beliefs, other times so entrenched that they're prepared to kill for them are in all likelihood trapped in a cult. They have become trapped in a cult and often have become brainwashed.

That they would characterise socially and politically adaptive responses as fickle is hardly surprising. In fact such bias is merely confirmation of a cultist mindset.

grouch said...

"O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, thank you for hiding these things from those who think themselves wise and clever, and for revealing them to the childlike.

education is over-rated henry.

Henry JoY said...

Education will always seem over-rated to the unteachable 'grouch'.

As Ernie O'Malley is reported to have said of his days as an IRA organiser in Roscommon and Galway 'you can't teach a thick West of Ireland man who thinks he knows it all ... anything'.

Tits out 'grouch'.

grouch said...

sorry henry, born and reared in dear old dublin, im only a blow-in here and always will be, thank God. i believe in education by the way, but not corporate conditioning.this country is full of educated fools. baile atha cliath abu. memes out henry.

Fionnuala Perry said...

Henry Joy,

Just because there are people in this world who do not find precarious, 'imperfect' paid peace a plausible solution, it doesn't mean they can't adapt.
I would say, they simply live by codes that can't be sold off to any bidder, even the highest.

Your cult theory is dodgy! People have always stood against oppression, occupation and serious injustice the world over.
They doesn't make them cult followers, nor are they people entrenched dogmatically in rigid thinking.

They are people who cannot reconcile themselves to looking the other way.
Others, as have observed can reconcile themselves to look which every way the string dictates.

You quote Marx, guarding against the danger of Cult religions.
Yet Marx never modified his theories to adapt to the capitalist mindset.
The opium of the people was not solely about religion dulling the senses of religious followers.
Marx was concerned that, if people settle for the 'imperfect' and are coerced into to doing so by earthly or heavenly rewards, they are letting injustice and oppression continue unabated.
Is Marxism a cult, was his thinking entrenched?

What are the responses that are socially and politically accepted, modified and adapted?

Vague theories can always be generally applied, the brainwashed concept can be just as easy directed towards those who now follow, that which was once perceived as less than digestible with unquestioning obedience.

Animal Farm played out on our screens daily, just as Orwell dictated it would be, when the oppressed are assimilated into the cult of the oppressor.


Fionnuala Perry said...

Henry Joy,

I will risk labouring the point here, to pont out to you how, it is people like yourself that are emershed in cult like thinking as opposed to those you accuse.

Cult as you will read comes from the Latin for care. Again, as you will read the English derived it from the French.
Not exclusively religious, the Greeks had cult like worship for their heroes and Gods.

Cultish behaviour differs, and steps outside the context of care, prayer and devotion it thrives in overzealous expressions of excessive devotion.
Cult followers offer their minds for control, the can't detach reason from ambiguity and are blissfully led by the nose.

Sinn Fein are the classic example of a cult. In fact even if you set the animal farm allegory to one side.
They fulfill totally the whole ideal of blind, irrational and unquestioning faith in a perpetual leader.

The Fleggers and Unionist are not too far off mark either.
Flegs symbolise for the Fleggers an ambiguous, disenchanted culture.
Unionism is so entrenched and embittered and emershed in the politics of hatred, that they can't see past their own ambiguous history.
They couldn't even see they got the heads of former Republicans on a plate. They cost the tax payers millions screaming for the other body parts. No jokes about the arms.

The deputy recently stated, that the thirty year war was about equality.
Entrenched and emerged in the cult as Mc Guinness is, do you think, there is a likelihood that a man who is the very epitomy of the dangers of mind control will ever achieve it?

Henry JoY said...

'Animal Farm played out on our screens daily, just as Orwell dictated it would be, when the oppressed are assimilated into the cult of the oppressor.'

That cultural homogenisation is under-way is undeniable Nuala. In all likelihood such geopolitical manipulations are unstoppable in the immediate to medium term, especially so in the context of the global village.

The neo-colonial process of cultural mimicry as outlined by Fanon in 'Wretched Of The Earth' is deeply ensconced.

If you wish to characterise that as oppression that is your right and that is your choice.

From where I and many others view it though that's yet another example of excessively polarised thinking.
At another extreme some say its merely the outworking of a meritocratic system where the fittest states and fittest economic and political models survive longest. There's a myriad of points in-between; anyone of which have more potential for 'truth'.

Almost all models and systems will tend to have inherent flaws. Sometimes they simply outlive their original purpose and use, and become obsolete. All, dependent only as to how they adapt, and to how quickly they do that, ultimately will flounder and fail.

In my opinion the Irish Republican cause that you espouse (and as I once did too) is fast approaching the natural end of its life cycle. Its in eminent and grave danger of becoming obsolete and as yet hasn't shown itself capable of re-inventing itself or to adapting to current realities and needs, save that for a few it sill serves, as Marx poetically observed, as the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.

To the degree that such oppression exists in Ireland (and that too must be viewed relatively) any 'ism' including Marxism can function as a soother.
The 'hearthlessness' of the world and the 'soullessness' of conditions are, more often than not projections, rather than rigidly imposed realities. In such cases social support, healthy development of community and education have been shown to be more effective than revolutionary participation.

As you rightly point out many of the disaffected are left basically unchanged despite the social upheaval. And the vulnerable regardless of creed are still susceptible to cultist manipulation.

Time for a different paradigm Nuala; a new proclamation if you like, a practical workable one, one of mutual concern and respect, one of tolerance devoid of narrow nationalism and overly dogmatic ideation.
A new paradigm that rests somewhere between possible and probable in terms of actualisation and implementation.
What was proposed in The Proclamation of The Irish Republic, noble and all as it might have been, has shown itself to fall, in terms of it being achievable, on 'the spectrum of possibility' at a point closer to impossible than to improbable.

(I recently offered to crack the seal of a bottle with you. I wouldn't make that offer to either Adams or McGuinness as there's still a chance that I'd crack their heads with it.)

grouch said...

“The Proclamation of the Irish Republic has been adduced in evidence against me as one of the signatories; you think it is already a dead and buried letter, but it lives, it lives. From minds alight with Ireland’s vivid intellect it sprang; in hearts aflame with Ireland’s mighty love it was conceived. Such documents do not die…”
THOMAS MACDONAGH.

"Time for a different paradigm Nuala; a new proclamation if you like, a practical workable one, one of mutual concern and respect, one of tolerance devoid of narrow nationalism and overly dogmatic ideation."

Henry Joy Mc Crackhead.

If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. Go for it so HJ, come up with a new trendy paradigm shifting watered down wishy washy Proclamation full of polysyllabics and intellectual shite-talk that will still be a threat to the Elites as theyre called who run society now and fear nothing more than a sovereign republic and an awakened people. Go for it. There is nothing stopping you. I'll stick with the rebels and mighty lovers one.

'God bless gallant pearse and his comrades who died,
tom clarke and mcdonagh, macdiarmuid, mcBride,
and heres to james connolly who gave one hurrah,
as he faced the machine guns for erin go bragh.'

Henry JoY said...

Image ... there was no Heaven ... Mr Lennonist 'grouch'.

And contemplate beginning afresh?

grouch said...

all you need is LOVE

Fionnuala Perry said...

Henry Joy,
I asked you several posts back, why you have singled Republicanism out as a failed entity, given the fact so many other isms have yet to reach their goal?

Marxism the ideology you continually quote from never reached a pinnacle. Capitalism did not devour itself and despite the number of times it crashed it never burned.

Engels and Marx vehemently opposed Nationalism in favour of internationalism. The former they believed to be the product of Imperialism and the latter the only real panacea for oppression.

Capitalism had the capacity to reinvent and adapt. The more updated version neo liberalism shed Nationalism in favour of Internationalism and flourished.
Marxism did not adapt accordingly. Is Marxism now a spent ideology?
Will a new Marx and Engels emerge to re write the Communist Manifesto. Your logic demands that will have to happen, a whole new paradigm for the proletariat.

Our pseudo revolutionaries now the petty bourgeois, certainly believed Marxism was a spent ideology .
Unlike you however, they still fly the Republican flag.

Adams believes the Proclamation to be 'a work in progress'
The man who is steering the 'imperfect' adapters still provides plenty of opium for the people.

Maybe it is altruism that drives the man to provide his followers with emotional 'soothers' to get them through this heartless, soulless world?

Henry JoY said...

Republicanism is not particularly singled out save that its the topic at hand.
From my last post,
'Almost all models and systems ... dependent only as to how they adapt ... ultimately will flounder and fail.'
Any ideation or goal, if we're to invest time and energy into it, and even the more so if we're going to ask others to also, ought be tested for practicality and potentiality of achievement; don't you agree?

To do that we can approximate where it lands on a spectrum of possibility.

Impossible...............Improbable...............Possible...............Probable....................Actualisation

Based on the historical record of achievement (or lack of as in this case) and popular support (shrinkage in this case) I'd have to place the possibility of achieving the type of republic envisioned and defined in the Proclamation at the point 'x'.

Impossible..x..........Improbable...............Possible...............Probable....................Actualisation


Henry Crackhead (I like that one 'grouch')

grouch said...

Nuala, ive bad news, Marxism is far from a spent force. We are all living in a Marxist superstate. Marx was a fraud. As was lenin, trotsky and the rest of them, worked for the zionist bankers. the above names i mentioned are not their real names either. neither is mine, but im not a genocidal maniac. the communist manifesto is pure evil. read it again. diabolical stuff dressed up as liberation. he was a fraud. 100 million dead and counting. marxism is the crack-cocaine of the zionist bankers.

Henry JoY said...

True Nuala, unlike Adams and co, I no longer fly the republican flag, the republican flag nor the flag on any 'ism'.
I had thought my comments already made it clear the low regard I hold Adams in.*

The majority of those who seek meaning and purpose in any 'ism' are likely to find themselves disappointed sooner or later (unless of course they have a really well-formed neurosis). A minority will find advantage and status through involvement. That's the way the cookie crumbles. Failing to recognise that only leads to further frustration.

I choose to find meaning and purpose in other more realistic ways for myself first and then perhaps, where I have capacity and its appropriate, others.
Its somewhat like the safety briefing on an aircraft; if the cabin decompresses who do you put the oxygen mask on first? Yourself or the kids? The ageing and infirmed passenger accross the aisle or yourself?

Like with the placing of the oxygen mask we must liberate ourselves first.

Drop all (or as many as one can) illusions.

The utopian republic does not exist, never did, never will.

Beware of utopian promulgators; they're a health hazard.

Best to compromise and settle for something workable, even if this requires several re-frames to find some advantage for oneself in it.

Over and Out,
HJ.

* For a better understanding of how power affects and potentially 'corrupts' read "The Winner Effect" by Prof. Ian Robertson

grouch said...

uve obviously never heard of the republic of saordonia.

Henry JoY said...

I've heard you speak of it on previous occasions 'grouch'.

Though I was of the opinion it was a utopian construct in that wonderfully creative space between your ears.

I've no doubt though that if it ever gained shape and space outside of your humorous head it would at best be like most other societies ... perfectly imperfect ... pleasing and functional at times ... and dissatisfying and dysfunctional at others.

Not always easy out in the 'real' world.

10/4 'grouch'Definitely done on this one.
Henry Crackhead.

grouch said...

well you will always be welcome here in the gaelic marxist-lennonist republic of saordonia henry joy mc crackhead. you and all the other doubters. if you want to stay though u will have to attend our de-educatoin camp. beir bua. thats de not re by the way. beir bua again.

Fionnuala Perry said...

Henry Joy,

If we are to see the merits of your new liberation, perhaps you could explain it in away that is more understandable?

If you have skipped from Republican to anti Republican then state that. If you have crossed the road and now hang out with the Fleggers, state that also.

Just don't leave us in the abyss!

Henry JoY said...

Nuala you're a big girl now, find your own path out of the abyss. Like tragic hero roles I'm no longer accepting 'White Knight' ones either.

I'm not putting myself forward as a leader for anyone bar myself. As I am free to choose my own thoughts and lifestyle (liberation) so is everyone else. We all tend to reap the fruits of our choices.

I'm of the age of those who entered their teens as the troubles began. My entire life has been touched to varying degrees by the conflict.

Almost 3,500 deaths later and nothing substantially more achieved than was available 40 years ago under Sunningdale I'm well done with republicanism.
Am I anti-republican? To the degree that they are unlikely (or incapable) to create further bloodshed I'm nonchalant about them.
And if I thought they had the capacity to pull us back down into the quagmire that we slogged through for 40 unnecessary years I would oppose them.

I value the absence of violence and the potential that space provides. I don't want to see further death and destruction. Those that would threaten that will have to take the consequences of their words and actions.
To me I view it like a group of roped up climbers, if one falls and threatens to pull the rest down ... then there may be no other option for the rest than to cut the rope!

As for the 'fleggers' Nuala they're close to your mirror opposites out at the other extreme. They too need to be policed and managed for some sort of normality to prevail.

I'm betting on the probability that this time the centre is going to hold and hence taking my safe seat in the middle of the boat. If you choose to ride out on the gunwale please feel free and don't complain to me about the spray and the ride.

Hope that clarifies.

Fionnuala Perry said...

Henry Joy,
Strange, that someone who is so confident about their new road, seems to dither around every junction.

Ambiguous speak appears to be the order of the day in relation to your stance.

You mistake principles for entrenchment and a belief in integrity for a 'soother'

Yet, you write under a pseudonym that must provide you with the attachment you hypocritically state disables the individual from 'moving on'

Your answer to the flegger question is similar to the British analysis of two waring factions.

But then, not much point in turning your coat! Unless every part of you is prepared to turn full circle.

I'm completely clear, it's you who appears to be struggling.

grouch said...

id never complain about a spray and a ride.

frankie said...

My 'problem' with the Proclamation is it has never been allowed to take root. The people behind it were shot dead before it was in place...

Connolly said this...

If you remove the English army to-morrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about the organisation of the Socialist Republic your efforts would be in vain.

England would still rule you. She would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers, through the whole array of commercial and individualist institutions she has planted in this country and watered with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs.

England would still rule you to your ruin, even while your lips offered hypocritical homage at the shrine of that Freedom whose cause you had betrayed


What happened? The opposite of what he said. The recent bail out is one of many examples. What people forget is Connolly was in America at the time the US Federal Reserve was taking control of the banks and heard all the arguments first hand. He goes back home and see the same players taking control...