He firmly nailed their colours to the mast with regards the current immigration situation.
He started strongly, pointing out the imperialist and colonial policies and reasons behind the current migratory patterns. Likening it to the British colonial past, all of which is widely accepted and acknowledged among republican groups throughout the 32 counties of Ireland. That is where the intellect of the oration ends.
It swiftly moved into the territory of the rabid dog whistles favoured by the racist brigade, who only a few short weeks ago stood proudly shoulder to shoulders with their loyalist pay masters and who laud the failed immigrant Steven Yaxley-Lennon as a hero.
After they so eloquently pointed out the Dublin Government’s inadequate handling of the immigration process - even feigning concern for the immigrants themselves - the oration quickly moved on to the tired trope of destroying documents to exploit this defunct system, so deflecting from the government’s shambolic handling of the situation and shifting the blame to refugees and asylum seekers.
This official speech only served to deepen the already strongly held beliefs held by numerous members and supporters of the group - as evident in the fact that many have been seen swelling the ranks of anti-immigrant protests around the country.
Again Murphy admonished the government and opposition for their mishandling of sheltering people fleeing war, famine and persecution while in the same breath defending the fair citizens of this land who protest these same people by burning buildings, attacking them and screaming abuse at women and children being housed in unsuitable conditions.
He then entered conspiracy territory - acknowledging that those with “nefarious” agendas will seek to exploit peoples' fears and anger, but not once questioning why the protests were aimed at the victims of these 'globalists' and never at those pushing the so-called 'agenda' .
The language that has long been used by the racist agitators and far right actors to promote their poisonous agendas was Peppered throughout the oration, further proving who the author was speaking to if any was needed.
Asserting that these protests are grassroots led organic movements against some globalist/NGO cabal is farcical at best, but more likely a blatant attempt to attach their almost obsolete grouping to the coattails of what they see as a semi-successful campaign. All the while ignoring the lies and disinformation that has been spread - mainly via social media - to promote these hateful movements almost as blatantly as the fact that the author has ignored the reality that many of those at the forefront of the violence against refugees are knee deep in drug dealing and criminality, the very people who murdered Alan Ryan.
The statement continues for some time filled with anti-leftist buzzwords ripped from infowars or Gript, while simultaneously lauding the roles republicans and socialists should take in these matters. A dictionary for Christmas anyone?
The whole monologue ignored the real life threat to people’s safety that has these protests have actualised.
You cannot claim to be a republican or socialist and support hate directed at the most vulnerable individuals in society.
You cannot fly the flag of republicanism and court far right agitators.
And you cannot espouse socialist ideals for a nation and hold tight to reactionary nationalistic views.
This oration feels as flip floppy as the opposition party the author purports to oppose, but truly shows the apple didn’t fall too far when it comes to pandering to those who would watch our nation burn for the right amount.
How long will it be before we see the IFP or NP give the graveside oration to a fallen 32CSM comrade?
⏩Alec McCarthy is an Independent Republican
I would hope that some wiser heads prevail and apply reverse gear before we get to the gloomy but plausible closing comment. I was told yesterday that 32CSM members were told to vote IFP at the last election. I would hope it is not true. If it does happen we are going to hear some twisted spin that the IFP is not fascist, just nationalist.
ReplyDeleteMy brother actions were always directed against the state and those who torment the working class. During the austerity protests outside Leinster house Alan was getting battoned trying to get in the gates
ReplyDeleteOf Leinster house, and today he would stand with Palestine and the less well off. FFFG are laughing at the division.
The conclusion to be drawn from that is that Alan put it up to the government. He stood up to the people responsible for austerity and did not gang up on those who were victims of it.
DeleteAnthony, you seem to have a short memory. I remember but a few years ago you posting obscene offensive comics of the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
ReplyDeleteNow you are the king of the politically correct. As regards making friends and influencing people, who are you to lecture on that topic? Were you not booted out of Belfast for being a shill for the Brits? Turned on your on community for that bbc commentator money with your fantasy tales of the ‘rafia’.
A bit like the boston college project, but sure that was easy money too. Manipulating republicans to make a few quid, just like you manipulate the migration debate for a few pound. Would you not start a shop in one of those empty places near you and make an honest few quid.
All the best
N.B. I’m not with the right wing idiot patriot brigade and never will be.
Also: the wars over and looks like the good guys won.
To A Ryan above, sorry for your loss.
Shinnerbot on TPQ? Naff.
DeleteSteve - we know!! We laughed so much at the unhinged sentiments we decided not to send it over to Bates & Wilkes, the destination for those who trade in insults rather ideas, but post it here so everybody could share the laugh. Alec's piece has annoyed quite a few it seems.
DeleteThey are so full of shit they squeak Anthony, and the brass neck on this one to talk about 'making a few quid'...wonder how many holiday houses in Donegal he has, or jaunts to sunnier climes all year round they enjoy.
DeleteSteve - although you think it is a Shinner because the tactic is straight from the bot brigade book for the blind, it has been suggested that it is a troll from the 32CSM trying to mask their scent with Shinner soundbites; possibly racist who desires the type of far right destination Alec criticised in his article, so seeks to silence any attempt to flag it up.
DeleteWe have dealt with these Section 31 types for so long that it is routine by now. They lack what it takes to stand over their views and hide behind pen names. In Belfast it was referred to as Coward's Corner. That is how long we have been swatting them aside.
These days we have a blog code of practice laid out in Bates & Wilkes. Invisible people have invisible rights. They can wallow over there as much as they wish. That's where we tossed the comments from the troll. As my wife says to me water off a duck by this point.
I found it funny that Alec writes a post but no engagement with it - just screaming at moi; you make a point about a bot - no engagement with it - Just screaming at moi.
It sort of tells you that Alec touched a raw nerve which some people do not want exposed to a wider readership.
Anyway, the task of the blog is to facilitate the serious, not the spineless.
Alec - seems you have touched a raw nerve with your piece!!!
ReplyDeleteAlthough not affiliated to the 32csm in anyway, I am certain the speech was not a nod to the far right. To brand it as such is inconsiderate to the family and comrades of an Irish Republican activist who stood up to drug gangs and the establishment.
ReplyDeleteSometimes I wonder do people live in this country at all. I myself live in the west coast of rural Ireland and I can guarantee you that if you go into any public house you will hear peoples concerns about the influx of migrants into small towns where health care, jobs and educational resources are already scarce. This does not make them racist or Far Right as many are so quick to suggest, and to put them into the same grouping as the likes of Justin Barrett, the NP or IFP is frankly disgusting. Most Irish people are not politically aware like the rest of us, but they have young children in school, they struggle with financial pressures and low wages in factory jobs where permanent contracts and benefits are minimal or non existent.
I put the question to those who are so vehemently offended by this oration: what exactly do you want? Do you want to give up national borders and language, our self determination and sovereignty? Do you want your children to be deprived of the education and opportunities they deserve? Do you want migrants to be living in tents on city streets? We must also remember that in certain countries where migrants are from there is a litany of human rights abuses against women and homosexuals that is deeply ingrained into their very way of life, laws and culture. To ignore such pertinent facts and the implications thereof is hypocritical and grossly naïve. On the one hand you purport to defend human rights abuses such as domestic violence against women and homophobia, yet on the other you are willing to open our borders to unvetted immigrants from countries where such human rights abuses are well in grained and documented.
It would be lovely if we can all live in a world like the one Woody Guthrie dreamed of, 'all creeds and kinds and colors', but can we please get real. Are these migrants being shipped into the most affluent post codes in Dublin or Galway? No, because if they were there would be an uproar from the ruling classes like no other. Rather they are being dumped into working class urban areas, or rural areas and villages with one shop, one school and one GP surgery; and moreover without the consent of the local people. Rather it is at the whim of senior civil servants and affluent hoteliers and business men. God help these immigrants. God help the Irish working class. Surely the migrants and the Irish people both deserve better.
The ineptitude of the Free State government and EU policies is astounding. I am sure the establishment and the West Brits are absolutely delighted that such policies are causing a major divisive rift amongst the Republican movement in Ireland.
Gowain - this makes me think you don't really grasp what is being said in the piece by Alec. Have you never asked yourself why you have not been called far right for expressing the views that you do? It sems obvious that people think you have valid concerns not driven by hatred. People differentiate between practical concerns about immigration and ideologically inspired hatred of immigrants.
DeleteThank you Anthony,
ReplyDeleteI am anything but far right, and while firmly on the left I also doubt I am as far left as I used to be, that is most certain.
I grasped the article quite well I hope, I agree wholeheartedly with Alec's end comments, 'you cannot claim to be a republican or socialist and support hate directed at the most vulnerable individuals in society. You cannot fly the flag of republicanism and court far right agitators. And you cannot espouse socialist ideals for a nation and hold tight to reactionary nationalistic views.' Such statements are bread and butter to me.
However, I have just read the oration in question again, and while I do not agree with it verbatim, I find it hard to see what all the fuss is about, or how it stands in direct opposition to the above fundamentals stated by Alec, nor can I see how it is 'anti left' or a 'rabid dog whistle to the far right and racist brigade'. It seems to me that for some reason the oration has rubbed some people up the wrong way. The oration is quite clinical and unflinching, and it is uncomfortable reading perhaps, but nowhere do I see racist rhetoric or a blame on immigrants.
For example, Murphy states, 'The Dublin Government is clearly implementing an immigration policy which is being dictated to them from outside sources. It is not a sovereign decision. No government, however incompetent, could remotely develop a policy which it vainly struggles to even partially implement. The spectacle of tent encampments being met by metal fencing as some kneejerk solution only underscores the shambolic policy from the outset. It is also abundantly clear that these external influences are blindly indifferent to the impact such a policy on immigration has on local communities which in turn demonstrates their clear indifference to the welfare of immigrants themselves.'
Rather, what I see from the oration is an unflinching adherance to the ideals set out by the proclamation, which in the modern day can be misconstrued as a some form of toxic nationalism. It also acknowledges that the Irish people protesting such issues are largely blameless and in no way deserving of the labels the main stream narrative applies to them.
Viz. 'We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible. The long usurpation of that right by a foreign people and government has not extinguished the right, nor can it ever be extinguished except by the destruction of the Irish people. In every generation the Irish people have asserted their right to national freedom and sovereignty.'
If that was line was used today and not in the 1916 proclomation, some would call it Far Right or caterng to the racist brigade - which I think is a gross misjustice. Just because some ideas have apparently 'progressed' and 'evolved' in the modern day does not make them superiour does it? Far Right to me is a different beast altogether.
From reading your earlier comments, I have read and studied Umberto Eco's 14 points of facsicm today, as well as Poulantzas' agruments, and it is clear that the definitions are not as clear cut as one thinks.
1/ Gowain - therein lies the difference: you see it one way while others view it through a completely different lens. Dog whistles are a strange thing that the dogs alone hear. But if you have observed these groups over the years you develop an instinct based on patterns which allows certain forecasts to be made about the direction of travel. Why dog whistling is so prevalent, and not just in the current discussion, is that they allow for plausible deniability.
DeleteMuch like when the Shinners started on their journey away from republicanism, they were dog whistling and kite flying, but denying it. The defence offered against that observation being made was pretty much like the one you make regarding the 32CSM. Added to that is what people read between the lines based on other matters such as having a suspicion that back channels exist between the far right and the 32CSM, that activists from the group have been turning up at far right intimidation events, or have been voting for the IFP.
Now all of this might be wide off the mark and the suspicions could be groundless, leaving your assessment correct. But time will tell as events unfold. When fascists gather outside places of accommodation for refugees and immigrants screaming get them out and sometimes burning them out, there is only one place for any republican group - right at the front facing down the fascists and with their backs to the people being intimidated.
Where I think you did not grasp the article is in your assertion that the people who have concerns are being labelled far right. The article does not do that. The author talks to people all the time about their concerns. People have a right to oppose immigration policy and not be labelled far right for it. I had this disagreement recently with a friend who told me that opposition to Repeal was enough to qualify as a fascist. I thought that wide off the mark, and continuously make the point in discussion that if you label everybody fascist soon enough everybody will be fascist.
Somebody is either missing or misinterpreting the signals emitting from the oration. It is not that the speaker was blaming immigrants or stirring hate: the oration is within the bounds of legitimate discourse emerging from free inquiry. The task of the observer is to try to work out the lines of communication from message sender to message recipient.
Much of what John Murphy said has merit but when he drifts into signifiers which include recolonisation - an echo of the far right term great replacement or new plantation - then a meaning will be inferred from the signifier.
2/ I don't do bibles, either of the religious type or the secular. The Proclamation is not a tablet of stone for me: how could it be with its assertion in the name of god? But you are right, the part of the Proclamation you cited could be articulated into far right discourse much as the tricolour has been weaved into far right symbolism. That just tells us that meaning is positional rather than fixed. Symbolism becomes just another new cultural and political battleground.
DeleteNations came into being and will as assuredly evolve into something else. They are not eternal fixed entities. If we want global regimes and institutions as I do, to manage global problems, then we are always going to pool sovereignty and desire to have it operate in an interdependent world. You seem to be saying, not without merit, that we have a world of domination and dependence rather than interdependence. But even there, it still allows for a move away from what was traditionally understood as sovereignty. At every level of existence we want more sovereignty: we might want to be sovereign individuals, have local sovereignty, have national sovereignty; have regional sovereignty. But our ability to be sovereign is necessarily compromised by our relations with others and our obligations to society.
Admittedly, I can't claim to be much of an nationalist, these days feeling more European than Irish. It is not something that I consciously did - just drifted. But it leads me not to think in terms of Irish nationals but Irish citizens. People other than Irish nationals can be Irish citizens. To the extent that I embrace nationalism at all, I would like to see a politically and culturally inclusive nationalism, not the hate driven exclusivism of the far right.
I think to deny that immigration is a problem is like denying that the climate is a problem. Anything that places a burden on society is a problem. It is the solution that we need to work on. I reject the far right solution.
I always find Eco and Poulantzas worthwhile to digest when confronted with these issues. Not that Poulantzas makes it easy for the reader, but he makes so many good points.
On a similar note,
ReplyDeleteI am utterly fed up of the term "dog whistle" which, basically, translates as “something I don’t like and something I disagree with”.
If you hear a “dog whistle” from a statement then there's a chance that, maybe, YOU ARE THE DOG.
It can also mean the opposite: that is something I like and something I agree with. That is why I am being whistled at.
DeleteObserving the whistle being blown and hearing it are not one and the same.
Back in the day it was called kite flying.
Christopher Owens agreed.
DeletePerhaps some people need to look into their own darkness, might be the only way to calm it all down. When emotions are taken out what is hopefully left is what is objectively observable. That might confirm, dispute or make an argument inconclusive.
Why is mentioning destroyed passports a dog whistle?
Does the author suggest that it's self evident that it's not happening or that their is some other meaning than the literal statement.
Some people are ok with this happening and some are cynical of it. With going all ja'cuse perhaps take the time to say why cynicism is misplaced or perhaps be open enough to question your own assumptions.
All the author did is accuse the oration of saleing close to breaking taboos.
Labour is a factor of production. The left traditional approach to immigration in the Western World was proper controls to supplement skills avoid surplus labour and the expansion of the black market.
This is a new thing, this century the left seeing it as taboo to question any immigration.
USSR, cuba, China were/are not open border economies.
These conversations are happening don't be a part of it or be a part of it, that's a choice
Thanks Anthony for the comments, food for thought. I guess it is important not to be too rigid in my outlook on things, one has to move with the times I suppose, to a degree at least. I enjoyed the discourse and I hope the rumours and suspicions about republicans sharing platforms with far right agitators are unfounded.
ReplyDeleteGowain - I think we all need to avoid rigidity. Your hope about republicans is one we can all share.
DeleteJust a point of note when accusing of dog whistling. People fleeing famine and war
ReplyDeleteThat's loaded, the success rate for applications by the states figures is 3 out of 10.
On appeal that increases to 4 out of 10.
The state has a scheme called leave to remain and that's how the majority of applications tend to get settled.
There is evidence that some people applying for asylum here are fleeing a risk of imidiate death but not all and not the majority.
Mixing up the two is a dog whistle, it's appealing to a good sence of ethics by obscuring facts. It's not a statement to be taken literally. You can also appeal to a good sence of ethics by saying that it's mean and crual to protest were people live with out obscuring facts.
Cynicism goes from low level to bubbling because of these tactics. It's not leadership. If others fill the gap then there is the responsibility of the open goal for those that played the tactic.
Only way this is going to move on is if political people use the same standard of analytical skills they use for every other issue. Gearing up for green St Street fighting is bull, might be fun but it's nonsense.