Orange order set to celebrate

by jc Fri Jul 04, 2003 21:35

so there

by !? Fri Jul 04, 2003 21:36

movement between comunions. Many left the RC church for reasons of it being a fascist nasty little group who shelter paedophiles to go to their local CofI church and tqake part in christian worship`with a female minister, Women priests account for more ordinations to the Church of Ireland than any other of it's global episcopalian affiliated churches.

interested in clergy?
goto link.

by Joe Mon Jul 07, 2003 11:35

See link below

by Red 1913 - SP Mon Jul 07, 2003 12:27

While the WSM exude an aura of shunning Nationalism, in reality they are fellow travellers of Republicanism. They take no account of the Protestant Working Class. When it comes to Marching they see things as black and White: Evil Orange Order; Oppressed Catholics.

The Orange Order is a cultural organisation, by blocking their marches, sectarianism is only made stonger. When have the WSM ever opposed Anicent Order of Hibernian marchs?

These are a bunch of Republican Anarchists.

by Andrew Mon Jul 07, 2003 13:40

Hey Red you post details here of the next contentious AOH march and I'll see what we can do about opposing it!!

More seriously the growing auto-loyalism of the SP in the name of anti-sectarianism is daft. Suddenly everyone who thinks there is a problem with the Orange Order is a republican and every republian is a catholic nationalist. Where that leaves the growing numbers of northern Protestants who dislike the OO is an interesting question.

If 'red 1913' had bothered to check out the articles rather then come out with this auto-loyalism then they'd find a more nuanced position. The clue is in the title 'red 1913', the problem with the OO is not simply that they are anti-catholic but that they were set up and remain counter revolutionary in function.

A quote from one of the articles makes this point
"It is unfortunate, if perhaps somewhat inevitable, that the now annual battles around the 'marching season' fall along religious lines. The Orange parades are being used to test the supposed neutrality of the northern regime and the RUC in particular. The losing side in this dangerous game however is likely to be the working class, Protestant and Catholic, as the confrontations and the sectarian attacks that occur around the Orange marches drive people further into 'their own' communities.

The reality of the Orange Order is that it is a counter-revolutionary institution set up and maintained to target not just Catholics but also 'disloyal' Protestants. It's formation and spread was encouraged by the British state in the years leading up to the 1798 rebellion precisely in order to drive a wedge between ordinary Catholics and Protestants. The 12th of July was picked as the key date to provide an alternative attraction to the marking of Bastille day and in itself to mark the sectarian massacre that led to the formation of the Orange Order.

The Orange Order was born in Armagh in 1795 as part of an armed terror campaign to deny full citizenship rights to Catholics. This was in the context of struggles between landlords and tenants in the area of which the Anglican Archbishop of Armagh said "the worst of this is that it stands to unite Protestant and Papist, and whenever that happens, good-bye to the English interest in Ireland". Specifically the penal laws forbade Catholics from bearing arms, but radical (and mostly Protestant) volunteer companies in the 1780's had been recruiting and arming Catholics with the "the full support of a radical section of Protestant political opinion"1 ."

Read more at
http://struggle.ws/wsm/orangeorder.html

by hs - sp Mon Jul 07, 2003 20:30

everything andrew says about the orgins and role of the loyal orders is quite true. But it doesn't take away from the fact that many northerners see it as part of their heritage and attacks on it are seen by them as sectarian.
The point is how to oppose the order, if you oppose it with tri colours then I'm afraid it will be read as a sectarian battle rather than anything else. comrade red 1913 is being a little silly and over the top accusing the wsm of being catolic nationalist fellow travellers, and probably why you didn't sign your name comrade?
Anyway the point of the sp line isn't auto loyalism it's when the orange parades become basically a sectarian fight. Its easy to sloganise but we still have to attempt to work towards unity. If a campaign against the order will divide workers more than unite and possibly fill the ranks of the orders its a mistake.

by Andrew Tue Jul 08, 2003 12:39

loyal order marches
by hs - sp Monday, Jul 7 2003, 7:30pm

Thanks for the serious reply HS.

I do think there is a major problem with the SP approach although 'auto-loyalism' is I admit an exaggeration.

The problem is that be definition the marches are sectarian and therefore those who organise the marches will indeed be able to paint opposition to them as being mirror sectarianism. The KKK have been pulling the same sort of stunt in the US for years and of course the BNP try it on in Britain. The OO are not fascist but their method is similar to the 'rights for whites' approach of those organisations.

The problem with the SP position is that it seems to accept the logic of the sectarians set-ups of the marches. The OO logic is that the contentious ones exist to 'prove' that 'Protestants' are under threat and need to stand up for their rights. Dismissing opposition to these as sectarian seems to confirm their analysis. Would you dismiss anti-BNP demonstrations as 'racist'. I think not.

Your right to point out that the parades are intended as a trap and often the opponents of the parades fall into this 'your community against our community' crap. But the left needs to find a way to oppose the OO while overcoming the trap just as it does with regard to BNP or KKK. Again not suggesting that the OO are fascist but simply that there are rather obvious parallels of intent going on.

by Brian Cahill Tue Jul 08, 2003 13:42

Look, "Red 1913" is not a member of the Socialist Party. It's just somebody trying to stir up more hassle. A member of the SP used to post here as "Red 1917" quite a long time ago. He doesn't post anymore.

"Red 1913" and most of the anonymous people who have been taking part in the Durutti/Pat/Magneto troll threads, posting things calculated to keep Pat frothing have nothing to do with anybody in the Socialist Party. They are just a slightly more sophisticated part of the campaign of harrassment of the Socialist Party that a handful of people are running.

The same people used to spend their time impersonating named members of the SP. For instance, I've seen more than twenty posts under my name which have nothing to do with me. They have now twigged that if they post stuff designed to look like it's from a foolish and aggressive member of the Socialist Party without actually using a real person's name that it has more effect.

At this stage there are only about three members of the Socialist Party who use this site. None of them use the tag "Red 1913" and none of them post anonymous goads to Pat (not that he needs goading).

by Andrew Tue Jul 08, 2003 14:06

Brian you may believe what you write above but I don't. It has also taken a very long time for this claim to emerge from the SP.

It is rather obvious that at least one and more likely a couple of SP/SY members have been posting to indymedia anonomously or semi-anonomously for months now. 'Red-1913' is one of the semi-anonymous ones. The more abusive stuff which has been directed at Pat C, the Catholic Workers, GNAW and RTS amongst others is easy to spot because it reflects both the SP line of the moment and the SPs knowledge about other organisations and individuals.

By this I mean these anonymous posts consistently follow the line of the SP and use knowledge that few outside the SP would know or care about. Pat C's (chosen) lack of involvement in his union being an obvious example. A second example is the 'RTS has secret leaders' post on the McDonalds thread. This is based on a position with regards to RTS in particular and anarchists in general that I have only previously encountered from SP members. I reckon in an hour or two I could trawl up 20 to 30 similar examples from the last few months.

But worse yet are the posts reflecting a similar analysis designed to appear to come from libertarians with the intention of stirring up shit with other organisations. Again after observing these for many months I can only conclude the person responsible is either a member of the SP or a close supporter.

Now if when all this started known members of the SP had distanced themselves from these comments your denial at this point would be more belivable. Given that this seldom happened and given the pattern of intervention it is hard to escape the conclusion that these interventions were in fact encouraged, at least on the casual pub level by somewhat senior members of the SP who had access to the background knowledge displayed. A 'nicer' interpretation is that they simply reflect the internal culture of the SP.

On the humorous side as you are probably aware there are quite a few people here who think 'Brian Cahill' does not exist!

In general you are right that there are also other impersonators on indymedia trying to stir up shit including the one who has been using your name. Frankly I suspect some of these are fascists, mostly because their angle on what the left thinks are so odd it could only be constructed from that sort of angle. But these are easy to spot, a fake 'Brian Cahill' post stands out a long way from one you (or any other SP member) might actually write.

by iosaf - helping protestants and protesters the world over. Tue Jul 08, 2003 15:17

This line was entered into the following search engines this morning:

http://ungoogle.com
Http://google.com
http://ask.com
first results
http://www.harrison-e-livingstone.com/jfk/introduction.htm
http://archive.salon.com/news/news960723.html
www.endpage.com/Archives/Mirrors/Subversion/sub17_5.htm

the best was "ask.com" the Jeeves of meta search engines, it refers you to a essay which includes the contenshuz line:

"that vegetarians should 'stop bothering ordinary working class people who eat meat in the here and now'".

by - Tue Jul 08, 2003 15:22

on google.
good piece.
so Mr Dr Hon jolly goodchap Floody
you seem qualified to answer the question.

¿Did Orange men invent northern ireland?

by pat c Tue Jul 08, 2003 16:45

i thought brian cahill didnt exist! according to several people on indy and off indy he was someonr entirely different. opinions differed as tohis real identity.

i reckon it was the sp through a certain leading member active in the pseu who was behinfd the starting upof jibes about me being inactive.it started when i was arguing with the sp over themnot lobbying the ictu conference.

coincidence?

whatever about red 1913, red dawn 1917 recently attacked sf.

by TARA, Grand master William mcGrath and Kincora Wed Jul 09, 2003 00:13

Orange men don't represent all protestants only the privileged few hypocritic free mason bastards.

by Cleo Wed Jul 09, 2003 00:16

Grand master of the TARA lODGE William McGrath Kincora headmaster/child sex abuser was an orange man. It seems Hypocrites, perverts and uber capitalists hide behind their sashes.

by Kev - definatley in a personal capacity Wed Jul 09, 2003 05:16

first: "Hypocrites, perverts and uber capitalists hide behind their sashes." ... or their dog collars and virgin mary statues! - Sorry, but it had to be added.

So, on the parades issue. Well, personally i have no love for the OO in any shape, means or form. Bunch of sectarian triumpalists. However, much as we don't want it to be case, the fact is that many many northern protestants see such marches as being 'traditional'. Even my ma, (who's a shinner), accepts this. So the question is, as both Andrew and Henry say, what can we as people who want to cut across the religious/sectarian divide (and lets assume that everyone here does want that to happen) and push social([ist] if, like me, you are that way inclined) change onto the agenda? One thing's for sure - if we want this happen, shoving a sash or a tricolour in people's faces is *not* the way to achieve it.

On another thread someone suggested that the OO at least *talk* to the residents. Now this would be a good start. But unfortunatley it's unlikely to happen, at least without pressure from within. As for the chances of that, hmmm I'd say slim. But not impossible - sometimes people really do just want a quiet life, and sometimes capital does.

I think change, if it is to happen, will come from a) the unions and future fightbacks b) campaigns against blairite cutbacks c) the anti-war movement as so far built d) strangely enough, universities. ok, i don't know much about the demographics of 3rd level education in the north but i imagine there is a basis for united struggle against education cutbacks - and remember the youth are our future. e) possible future cross-community (did i just say that?) movements against sectaraian killings (like Jan 18th), altho i'd say that links back into point 'a'.

So maybe, next year we should organise an alternative party (strictly no tricolours or sashes) in the area? FNB, RtS? (altho the 'who's streets?' chants may have to go) Well at least, if nothing else, there'll be fuck all cops around so we can do whatever we want - as long as we clean up after ourselves ;-) Could have the tag :

Good Food, Tasty Beats & No Hassle
VS
(Lambeg) Drum VS Flute Music, No Trainers & DEFINATLEY No Dancing:

Where would you rather be?

Drumcree 2004

and have a little pic of G Dubya saying: "BRING IT ON!"
-------------
"The problem with the SP position is that it seems to accept the logic of the sectarians set-ups of the marches. The OO logic is that the contentious ones exist to 'prove' that 'Protestants' are under threat and need to stand up for their rights." - Andrew
-----------
Now I don't think we "accept the logic of the sectarians", rather i think that we look at how this logic reflects itself in society. Therefore if the sectarians in the OO, DUP, UUP etc, and their friends in the media consisently pound people with these fearsome images (and i have to say some of the rev ian's images scared even me), then it is logical to conclude that many of these people will believe what they are consistently told. As with america.

But like the american situation there are many who see through the bullshit, and in the case of the north, really who wants to be seen as playing sectarian games when there are possibilities to build unity? Even hardline republicans should see this - afterall isn't it a united ireland they want? well that means a united people too y'know. (Do i need to add that i believe that that can only happen on the basis of socialism?)

A quick note on the anonymous sp/sy posters. i'm with brian on this one, i think red 1913 is a troll, as for red 1917 i'm not sure, but probable member. and contrary to popular belief, the sp does not 'send' people 'out' to post on indyedia. whoever posts on indymedia does so in their own time. the one internet linked computer in the centre (an iMac which i have a personal grudge against) is virtually always in use for non-internet purposes. I know becuase I have to do the website from home as getting on that computer for long enough to update the site is impossible!

Also, in relation to other anon postings by 'suspected' sp members - personally speaking the reason i don't rebuke them on here is because i would rather find out who was posting them and talk to them. I'm sure as hell not gonna slag them off on indymedia tho. I can only assume other comrades rationale is similar.

finally back to the real issue at hand, maybe I'm worng here, but wasn't aul King Billy funded by Il Papa? Shouldn't everybody be celebrating? capital moves it's machevellian hands yet again. den den DEN

by pat c Wed Jul 09, 2003 11:23

King Billy was backed by the old Red Sox. A Te Deum was sung in the Vatican when news of Billys victory at the Boyne reached rome.

by Hal Silk Thu Jul 10, 2003 11:40

Just noticed a poster advertising the SP/SY summer school. A nice gel Helen Sell is attending from the 'Socialist Party England and Wales'.

If you believe in Self Determination for Wales why do you not even allow them have a seperate party?

by Andrew Thu Jul 10, 2003 13:30

On the 'Pope in alliance with King Billy' stuff. Quite true, his victory at the Boyne was celebrated with a mass in the Vatican. Details of this and other bits of forgotten history in the talk at http://struggle.ws/talks/king_billy.html