The Other Side of the Anti-EU Coin: Justin Barrett on Tour

by visitor Mon Jan 12, 2009 22:52

I read this thread more or less all the way through,and it was quite interesting of course.But I did wonder if it would have been better if the two sides of the argument had presumed that the other was in good faith, and criticised their ideas from that starting point.
As it was both sides were accusing the other, not for what they proposed so much as the associations they got in their own minds from that proposal. There were many accusations based on what the person could be suspected of being - always something else from what they claimed to be (even to the point of actual identity), and that took up a lot of the argument.
Whereas, a good way to understand,and even argue against, an opposing view to your own, is perhaps to take it at face value and presume that the proponent means no different from what they say, and even that they mean well but may be mistaken, have failed to foresee certain problems etc Of course this can occassionally mean being mistaken and missing the really villainous intention. I had the impresion here that both sides, though their views of how they wanted Ireland to be were very different, were more or less reasonable but could not imagine the same in the other side.
Avoiding aggravating expressions and sneering tones can also help to keep the mood calm, and help stick to the subject.
The conflict style of debate can be good, and healthy, of course , but another way to develop an argument, is for both sides to really want to find the most accurate outcome, whatever it may be, rather than winning, which doesnt alwasy help arrive at the best proposal.
All this is easier said than done of course
Thanks anyway for an interesting discussion.

by Emmet Goldstein - Airstrip Two Thu Apr 17, 2008 11:22

"he proceeds to give a detailed account of the meeting and the views and opinions expressed by the speakers"?

No... he... _doesn't_. He just doesn't, alright? Look - he says so himself:

"this reporter will not attempt to reproduce in any thorough fashion the content of McGeough, or indeed Barrett's, spoutings."

"I lack notes and quotes from the meeting"

Sorry if this makes me an objectivity facist.

Indymedia editorial board, Mr. Alois, get off the goddam high horse will you? If you want to print a diatribe against someone, it's a mostly free internet, so go ahead. But please don't BS us that this is an outstanding piece of citizen journalism. It's an extended rant - and that would be ok if you didn't try to justify it as something else... what exactly? I dunno, you were crawling all over the place in that introduction. We don't need to be told that people have subjective bias - we are reading and commenting on Indymedia aren't we? Don't try and officially tart up a personal bitching session with metaphysics.

And it is especially sanctimonious and just... crawling... the way we you have to try and justify even _mentioning_ the people involved; what is this, the Middle Ages? Are you afraid of demonic possession, the evil eye, or conjuring spirits by saying their names? Aren't we supposed to be responsible enough to think for ourselves, Mammy?

Christ on a bicycle, I had to work on actual blue-collar (that means "working class" to those of you studying Poli.Sci. in Trinity, roysh?) jobs listening to far stronger stuff than these guys pump out; it doesn't tick me off that people want to make fun of Jesus-freaks and blue-haired ladies, it ticks me off when these hipsters actually believe they are somehow immune to rank prejudice and bigotry, when really they are just looking for a PC acceptable candidate group - usually composing the conservative section of the great unwashed - to piss all over instead.

Oh, and this is a rant, even though I had the cojones to take notes.

by No Platform for facists Mon Apr 23, 2007 18:59

No Platform for Facists

by Jack Sun Apr 22, 2007 22:30

I have just read most of this thread - what a waste!
It must rate as one of the the most inane, pointless, self-centred pieces ever.
Alois' piece on the JB meeting adds absolutely nothing to our understanding of the man or his motives.
In fact, it tells us much more about AV. I don't care to know about AV.
So you don't like JB. Get over it.
If you disagree with him then ADDRESS THE ISSUES.
All this personalised crap is so shallow. I hope Indymedia is about more than this.

by Sean Sun Apr 22, 2007 20:59

He is anti EU? Is he out of his mind?, Sure dont we all know criticizeing or questioning the EU or the infallible demi gods that run it is heresy! Burn him at the stake!

by Doc Sat May 08, 2004 00:03

Now, seeing as we're onto culture, two more questions for you, Paul:
1. Define "Irish culture"?
2. You've already asserted that my two nieces are Irish. Let's not get into how come they are cos I really DON'T think you wanna go there again. My youngest niece is six weeks old. Exactly how much "Irish culture" d'you reckon she's assimilated so far?

by Doc Fri May 07, 2004 23:53

...and quit trying to throw a load of cultural sand in my eyes.

I don't need to corral you into anything, all I need to do is let the (il)logic of your own politics impale you on the horns of a nasty little dilemna. I just happen to have a family history that illustrates the point nicely. I asked a simple question "Am I Irish?" and you said yes. Maybe you copped it too late, but then "Come into my parlour..."

Summary:

Option 1: Doc is Irish cos of place of birth. Uh-oh, Paul can't go there (a) cos Doc doesn't qualify and (b) cos Paul would have to support citizenship and residency for immigrants and we can't be havin' that.

Option 2: Doc is Irish cos of parentage. Uh-oh, Paul can't go there cos he doesn't want to look like a pure-breeding racist Nazi fuck. Can't say I blame him. Plus which, Justin wouldn't thank him for it.

Option 3: Doc is English cos he was born there. Uh-oh, Paul doesn't want to go there cos that'll just bring him back to Doh Reh Me and Option 1.

Option 4: Doc is English cos he was born there but his folks aren't cos they weren't. Bit of a stretch but at least it keeps open the possibility of just deporting the immigrant parents of kids born here. Uh-oh, Paul can't go there cos that'd make him look like he's in favour of breaking up families and that wouldn't go down well with the lads and lassies in Family Solidarity.

Option 5: Doc is Irish, English or possibly even Australian for any one of several reasons including the fucking FIFA granny rule (which is equally as relevant as any other criterion) but it's a tough one to call so he can make up his own bloody mind on it. Uh-oh, Paul can't go there (a) cos that'd mean your nationality is no more important than picking what shirt to wear in the morning and (b) cos my nationality would then be just what I decide it to be which sounds like something that that the Queen of Hearts in "Alice in Wonderland" would say. Getting warm...

Option 6: Doc is simply a mongrel and no-one can figure out what nationality, if any, he is. Uh-oh, Paul can't go there cos (a) that'll bring us back to Fa Soh La and Option 2 and (b) cos Doc and everyone else on the planet has to be some bloody nationality otherwise...uh-oh. Getting hot...

Option 7: The whole notion of nationality is completely undefinable and no matter how tightly you try to box it in neatly, there's always some fucker like Doc with his awkward family history that doesn't fit the definition who'll come along and point out the holes in the theory. Uh-oh, Paul especially can't go there because without a concept of nationality to underpin it, the whole rotten edifice of nationalism comes crumbling down. Jackpot.

No wonder you started blathering about culture, Paul, you're in deep shit here.

by Paul Hughes Fri May 07, 2004 06:03

To quote doc:

"Leave culture out of it for the time being - like sport, it's a deflection from the current issue. We can come back to it later though."

I resent that remark. Culture has everything to do with it.

I know well you are trying to corral me into a "being Irish is White and Aryan situation." Thats a load of crap, and typical of you liberals. Colour of skin is not an issue. True Irish people (that is in the pre-1960s, non-cosmopolitan Ireland) bore a common culture which was Catholic and Gaelic. Pre-1960 Ireland is often smirked at it for its simple rurality and innocence; and viciously attacked by those with a grudge against the Church.

When modernisation began in Ireland, two roads lay before the Irish - one a sane approach to moderate between modernisation and cultural traditionalism, and the other (which was eventually taken) led Ireland towards rampant liberalism and the European monoculture.

MY definition of Irishness, doc, is that small (and unrealised) layer in between. It is, as G.K. Chesterton said, "the outline of sanity." My definition of pure Irishness is one of common descent, cultural and religious values. Ireland for me will always be, first and foremost, a Catholic and Gaelic nation. Sure there are Protestants and Anglo-Irish who have assimilated, and claim Irish nationality. That is fair enough - but for me this never budges the unchanging truth that Ireland is, first and foremost, Catholic and Gaelic. The same way I consider Egyptian culture to be Muslim and Arabic, not the Americanised secular scrapheap which currently exists.

But now, I am living in an Ireland where we are being asked to give carte blanche to immigrants for entry into Ireland; immigrants who do not care about Irishness, our past, or indeed our future. Whats more, our indigenous culture (which, as I have stated, is undeniably Catholic and Gaelic) is being put on par with that of minorities. In fact, the high degree of political correctness puts my indigenous culture, and the indigenous culture of millions of other native Irish people (i.e. those who can claim descent in this country for generations), is being chopped up and thrown into a monocultural pot. I stress that this is not MULTIculturalism, but MONOculturalism. Our indigenous culture, and the cultures of the minorities entering this country, are cancelling each other out. By introducing Africans, Asians and others into Ireland we are being forced to cancel out our way of life, or that which existed before the 1970s; while immigrants are not even encouraged to assimilate. Simultaneously, those Africans and Asians are doing damage to their own cultural identity by abandoning their homelands. I am sure there are many in Nigeria who wouldn't want us turning up in Lagos en masse looking for benefits. I am also sure that local tribal leaders would be upset if I tried to impose an Irish jig on their style of dance.

Meanwhile, there are those "Irish" people like Alois Vincenzo (pseudonym), who can probably claim Irish descent for generations, but suddenly turn on Irishness while stoned on some materialistic, anti-Christian ideology. Such an ideology, while claiming to be MULTIcultural, only contributes to the creation of an Americanesque MONOculture. In essence, these folks are stabbing Ireland's cultural and political sovereignty to death. The Irish language and our indigenous culture bears a strong link with Catholicism. Therefore they are compelled to attack all three, and deny their Irishness - after all, nationality matters little when you view history and the world as a struggle between economic classes.

I am no prude. I do not want Ireland to return to poverty, famine, and neither do I want anyone to live in fear. But a vital chance to strike a sane medium between traditional and modern Ireland was missed in the 1960s and 1970s. Subsequently our country has embarked on so much rampant liberalism and cultural reinvention (at the behest of Brussels) that it is almost impossible to define Irishness anymore without being hounded by the media, or journalistically assassinated by left-wing nutters like Alois Vincenzo.

So there you have it. My definition of Irishness is stuck in the mud, outdated, dead. But I'm proud of the culture upheld by Pearse, Collins and others, people Alois Vincenzo would have you believe were "bourgeois, authoritarian gimps." Because they died for an Ireland they viewed as Catholic and Gaelic, Red Alois automatically minimalises their contribution to Irish freedom, as opposed to say, Connolly. Had Connolly (who nevertheless died bravely in 1916) got his hands on Ireland, we would have joined the community of nations known as the Comintern.

The new definition of Irishness, Doc, is to laugh, mock and deny it. Next, it will be to legislate against it - and all to suit political correctness, so that "no-one will feel left out." Anyone who believes otherwise is a racist.
But who ARE the true racists? Those people who claim that the MONOculture is the healthiest way forward for society, or those who seek to defend each individual culture as something to be cherished and protected? The answer, of course, is the former, as under their vision, any defence of nationality or independent culture is quickly suppressed, whether through the media or P.C. legislation. It is institutional disregard for those of Irish descent in the interest of the monoculture. It is institutional suppression of Catholic values, the language and other cultural nuances. It is also exactly how the foundations for the Spanish Civil War were laid long before 1936.

None of us care much for the party system or the European Union, but nevertheless Irish politics looks set to become polarised to the extreme in the next fifty years. It is a clash of worldviews which is unavoidable.

by Doc Fri May 07, 2004 02:23

Leave culture out of it for the time being - like sport, it's a deflection from the current issue. We can come back to it later though.

by Doc Fri May 07, 2004 02:17

Paul, you say all of us are Irish, but still haven't defined what "Irish" is in your eyes.

It certainly can't be on the basis of place of birth, because (a) as I pointed out, most of us weren't born in Ireland and (b) you'd then have to accept that anyone born in Ireland is Irish and therefore entitled to live here. And by extension, on account of the family being the "natural unit of society" and all that, then their parents are entitled to live here too, even if they came here from other countries.

Therefore it's reasonable to assume that you say we're all Irish on the basis of having Irish parents, who had Irish parents before them, etc, etc. But if that's the case, you're basically defining as Irish anyone who has "pure" Irish blood. Does that ring any bells? You're heading into Aryan territory there.

So, Paul, which is it to be? Define "Irish".

by The Voice of Reason Wed May 05, 2004 23:28

Thank you for responding in such a thorough , well thought out manner, Doc :-D
I must have lost my sense of humour, what exactly did you find funny about it? Perhaps you just smoked too much pot while listening to your Marley records, huh? ;-)

BTW, I didn't understand your comment about my "second word of advice". What did you mean?

Your question might have made sense if I had originally written - "My FIRST word of advice...."

What I wrote was - "My ONE word of advice", as in the figure of speech.

Sorry, if I made things too complicated. Hehehe!

Peace out, maaaaan!

by Paul Hughes Wed May 05, 2004 23:00

Yes, Doc, you are all Irish. Vladislav from Warsaw and Moses from Lagos, meanwhile, aren't. It's a big difference.

Having said that, Vladislav's culture and that of Moses and any other Nigerians, Romanians etc. are all beautiful, and should be preserved. Indeed if I moved to Warsaw or Lagos in the morning and took up one of their jobs, I could see why the people of Poland or Nigeria would want me out.

There is nothing wrong with "multiculturalism." If all cultures could survive while lumped into the same countries, we wouldn't have civil wars, race riots and mass genocide. But it is not multiculturalism which is the issue here. It is the false monoculturalism espoused by Alois and his ilk which is unhealthy and destructive. The monoculture which immediately follows the multiculture destroys indigenous languages, religion, music, art, literature et cetera, and replaces it with a rootless mass such as that in the United States. Meanwhile, legislation protecting minorities in this crazy P.C. world subsequently eliminates the political rights of the indigenous majority.

But people on the left (and indeed the centre) here don't seem to care about that. They have their own silly ideas of enslavement jumping round in their skulls.

by Doc Wed May 05, 2004 19:13

OK so Paul, i admit I was wilfully facetious with the second question. The first one still stands though - am I Irish? Are my nieces? I'm curious to see how you define "Irishness"

by Paul Hughes Wed May 05, 2004 16:04

Sport, Doc, is the opiate of the masses, not religion as some would have you believe.

You should read Juvenal's 'Satires' from ancient Rome, especially the "bread and circuses" bit. It will show you just how little sport matters, but how it is made a convenient weapon to deflect public attention from serious issues.

Like you have just attempted.

by John Wed May 05, 2004 10:17

Presuming that the same rules apply as for the GAA generally,

yopur nieces can play for a) county of their residence b) county of their birth

by Doc Wed May 05, 2004 02:45

My paternal grandparents emigrated from Belfast to Australia, where my da was born. My granda and da subsequently immigrated to Belfast. My maternal grandparents stayed put in Cork, where my mum was born. My da emigrated from Belfast to London and my mum emigrated from Cork to London, where my brother and I were born. The whole lot of us immigrated to Belfast and then immigrated to Dublin. Just to keep the diaspora ticking over, my brother emigrated from Dublin to Guildford where my two nieces were born.

1. Am I Irish?
2. Are my nieces entitled to play camogie and if so, for which county?

by Doc Wed May 05, 2004 02:00

And your second word of advice is...? :o)

Free speech is great. Free speech with added comedy value thrown in is unbeatable.

by The Voice of Reason Tue May 04, 2004 22:04

I think Justin Barrett is a man of tremendous courage. He could have simply been apathetic and allow the forces of Internationalism and Socialism to continue unopposed, but instead this man decided to fight for his beliefs. What's so wrong with that? Perhaps that everyone is entitled to their beliefs ...unless it is in conflict with the whole liberal mindset.

He seems to be advocating that he wants Ireland for the Irish. Seems like common sense to me, what is the argument against? He wants a return to traditional values? Is that so evil? He wants to halt the decline of the Church and re-affirm it as a bulwark of morality and promoter of traditional identity. Objections? In fact as far as I can see, he simply wants to preserve Ireland, the Irish and Irish culture.

Instead he is demonised (in typical puerile left-wing fashion) as some sort of goose-stepping bigot.
Well if that is a bigot, then by God (sorry, I mean Marx) I'm a bigot.

To be honest, labels don't really bother me. A word is a word, you can assign any negative connotation you like to it, it is meaningless.

So let me ask the ever-so-tolerant Leftists - Are people entitled to the right to live in a country with their own co-religionists, with their people from their own ethnic group? Or is that something they are not entitled to?

You know some people have advocated buying some island somewhere in order to live as they please. But it's pointless isn't it. Because we all know that the Multi-Culturists cannot abide that. They would pursue them, everyone MUST adhere to and believe in their "enlightened and tolerant" dogma.
No dissent can be toleranted in such a tolerant ideology, eh?

Oh, and a correction.
Encouraging immigration is NOT promoting MULTI-Culturalism. Nationalism is what would uphold that (ie everyone proud of their heritage and striving to maintain it). The mixing of peoples and cultures will result in one uniform MONO-Culture. I want no part of that, will you tolerate my desire? Not a chance!

As an ex-Communist, I know how difficult it is to break out of that whole Left-Wing / Liberal mindset. It is really just mass brainwashing and young people are particulary susceptible (hence they are so active in colleges, universities,etc).
Fortunately, a large number of people simply get wise to it and outgrow it.

The danger comes from those who don't, and the authorities which promote it. The biggest revelation is when you realise that the "Revolutionaries" are the biggest dupes of the establishment there is.

Anyway, I've either just preached to the converted or my words have fell on deaf ears.
My one word of advice is this -

"Think for yourself. Don't repeat red mantras and cliches. Forget class-war. It's a forgery. Forget the proles and the burgeouis. It's an illusion. You are a product of your people, your culture, your history. That actually means something. Have some respect for yourself and your nation"

Good luck to Justin Barrett. Let no intimidation deter his valiant efforts.

by Martin Coleman Tue May 04, 2004 11:32

Don't make me laugh. What about liberal fundamentalism? You know, that "everybody's free to be free" malarkey which goes to such pains to make everyone feel included, that indigenous rights and beliefs are cancelled out?
That's what I'm seeing here. Liberal fundamentalism. A view of the world which allows even the most vile of practices (like abortion) some breathing space. Everyone's beliefs, no matter how weird, are valid.

Funnily enough, that is, everything EXCEPT the Catholic nationalist viewpoint. Your claims on upholding freedom of speech are thus falsified. Ireland's Catholicism and nationalism up to the 1960s was so trusting of freedom of speech that it allowed Reds like you to have your say. But instead of respecting that freedom of speech, you have turned it into an assault on Ireland's traditional values. EVERYTHING ELSE gets a fair hearing, except the religious and the nationalist.

Free speech is something easily discarded when it does not conform to a liberal agenda, or appears as "fascist". This, my friends, is where libertarianism turns into subtle oppression of religion, and where civil wars start.

But Paul Hughes is right when he says there is no point in talking to you. It is, at the end of the day, your common (though undeclared) dream to see all manner of religion and ethnic separation destroyed.

by pat c Tue Apr 27, 2004 19:25

Barrett to run for Europe on anti-immigration platform
By Simon Carswell

Anti-EU campaigner Justin Barrett will this week announce that he is to run as an independent candidate for the European elections in the East constituency on an anti-immigration platform.

In his election leaflet, obtained by The Sunday Business Post, Barrett demands that "all illegal immigrants be sent home'' and that "Irish people are given priority in all new jobs''.

He also demands the end of "the abuses of our social services by bogus asylum seekers'' and that Irish jobs be protected "by restricting mass immigration from new EU states''.

"It's clear to everyone that we have a serious problem with immigration,'' he states in the leaflet.

"Irish people can't get jobs but Mary Harney insists on giving work permits
to non-nationals who will work for less money. We must demand that this
discrimination against Irish people stops.

"Non-nationals in Ireland are putting a huge strain on our social services
and maternity hospitals. The government is spending well over a quarter
of a billion euros every year on, mostly false, asylum seekers. But many
Irish people can't afford houses or access to health services.''

Aisling Reidy, director of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, said Barrett's
manifesto was "riddled with inaccuracies'' and sought to "criminalise the
immigrant community''.

"Clearly this is feeding racism. This language, which scapegoats the immigrant
community, will raise racial tensions before the election.''
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

by R. Isible Tue Apr 27, 2004 19:07

by J.R.R. Tolkein who was a committed and steadfast Christian all his life. Funnily enough that's when Lewis started churning out the Xian propaganda in the Narnia Chronicles and the Screwtape Letters. All the zeal of the convert etc.

by alois vincenzo Tue Apr 27, 2004 18:56

..seedot, I think I see where you're coming from. It's certainly a difficult issue to deal with, the 'enemy of my enemy' business.

Ok now I'm gone bye!

by seedot Sun Apr 25, 2004 02:32

But we need to be aware 'well in advance' what these people are like. Enemy of my enemy is sometimes just a mad scary bastard.

In a group I am involved with (DAPSE) which has discussed tactics, there was a suggestion at a meeting that a 'democracy' angle allowed the creation of a common front - with Coughlan, not Barrett, but veering towards this. This is bullshit, was rejected the group and carries all sorts of dangers.

Nice II shows the dangers of being associated politically with people like Paul Hughes. This thread shows how far from any concept of democracy I could recognise these people are, and the underlying fundamentalism that is quite dangerous.

Sorry if my point was lost. Great article originally.

PS - Paul, I seem to remember CS Lewis converted later in life - or was he already damned by then?

by Paul Hughes Sat Apr 24, 2004 19:45

You're right, Alois. I do have too much study to do, and it's coming up to an important time in college.

"I want nothing resembling a common platform with them, and I am worried by any suggestion that seems to point to anything resembling this. We should always fight these people, regardless of whether or not is convenient to what broader campaigns we are engaged in." Well, "Alois", I'm sure Irish politics over the next one-hundred years will deliver the results of that little "fight" you just proposed.

I rest my case. You are anti-Catholic, anti-Irish, probably pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia, and politically we will never be reconciled. Indeed on a website where I am surrounded by libertarians, Marxists and anarchists, I feel like my contribution here is one big waste of time - preaching to those who will never open their eyes or ears.

And pseudonyms? "C.S. Lewis" was openly atheist. Why his contemporary Tolkien, a devout Catholic and English patriot, never found the need to hide his identity, is a question worth asking.

by alois vincenzo Sat Apr 24, 2004 19:24

I'm obviously dealing with people who have a lot of time on their hands. Jaysus, 'Paul', as a final year arts student, you'd think you'd be getting a bit of study in; your finals must be starting within the next, what, week, two weeks?

Here are responses to some of your comments, and to some of seedot's.

''In response:
1. Personal attacks - while I tried to get to the bottom of your politics, did I resort to calling you "a hick arts student" or something similar?''

I'm sorry if I hurt you with the 'h' word, 'Paul', I didn't mean it as a scathing insult. It simply seemed like a good informal way to describe your intensley parochial, insular and backward-looking mindset. You seem to like your dictionary definitions, so here's an excerpt that I think proves my choice of words fit the bill:
(from Dictionary.com, on 'hick')
'Provincial; unsophisticated', 'awkwardly simple and provincial'.
For someone who shrouds themselves in outmoded notions of the sacred marriage of Irish nationalism and religion (now so redundant that even the establishment forces that cultivated the bond have largely relinquished them), and who cannot distinguish between liberal, libertarian and authoritarian leftist voices, I think the hick label is a kind one.

''2. Why do you take the piss out of Michael Collins - or, use the phrase "Michael Collins memorabilia in a disparaging and ignorant way? You may remember he died, in defence of Ireland, at the age of 31 - what will you have accomplished for your country when you reach that age?''

That quip was not directed at Michael Collins so much as at the practice of young whelps latching onto historical figures who seem like robust, manly manifestations of what they would like to be. I'm not into hero worship, especially of dubious proto-blueshirts like Collins. I find something unsettling about it. The Che Guevara infatuation is similar. Ironically you played that card already with regard to the ''extreme left-wing'' Sinn Fein, in your ignorance thinking it would hold water as a jibe against the average Indymedia user. See my above reference to your inability to distinguish between voices of dissent at radical variance to one another.
Here are some of your comments which led me to make the Collins jibe.
''I ask you all - put yourselves in Michael Collins' shoes, or Padraig Pearce's. What would they have thought about EU integration, mass immigration from Asia and Africa, abortion, or the acceptance of some form of watered-down socialist bureaucracy? Not a lot... in fact, I think they would be more vocal than Justin Barrett could ever be.

But then again, they died young, victims of persons and institutions who thought their vision of Ireland was, for a better word, unsuitable. And with the EU becoming more bureaucratic and dictatorial every day, who knows how many more TRUE nationalists will be chased into an early grave?''
I couldn't care less what those bourgeois, authoritarian gimps would have thought about EU integration. You might think that is indicative of my supposed contempt for republicanism, but I think that would be disproved if any lefty republicans, the only republicans who can truly lay claim to revolutionary credentials, were to make their voices heard at this point. There are plenty of republicans who have, to dip into your phrasiology for a moment, ''died for their country'', who would spit on the likes of Pearse and Collins, seeing their brand of republicanism for what it always was, a narrow Little Irelander drive that would never seek to challenge patterns of inequality and domination beyond replacing a foreign ruling class with a native one.

''3. "I have no intention to get drawn into a defence of my politics..."
Yet, your article is a word-for-word politicised rant against some who do not conform to your particular world view. And don't try and play the impartial card - everyone has a world view, and only one crept into your article. It was about as impartial as Fox News is "fair and balanced." ''

At this point I would echo the Indymedia editorial intro that was added to my article. I would agree that no journalism can be truly impartial, which is why I faced up to this by admitting from the start that I am opposed to Barrett. To make things even more above board, I made it quite clear where I stand on the radical political spectrum, albeit roughly. I then proceeded to try and represent the meeting in the most accurate and readable way I could. I had little interest in turning the article into a piece of propaganda; this should not be construed as being based on lofty principles, but rather on commom sense and practicality. As the majority of Indymedia users would be very opposed to Barrett and his politics, publishing anti-Barrett propaganda there would effectively mean preaching to the converted. Given this reality, it would be far more useful to submit an honest appraisal of the meeting, and so give a snapshot of what Barrett was at.
My article was intended as a piece of honest journalism, imbued with my own opinions and stanpoints. Of course it was politicised. How you can see it as a ''rant'' is beyond me. I think I was very fair to Barrett.

''4. "I am of a libertarian persuasion. If you had even a superficial grasp of radical politics you would have picked up on this. But you didn't, choosing instead to warn that this kind of journalism and this kind of thinking represented a one-way ticket to some kind of totalitarian neo-Bolshevik nightmare."
I live my life not by some totalitarian Fascist creed - as you type of people contest, someone with any shred of religious or nationalist views is an automatic Nazi. Ah, the age-old Nazi jibe - although hilariously, your type forget that 90% of the Nazi party were paid-up occultists and Freemasons.
I like my country. I like being Irish. I like being a Catholic. I am simply concerned that your blissful "libertarian" ideals are so obsessed with accommodating everybody in some flower-power, Utopian paradise, that religious and national rights suddenly become dangerous. Religion and nationality are diametrically opposed to Marxism - a clash is inevitable, and in such a libertarian "Utopia", they are not permitted to survive. So where is the tolerance? In the Soviet Union, the obsessive struggle for diversity and a perfect society, which was the original vision of Marx, naturally progressed (or degenerated) into an oppressive bureaucracy. Multiculturalism, religious unity and the Marxist ideal must all sound fantastic to those who hate religion, are uncomfortable with their nationality, and are generally afraid of moral order. On your libertarian planet, the multiculture cancels out the culture, religious unity systematically destroys each individual religion. Likewise Ireland, as anything more than Irish, is cancelled out. It becomes a dot on the map.''

You completely missed my point on this one. Despite my efforts, you continually fail to distinguish between very different radical political philosophies. You interchange freely between references to Marxist and Libertarian thought and practise. Even if the ultimate vision of Marxism is arguably akin to libertarian ideals, the prescribed means by which this vision should be achieved are decidedly not libertarian, at least in terms of how Marxist theory is traditionally interpreted. In any case, the Bolshevik project that was carried out in the Soviet Union had very little to do with Marxism. Marxist theory was effectively dropped by Lenin and the rest of the party as official policy once power had been attained. With this in mind, asserting that ‘In the Soviet Union, the obsessive struggle for diversity and a perfect society… naturally progressed (or degenerated) into an oppressive bureaucracy’’ is, quite frankly, hilarious. It may have been what Marx had in mind, but to say that Lenin and his minions were engaged in an obsessive struggle for diversity is off the wall.

''Now we both oppose the European Union, but you fail to see it from my point of view. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would guess that you view the European Union as a coven of elites trying to centre people power in the hands of a few. And you would be totally right. But take it from my point of view. Neither God or the Irish language are mentioned in the Constitution. Irish culture becomes subject to European directives - our smoking ban, believe it or not, is an indirect result of this. From May 1, we open our doors to 75 million Eastern Europeans. Now here is where the "racist" jibe always bugs me. From a purely economic view, this is a disaster for Ireland. I believe (and I hope) that each and every one of those 75 million eastern Europeans are beautiful, peaceful and friendly people. A lot of them are Eastern Orthodox, or of other faiths, but I do not hate them. They are Slavs, Poles, Czechs, Magyars, but I do not hate them. In fact, I love them for being Slavs, Poles and Magyars. Such people have wonderful cities like Budapest, Prague, Warsaw and Riga. Like the Irish - they have Dublin.
Because I want them to stay there, does not mean I am racist. In doing so I hope to protect their fragile cultures, raped and disregarded for years by Marxism. But primarily, I hope to uphold and protect Ireland's culture. Apart from the economic consequences of the E.U. dumping its asylum problems on us, the cultural effects are far reaching. While Irish people struggle to get hospital beds, our government provide asylum seekers with mobile phones, motor grants, housing and a free vote. What happens our fragile language, when large eastern European, African or Asian minorities are permitted to vote it out of existence? Naturally, they do not want their children learning Irish. They are not Irish. If I was seeking asylum in Warsaw, I wouldn't want Polish on my child's curriculum. But having said that, I'm not going to Poland.
Defending Irish culture and other cultures in their separate dynamism is NOT RACISM. Seeking to avoid a cultural mess where people cannot distinguish Irish from Polish or Polish from Irish is NOT RACISM. It is the height of sanity.''
Read the article. I wrote that there was little explicit evidence of deep racism in Barrett's pronouncements. I imagine he probably does hold racist standpoints, but as they were not on show at the meeting as far as I could see, I didn't make any up.
Here's what I said:
''Proceeding on at length about the threat to the nation-state encapsulated in proposals for the Constitution, Barrett stopped short of making inflammatory references to the host of Eastern European peoples set to accede to the rank of second-class EU citizenship on May 1st. What reference he did make to these peoples fell more, if anything, on the side of mild sympathy. In fact, there was little evidence on display at the meeting of deep or pathological xenophobia toward the accession countries.''
Nonetheless, racist tags aside, I detest the idea you hold so dear that peoples or nations should keep to their own. Cultural identity is not something set in stone, but something that changes and shifts with the sands of time. Attempts to restrict this natural process with rigid borders, flags, political institutions and other social constructs are naive at best. Do you think that God forged the 'Irish people' as one unified cultural whole and then bestowed upon them this island as their promised land, for them and them alone to enjoy? What infantile tripe.



''Unfortunately, your type continue to paint it with the racist brush. And while you do, Brussels sits back in glee. While they annex military, economic and political institutions, they watch happily as you people tear shreds out of separate indigenous cultures. You are doing the work of "cultural globalisation." You are, therefore, the European Union's star pupils. Given a couple of years, you should mellow with age, and become the Union's star policy-makers. After all, I'm sure Romano Prodi had his wild student protest days... ''
It's very true that radicals of the deepest integrity often become politically emasculated once they enter the corridors of power, and change their tune entirely so as not to rock the boat of the political establishment. Here's a quote I like from reknowned Anarchist thinker Michael Bakunin on the phenomenon, from Volume II of his 1907 'Oeuvres':
''Whoever talks of political power talks of domination; but where domination exists there is inevitably a somewhat large section of society that is dominated, and those who are dominated quite naturally detest their dominators, while the dominators have no choice but to subdue and oppress those they dominate.
This is the eternal history of political power, ever since that power has appeared in the world. This is what also explains why and how the most extreme of democrats, the most raging rebels, become the most cautious of conservatives as soon as they attain to power.''
I think it's a pretty safe bet neither I nor any significant number of my libertarian comrades involved in struggles against the EU or on other fronts (a minority of whom are students) will ever sell out to the political establishment. An understanding of the pitfalls of working inside the establishment and the illusion of parliamentary democracy is basic to any commitment to libertarian ideals.
''5. "Ultra right-wing politics... the malign force that they are."
You make labels. I don't see myself as ultra right-wing, far-right, or anything else cooked up by the media. If that's what you want to call me, fine. But at the same time, I see you as dangerously far-left.’’

I try to avoid labels myself. Often I use them, however, as terms of convenience when I consider it appropriate. That's nice that you don’t see yourself as ultra right-wing or far-right, but the article wasn’t about you (if you really are Paul Hughes), it was about Barrett, who openly admits to being a right-winger. After someone has made that leap, I feel pretty comfortable adding prefixes such as ‘ultra’ if that someone is clearly on the extreme end of that part of the political spectrum they identify with.
‘’But hey, it's kinda cool to be ultra-left - after all, you do have the international media on your bandwagon.''
If you think that there is an international media bias in favour of those involved in radical politics, you clearly must be living in a paranoid fantasy world, or else know well this is untrue and are merely being disingenuous in the extreme.
Have you seen any of the mainstream Irish media coverage of preparations for EU protests around Mayday? Are you so deeply burrowed into your paranoia of the ‘left’ that you cannot acknowledge the systematic programme of demonisation being waged by the media against dissenting voices, under the attentive direction of forces within the political establishment and the state apparatus? Much of the lies and slander being propagated by the media has been recorded on Indymedia. I suggest you examine it.
Such slavish adherence by the corporate media to state and big-business interests is typical of the mainstream media beyond the Irish context.

‘’As I also explained, I am not racist, but that is a convenient label for people who try to stand up for their indigenous culture. In the same way, the media love to daub all those who oppose the state of Israel and the criminal persecution of the Palestinian people as anti-Semites or Jew haters. In that case, given modern Red/libertarian criticism of Israeli policies, I would take care that you and your ilk aren't tarred with the same brush.
6. "I arrived at the talk venue fearing raised eyebrows at what I supposed might seem my lefty youth appearance; unshaven and bedraggled..."
They say people with beards have something to hide! But why the pseudonym, Mr. Vincenzo? Have you something to hide? My name is Paul Hughes, and I don't really care what "lefty youth" cares to castigate me for my beliefs. ‘’

No beard, some stubble occasionally though, if I don’t get a chance to shave. Is that ok?
Nothing to hide, no. I believe ‘Enid Blyton’ and ‘C.S. Lewis’ were pseudonyms too. Did they have something to hide, in your book?


‘The "Alois Vincenzo" Manifesto
by Paul Hughes Friday, Apr 23 2004, 2:06am

Top ten words of wisdom on various topics...

1. The importance of history:
"Maybe it is you who should put away your collection of Michael Collins memorabilia and learn something about Ireland, and about the world." ‘
Damn right. The point of history is as a resource to learn from the past, so you can better understand the present, and work towards a more promising future. It is not about nestling in soft-focus imagery of supposed past ideals. This is called escapism.

’’2. The importance of the Irish language:
"After taking my seat and my Justin propaganda (including a touching paean to the Irish language and its criminal neglect in the pantheon of official operational EU languages)..."
(How sarcastic.) ‘’
I like the Irish language. I think it’s kind of funny, though, that in the face of the sheer volume of evil neoliberal ends being worked towards in the form of an EU constitution, some people have picked up on the Irish language issue of as the sticking point. I think that Irish language activists should perhaps concentrate on bread-and-butter issues such as assisting existing fragile and underprivileged Gaelic-speaking communities in their struggles to avoid extinction and exploitation, rather than worrying about the new EU constitution’s threats to the language. It’s also a case of, ‘let’s look at the bigger picture here, people!’


’’3. Respect for one's elders:
"I experienced the room slowly fill up around me, largely with the kind of aged misfits that fall prey to fringe ultra-conservative political practicioners."
(Everybody! Ageist! He's an ageist! Try him for ageism, quick! Label! Label!) ‘’
I responded to similar allegations in a comment shortly after the article was published. Scroll up and you’ll find it.
’’4. Political diversity, freedom of speech and debate:
"Once I knew where I was headed, I corrected the apologetic air I had adopted for the benefit of the porter and got into character, ready to size up Barrett's set-up and evaluate my prospects for the evening: whether to make a scene, to politely challenge Barrett over Q & A ,or to keep my gob shut."
This, after the article's introduction laughably claimed: "No reporter is completely objective in their writing and this particular reporter clarifies his subjectiveness by clearly stating from the outset his perspective and reason for being there. Nevertheless, he proceeds to give a detailed account of the meeting and the views and opinions expressed by the speakers. Regular readers may not like the content of the article. They may prefer that Mr. Barrett did not get any publicity for his views (on Indymedia or other media) but this article still qualifies as a fine piece of original reporting. Indymedia as a quality source of original news depends on the willingness of people to do the same." ‘’
I endangered Barrett’s freedom of speech, how..?

''Indymedia of the Welcomes
by seedot - - sometime editor Friday, Apr 23 2004, 11:18am

Hi Paul
Good to have your input on Indymedia - i think it makes this resource much more valuable if there is a wide range of inputs. I also think it is good that as another EU debate looms, both sides of the No campaign interact with each other well in advance here, rather than fight it out in public during the campaign.
For this reason I wouldn't echo alois' comments re. right wing lurkers - you have as much right as anyone else to be here and generally your presence will add to the quality of info available here. In this helpful tone, can I point out 2 problems with your post above: ‘’

Thanks for that, seedot. If you’d taken the time to read the comment of mine being referred to you would see it was not directed at the likes of Paul Hughes, i.e. someone who’s openly a conservative and a right-winger, but at a comment contributor who purported to be some kind of lefty who found fault only with the low writing standard of my article. Those kind of contributors, a different breed from Paul Hughes and his ilk, are in my opinion a scourge on Indymedia, and I’m sick of them.

I also must say that I am alarmed you seem to advocate 'interaction' between anti-EU right-wingers such as Barrett's crew and leftists and libertarians opposed to the EU, as if we can reach some kind of consensus or common ground so as to avoid airing our dirty laundry in public. I find it alarming because I don't want anything to do with those people on a political level, ever. I see relations between my camp and their's as being a disturbing sideshow to libertarian struggles against the EU, neoliberalism and the powers that be. Nothing more. I want nothing resembling a common platform with them, and I am worried by any suggestion that seems to point to anything resembling this. We should always fight these people, regardless of whether or not is convenient to what broader campaigns we are engaged in.

And now I will take leave of this thread. I published the article over a month ago, and am not entirely happy I let myself get dragged back into time-consuming and possibly not very worthwhile debate arising from it. The time for all that was a month ago. I have wasted enough time, energy and money in internet cafes on this. I am a busy man, involved in fighting real struggles in the real world. Unlike 'Paul Hughes' I do not have time on my hands. Goodbye.

by Paul Hughes Sat Apr 24, 2004 05:30

1. As you know, "insults" are the lowest form of debate. I do not wish to stoop to that. Alois, however, may say that as a "Libertarian" he is opposed to Lenin and the Soviet Union. However, for me, an ideology or a world view which depicts man as a being composed solely of Matter, with the spiritual side ignored and oppressed (i.e. a materialistic world view) RESULTS in the chaos and bureaucracy of the Soviet Union.

2. No, your parents should not have been given the vote in England - no more than Scots should be voting on the future of the English, or the Welsh voting on the future of the people of Belfast and Derry.
But then again, Britain is so saturated with both legal and illegal immigrants that the very word 'culture' is ceasing to exist. The situation is out of control.
As regards Irish (and other migrants) to the New World, I think that defenders of immigration would do well not to uphold America as a good example of cultural dynamism. To be frank, I want to live in an Ireland where Irish language and culture endures, and not replaced by some fake McDisney hellhole.
As regards government grants, I think it is a waste of time discussing them when our government is about to open its doors on May 1, in a convenient EU coup to solve their asylum problems. And what about Irish emigrants abroad, many of whom have fallen on hard times? What is being done to help them out? It seems sufficient to look after our legal and illegal immigrants first, save being slapped on the wrist by the P.C. brigade and the liberal media.

3. "Is your religion a welcoming one Paul? Does your faith, which seems to be strongly held, encompass the same ground that say Ciaron O'Reilly's or Sean Healy's or Sister Stans does? I don't practice the religion I was born into and haven't passed it on to my children - but it was a much more welcoming one than yours seems to be. "

Religion CEASES to be a religion when arrogant know-alls either reject it, or soften it up to suit their own gutlessness. The truth is people who reject religion fear judgment and fear authority. For instance, people who abort children and assist suicide reject religion because it makes them feel better about their actions.
My religion is something handed down by God, and is not for post-Enlightenment man to twist and alter any way he likes. Altered religion, like the one you have (or have not) passed onto your children, is subject to human impulses and desires - therefore the spiritual aspect is immediately removed. There is no religion "more welcoming" than mine seems to be - for ANY religion tweaked and rehashed to suit some comfortable little world view is false and heretical. If you tinker with the will of the Divine to suit your own comforts, you reject God.
Now Alois made quite clear his views on the Catholic religion when he sneered at Gerry McGeough for his "rosary bead" nationalism. As a Catholic, I am insulted at this crass form of religious oppression. I demand an apology. For obviously, Catholicism does not fit into Vincenzo's "libertarian" world view - otherwise, it must be some softened up, wishy-washy form of Catholicism which can be brushed under the carpet.
This is, of course, similar to the Iraqi situation - where Zionist hawks in Washington are trying to "do deals" with weak Shia clerics in an attempt to isolate Moqtada al-Sadr, who clearly has Iraqi support for an Islamic state. Similarly, Alois shows as much arrogance as Anti-Defamation League head Abraham Foxman. On hearing the Pope's endorsement of the Passion of the Christ, he went to Rome to try and instruct the Holy Father on his own religion. The cheek!

I don't expect you to know anything about this subject, Seedot. Religion, at dictionary.com, is defined as "belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe." That power is not within you. You do not have the right to alter religion to make yourself feel better. If you want to do that, sign up for the Freemasons. If atheism is your alternative, then we need not discuss the matter further - you have ignored man's spiritual component and surrendered to the material.

4. "You do know that your church is more alive amongst the people you reject than amongst the people you try to limit the definition 'Irish' and 'Catholic' to, don't you."

Ditto. Please identify what altered form of Christianity these people follow. I can tell you that they are subject to the will of God - God is not subject to their whims. I am sure the same people hold that Jews and Muslims are all "brothers in Christ."


I have a feeling that nothing I say will make any difference with you people!

by seedot Sat Apr 24, 2004 02:21

Hi Again Paul,

its good to know that you have the name of some Marxist historians but that wasn't really my point. When Alois identifies himself as a 'Libertarian' he is part of a political tradition that is v. opposed to the politics of the Soviet Union, or Lenin. It thus weakens your argument by using these phrases as insults.

As Aidan has pointed out in his colourful turn of phrase ('pub fact' - cool - did you make that up aidan?) saying 'it is common knowledge' does not really prove the truth of an assertion. Given that this is Indymedia, saying 'There were reports in the papers last year' is even less of a back up to the truth of your claims. What particular scheme were these grants and payments made under? Officals from the DSW have stated that this is completely false and no-one has ever proved it beyond 'pub fact' (can I add 'taxi fact' to the lexicon?).

As to deleting factual inaccuracies - i could publish a story saying Paul Hughes spoke at a Nazi rally last tuesday. You can refute this using our comments button. But because we are committed to creating some type of resource that is of value, if you prove to us that this is false (because you were in fact sitting in a lecture theatre, learning, and seen by hundreds of people) then we would delete this. Generally we only delete the stuff that is obviously untrue. The really stupid stuff. In fact, personally, I like the odd conspiracy theory here since it gives a bit of flavour. But there are limits.

I am fascinated with your views on the vote. I was an emigrant (or immigrant if you were living in Lancashire, where I emigrated to as a child). My parents paid taxes. Their children went to schools run by the state, we used the NHS, we lived in the towns run by the councils. And they had the vote. Because they were Irish in Britain, they had the vote in everything. Here its just the local elections (to bodies with virtually no powers) that we allow non-naturalised, non-eu, visa holding migrants to vote in. Please explain why this should be restricted. Should my parents have been allowed to vote in Britain?

Is your religion a welcoming one Paul? Does your faith, which seems to be strongly held, encompass the same ground that say Ciaron O'Reilly's or Sean Healy's or Sister Stans does? I don't practice the religion I was born into and haven't passed it on to my children - but it was a much more welcoming one than yours seems to be. You do know that your church is more alive amongst the people you reject than amongst the people you try to limit the definition 'Irish' and 'Catholic' to, don't you.

Killing someone with kindness? No, I remember 'Killing home rule with kindness', but not killing someone with kindness. That phrase was from a time when Ireland was a key component of the second main wave of migration in modern history - the migration of white europeans to the new world. Ireland is a funny place - it also took part in the start of the 3rd main wave of migation in modern history - that of post colonial citizens to the (ex?) imperialising countries. Then it shifted places, got some money and people started migrating here. We could provide a model. We all have folk memories of the emigrant funeral, the cousins overseas, the coffin ship (now replaced with the coffin artic). So we could, if we wanted, see the humanity in the migrants who pay us the compliment of choosing here.

Some of us do. Listen to some good Irish music Paul. Read some good Irish literature. Most of it deals with migration. Tell us what you're scared of.

by Paul Hughes Fri Apr 23, 2004 23:49

If I tried to list the privileges for asylum seekers here while thousands of Irish people live below the poverty, I'd be here for hours. Check the link I provided, and the Irish Refugee Council website.

Immigrants HAVE the right to vote in local elections, and even have the option of running. Naturally, they want to look after their own. But will they care about Irish sovereignty, the Irish language or culture if they are elected? I highly doubt it.

There were reports in the papers last year that the Eastern Health Board were providing immigrants with motor grants, as many of them had complained that they were afraid to use public transportation due to "racist slurs."

I am not lying, and the idea that I am sitting here typing up complete falsehoods and "pub facts" at length is the most original retort I have encountered to date. The fact that I have wasted so much time trying to put my point across on such a violently biased forum is a wonder.

by Aidan Fri Apr 23, 2004 19:07

" it is common knowledge that free accommodation and mobile phones are part of the package deal for entry into Ireland. Motor grants of €5,000 were available to certain immigrants last year - whether this applies now, I am not sure. "

Don't suppose you can prove any of that pub fact you claim. Do you have any supporting evidence to back up your claim other than "my mate down the pub said it". Such as dept of justice or immgiration statistics.

You're lying and you have no evidence to support this claim.

Don't say it's common knowledge you need to support your allegations with suitable figures from an offical source.

by Paul Hughes Fri Apr 23, 2004 18:33

Seedot,

1. Thank you for welcoming me to the debate. I return the sentiments...

2. I do not believe here and now are the time and the place to get involved in the old right-wing/left-wing debate. "Alois" initiated that system of labelling, so I felt obliged to retort. Nevertheless, we are obviously from opposite sides of the political spectrum. Judging from his article, his "libertarian" form of journalism turns not into open debate, but a subtle form of oppression. This is the crux of my point. This type of uncompromisingly biased and non-objective writing is ignorant and oppressive of all nationalist and/or religious views of history. Similar thought policing occurs in the state of Israel, where opponents of Sharon's policies are branded as anti-Semites; in America, where Americans opposed to the Bush junta are labeled as both anti-American or anti-Semitic; and here, where my nationalist and religious views, and those of Justin Barrett et al, are labelled as "fascist" and "ignorant."

3. With all due respect, you would do well to know that my credentials in history are sound and my qualifications a "solid grounding". Just because my view of history does not fit into the Marxist one, like that of historians Eric Hobsbawm or Benedict Anderson, does not immediately mean that I am stuck together with "ignorance." By its very nature, this "libertarian" thought is anti-Christian, globalist and multiculturalist. That , whether by design or accident, sounds the death-knell for indigenous culture and religious tolerance. Hence, you are doing the social ground-work for the bureaucrats in Brussels, who seek to twist the libertarian into the totalitarian. The words thought police come to mind!

4. It doesn't take a genius to realise that the country's health system is shoddy, and thousands of Irish people are living below the poverty line. Meanwhile, money goes elsewhere.
For backup on my statement, visit http://www.ecre.org/conditions/2003/ireland.shtml. As regards mobile phones and motor grants, it is common knowledge that free accommodation and mobile phones are part of the package deal for entry into Ireland. Motor grants of €5,000 were available to certain immigrants last year - whether this applies now, I am not sure. But it IS a fact that immigrants have the right to vote in local elections, and are, in certain cases, running for office. As I pointed out before, potential immigrant voters/candidates NATURALLY have the needs of their own at heart. However, for e.g. a Nigerian running/voting in local elections, Irish language, culture and sovereignty mean nothing. That is when cultures and nations die.

5. The very fact that you are prepared to delete anything YOU find as factually incorrect, is enough. My statement, apparently, "is factually incorrect and as such is grounds for your entire post to be deleted." Why the entire post? Why not the piece you - in your omniscience - find factually incorrect? Is something judged by Indymedia as wrong a blank cheque for whole tracts of opinion to be deleted? This sets a dangerous precedent.

Thank you, Seedot, for your initial helpful tone, but did you ever hear of killing someone with kindness?

by seedot - - sometime editor Fri Apr 23, 2004 12:18

Hi Paul

Good to have your input on Indymedia - i think it makes this resource much more valuable if there is a wide range of inputs. I also think it is good that as another EU debate looms, both sides of the No campaign interact with each other well in advance here, rather than fight it out in public during the campaign.

For this reason I wouldn't echo alois' comments re. right wing lurkers - you have as much right as anyone else to be here and generally your presence will add to the quality of info available here. In this helpful tone, can I point out 2 problems with your post above:

1. By discussing libertarianism / marxism / totalitarian states without a solid grounding in history etc. you open the way for this thread to be diverted into one of our frequent, sometimes entertaining but less and less worthwhile debates about libertarian vs. centralised socialism. Believe me, you don't want to go there (do a search for kronstadt for all the background you could possibly want). This topic is best to avoid, especially from a position of ignorance.

2. We have an editorial policy which states that factually untrue statements are deleted. Most of what you have written is opinion and therefore it cannot be untrue. However, the following statement:
' While Irish people struggle to get hospital beds, our government provide asylum seekers with mobile phones, motor grants, housing and a free vote. '
is factually incorrect and as such is grounds for your entire post to be deleted. As an editor I should have done this, however i thought it better to raise the issue and welcome you to the site.

final comment - would you care to expand on your statements re. our disclaimer? I really don't get your point.

by Tony McGrath Fri Apr 23, 2004 04:19

Hey paul, well done, but you forgot another quote from this vincenzo guy:-
"oh yeah, and you don't like my writing? well why don't you just leave indymedia to the genuine users, not right-wing lurkers like you looking to cause trouble; if you don't lke (sic) that then tough shit."
Chekov - "Anyway, Justin, you can stick your patriotism up your arse, I'll take Alois any day."

Says it all I think. Talk about shooting themselves in the feet. I notice how so often they stoop to cursing too. I notice chekov also said something about the foreigness of the writer, so Alois Vincenzo isn't much of a pseudonym obviously.
Go for it, justin, dont mind the begrudgers.

by Paul Hughes Fri Apr 23, 2004 03:06

Top ten words of wisdom on various topics...


1. The importance of history:

"Maybe it is you who should put away your collection of Michael Collins memorabilia and learn something about Ireland, and about the world."


2. The importance of the Irish language:

"After taking my seat and my Justin propaganda (including a touching paean to the Irish language and its criminal neglect in the pantheon of official operational EU languages)..."
(How sarcastic.)


3. Respect for one's elders:

"I experienced the room slowly fill up around me, largely with the kind of aged misfits that fall prey to fringe ultra-conservative political practicioners."
(Everybody! Ageist! He's an ageist! Try him for ageism, quick! Label! Label!)


4. Political diversity, freedom of speech and debate:

"Once I knew where I was headed, I corrected the apologetic air I had adopted for the benefit of the porter and got into character, ready to size up Barrett's set-up and evaluate my prospects for the evening: whether to make a scene, to politely challenge Barrett over Q & A ,or to keep my gob shut."
This, after the article's introduction laughably claimed: "No reporter is completely objective in their writing and this particular reporter clarifies his subjectiveness by clearly stating from the outset his perspective and reason for being there. Nevertheless, he proceeds to give a detailed account of the meeting and the views and opinions expressed by the speakers. Regular readers may not like the content of the article. They may prefer that Mr. Barrett did not get any publicity for his views (on Indymedia or other media) but this article still qualifies as a fine piece of original reporting. Indymedia as a quality source of original news depends on the willingness of people to do the same."


5. Respect for religion, and religious tolerance:

"Justin and his chair sat back smugly and let Gerry, with his boring UTV mid-Ulster features let rip on a rosary bead nationalist tirade more unsettling than anything Justin himself would utter that night." (Remember "Alois", this sounds harmless now, but it always ends up in the gulag. I suppose little did Marx know that his claim that religion was "the opiate of the masses" would turn into seven decades of religious persecution and moral destruction?)

6. Media spin:

"You would never get a leader of Sinn Fein condemning abortion, homosexual 'marriage' or anything of that nature.."
("Alois" rushes to the defence of all the Red revolutionaries hugging the Sinn Fein ranks nowadays, as it suits him.)


7. More media spin:

"Barrett was well prepared for my charges of hyper-nationalism and far-right leanings when I challenged him over Q & A. The less than credible excuse was trotted out that he had frequented and addressed events of far-right groupings on the continent, such as those of the NDP in Germany, in his capacity as pro-life ambassador, all done in a spirit of innocent outreach. Presumably, that is, in the spirit that one would address the remnants of the Khmer Rouge on the finer points of the pro-choice argument. And presumably done in the belief that the boys doing the straight-arm salute had a thing for 1950's Hollywood Roman epics."
(What? Khmer Rouge? Straight-arm salutes? Cliched media spin, ad nauseum.)


8. Defamation of character, ageism, et cetera:

"It is undeniable that those who turned up to the meeting hardly looked like the kind to get out on the streets for their ideals. And judging by the age profile, it's questionable whether most of the attendees' offspring would be up to it either. "


Followed by.....


9. Political freedom

"But the very fact that the likes of Barrett can pull twenty plus bodies to a meeting in an average-sized Irish town must raise questions."
(What questions? That Irish people are entitled to partake in sane political debate without listening to the liberal cries of "Racism!", "Fascism!" or "straight-armed salutes"? Rant on about endless political freedom, and then you come up with this?)


10. Diversity. Tolerance. Love. Freedom. And above all, objectivity. George Bush style.

"With just a few hours' notice of the Wexford stop on Justin Barrett's 'Public Information Tour', I had had little time to prepare slurs or even to reacquaint myself with the politics of Ireland's most notorious far-right wannabe." (Having taken his dose of media spin, our "Alois" attended the meeting impartial and open-minded.)

If there is anyone sane out there, I hope you enjoyed this little montage...

To top it all off...
Indymedia's pre-publishing "Legal Stuff":
"After your content has been published, it may be edited, linked or even deleted by the editorial collective running this site. Please read our privacy and disclaimer statements before publishing." Freedom of the press is a wonderful thing!

by Paul Hughes Fri Apr 23, 2004 02:25

In response:

1. Personal attacks - while I tried to get to the bottom of your politics, did I resort to calling you "a hick arts student" or something similar?

2. Why do you take the piss out of Michael Collins - or, use the phrase "Michael Collins memorabilia in a disparaging and ignorant way? You may remember he died, in defence of Ireland, at the age of 31 - what will you have accomplished for your country when you reach that age?

3. "I have no intention to get drawn into a defence of my politics..."
Yet, your article is a word-for-word politicised rant against some who do not conform to your particular world view. And don't try and play the impartial card - everyone has a world view, and only one crept into your article. It was about as impartial as Fox News is "fair and balanced."

4. "I am of a libertarian persuasion. If you had even a superficial grasp of radical politics you would have picked up on this. But you didn't, choosing instead to warn that this kind of journalism and this kind of thinking represented a one-way ticket to some kind of totalitarian neo-Bolshevik nightmare."
I live my life not by some totalitarian Fascist creed - as you type of people contest, someone with any shred of religious or nationalist views is an automatic Nazi. Ah, the age-old Nazi jibe - although hilariously, your type forget that 90% of the Nazi party were paid-up occultists and Freemasons.
I like my country. I like being Irish. I like being a Catholic. I am simply concerned that your blissful "libertarian" ideals are so obsessed with accommodating everybody in some flower-power, Utopian paradise, that religious and national rights suddenly become dangerous. Religion and nationality are diametrically opposed to Marxism - a clash is inevitable, and in such a libertarian "Utopia", they are not permitted to survive. So where is the tolerance? In the Soviet Union, the obsessive struggle for diversity and a perfect society, which was the original vision of Marx, naturally progressed (or degenerated) into an oppressive bureaucracy. Multiculturalism, religious unity and the Marxist ideal must all sound fantastic to those who hate religion, are uncomfortable with their nationality, and are generally afraid of moral order. On your libertarian planet, the multiculture cancels out the culture, religious unity systematically destroys each individual religion. Likewise Ireland, as anything more than Irish, is cancelled out. It becomes a dot on the map.
Now we both oppose the European Union, but you fail to see it from my point of view. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would guess that you view the European Union as a coven of elites trying to centre people power in the hands of a few. And you would be totally right. But take it from my point of view. Neither God or the Irish language are mentioned in the Constitution. Irish culture becomes subject to European directives - our smoking ban, believe it or not, is an indirect result of this. From May 1, we open our doors to 75 million Eastern Europeans. Now here is where the "racist" jibe always bugs me. From a purely economic view, this is a disaster for Ireland. I believe (and I hope) that each and every one of those 75 million eastern Europeans are beautiful, peaceful and friendly people. A lot of them are Eastern Orthodox, or of other faiths, but I do not hate them. They are Slavs, Poles, Czechs, Magyars, but I do not hate them. In fact, I love them for being Slavs, Poles and Magyars. Such people have wonderful cities like Budapest, Prague, Warsaw and Riga. Like the Irish - they have Dublin.
Because I want them to stay there, does not mean I am racist. In doing so I hope to protect their fragile cultures, raped and disregarded for years by Marxism. But primarily, I hope to uphold and protect Ireland's culture. Apart from the economic consequences of the E.U. dumping its asylum problems on us, the cultural effects are far reaching. While Irish people struggle to get hospital beds, our government provide asylum seekers with mobile phones, motor grants, housing and a free vote. What happens our fragile language, when large eastern European, African or Asian minorities are permitted to vote it out of existence? Naturally, they do not want their children learning Irish. They are not Irish. If I was seeking asylum in Warsaw, I wouldn't want Polish on my child's curriculum. But having said that, I'm not going to Poland.
Defending Irish culture and other cultures in their separate dynamism is NOT RACISM. Seeking to avoid a cultural mess where people cannot distinguish Irish from Polish or Polish from Irish is NOT RACISM. It is the height of sanity.
Unfortunately, your type continue to paint it with the racist brush. And while you do, Brussels sits back in glee. While they annex military, economic and political institutions, they watch happily as you people tear shreds out of separate indigenous cultures. You are doing the work of "cultural globalisation." You are, therefore, the European Union's star pupils. Given a couple of years, you should mellow with age, and become the Union's star policy-makers. After all, I'm sure Romano Prodi had his wild student protest days...

5. "Ultra right-wing politics... the malign force that they are."
You make labels. I don't see myself as ultra right-wing, far-right, or anything else cooked up by the media. If that's what you want to call me, fine. But at the same time, I see you as dangerously far-left. But hey, it's kinda cool to be ultra-left - after all, you do have the international media on your bandwagon.
As I also explained, I am not racist, but that is a convenient label for people who try to stand up for their indigenous culture. In the same way, the media love to daub all those who oppose the state of Israel and the criminal persecution of the Palestinian people as anti-Semites or Jew haters. In that case, given modern Red/libertarian criticism of Israeli policies, I would take care that you and your ilk aren't tarred with the same brush.

6. "I arrived at the talk venue fearing raised eyebrows at what I supposed might seem my lefty youth appearance; unshaven and bedraggled..."
They say people with beards have something to hide! But why the pseudonym, Mr. Vincenzo? Have you something to hide? My name is Paul Hughes, and I don't really care what "lefty youth" cares to castigate me for my beliefs.

by alois vincenzo Thu Apr 22, 2004 19:11

''And just what kind of "progressive groups" does he have in mind? The Socialist Workers' Party? Irish AFA? The Anarchist Movement? Surely, Mr. Vincenzo, these will be fantastic "progressive" bulwarks against "the E.U. heads."....

He looks at opposition to the E.U. from a purely Marxist/Leninist viewpoint. How progressive is that, Mr. Gulag? We can all stoop to name-calling. But that militantly atheist and anti-nationalist attitude led many people to their deaths in Siberia, in case you've forgotten....''

So I'm a 'Red', 'ultra-liberal','extreme Marxist', enslaved to political correctness, who may speak for the SWP or the Anarchist Movement; you're not quite sure..?

My god, I had no idea this was still going on, I stopped checking this story a long time ago.

Perhaps you really are just a hick arts student, 'Paul', but there's something about the unhinged nature of your rants that does smack of the Just'.

Your scattergun attacks against all who you lump together as politically degenerate are highly comical, and indicative of what little grasp you have of the political spectrum beyond your narrow ultra-conservative corner.

You might not be Justin, but you might as well be. Your tone, so utterly divorced from reality, is identical to that of Barrett.

You clearly want to get to the bottom of what kind of character I am, and what I stand for. Well, 'Paul', I'm not ashamed to say that I, like many Indymedia users, sometimes use a pseudonym when publishing articles etc. Alois Vincenzo is a pseudonym.

If you truly are a third year arts student from the midlands, then we've got a lot more in common than you might think (leaving sanity aside for a second..).

The article was intended as a piece of journalism palatable to all who see ultra right-wing politics as the malign force that they are, not as a piece of propaganda for whatever groupings I might to be aligned to. So I certainly had no intention of stamping my individual politics all over it, beyond making it fairly obvious I am of a libertarian persuasion. If you had even a superficial grasp of radical politics you would have picked up on this. But you didn't, choosing instead to warn that this kind of journalism and this kind of thinking represented a one-way ticket to some kind of totalitarian neo-Bolshevik nightmare.

I have no intention to get drawn into a defence of my politics; that is not what the article was about. But I will say that for a libertarian, it is amusing to be compared to the worst excesses of the authoritarian and totalitarian regimes which those who love freedom have always been at loggerheads with, and under which libertarians have been amongst the most severely persecuted.

Maybe it is you who should put away your collection of Michael Collins memorabilia and learn something about Ireland, and about the world.

by Paul Hughes Mon Apr 12, 2004 17:39

I'm sorry folks, I'm not in the business of impersonating people. My name is Paul Hughes, I am from Co. Westmeath... I am 21 years of age, and a third year Arts student.

You people might want to go round thinking you're little Lenins or Marxs, but thats who I am and I'm proud of it.

by jh Mon Apr 12, 2004 00:36

but im not totally sold on the whole abortion pro-choice line?

not nationlist doesn't equal anti-irish

by Chekov Sun Apr 11, 2004 23:49

But, I suppose there is a small chance that I live in a rose-tinted world where insane fascists like Justin Barrett are rare. If you are really P. Hughes, and not Justin Barrett, how about some evidence? Plenty of people on Indymedia can verify my identity, how about you?

by Paul Hughes Sun Apr 11, 2004 21:32

First of all Chekov, I am not Justin Barrett. I don't want to be, nor do I pretend to be... it's quite ok being myself.

"Dark insinuations?" I know nothing about this Alois Vincenzo - only the guts of his anti-Church, anti-Irish journalism - if such tripe could be categorised as journalism.

I am one of thousands of people who are disgusted with the anti-Irishness of you people - people you would undoubtedly like to evaporate into thin air.

The problem with you people is that you have no morals, no patriotism, and nothing to be proud of. Your extreme liberalism stinks of a group of people who wish to live in some lawless, all-embracing anarchy where no person is accountable to law, a higher authority, or even their own consciences. Abortion for instance - you people love the right to kill just in case children become an invasion of your materialistic lives.

Don't think Justin Barrett is standing alone out there. You are mistaken.

by Chekov Sun Apr 11, 2004 15:01

Amusing little series of rants about red smear campaigns, red media (Tony O'Reilly the commie!) and dark insinuations about the foreigness of the writer.

What's particularly funny is the fact that you lambast the pinkos for using the 'fascist' term when you are pretty obviously a fash or completely insane. Come to think of it you are probably both which would mean that you are in fact Justin Barrett. Nothing else could explain the crap that you write and there is nobody in the country who is both a fascist and so obviously raving.

Anyway, Justin, you can stick your patriotism up your arse, I'll take Alois any day.

by Goban Saor Sun Apr 11, 2004 03:16

No the name on the Radio Free Eireann Website is William Hughes. And he has praised Nesta Webster, a well known Englsh fascist and conspiracy theorist. As McDonough is the U.S. representative of Republican Sinn Fein serious questions must be raised about the republican credentials of R.S.F.

by P. Hughes Sat Apr 10, 2004 05:03

And where is this "Alois Vincenzo" geezer, with his paltry style of journalism? Didn't take notes of the speeches of JB and McGeough at the meeting... a convenient way for him to forge ahead with his Red smear campaign.

And just what kind of "progressive groups" does he have in mind? The Socialist Workers' Party? Irish AFA? The Anarchist Movement? Surely, Mr. Vincenzo, these will be fantastic "progressive" bulwarks against "the E.U. heads."

Alois Vincenzo (is that the Vincenzo's of Knock or the Vincenzo's of Lisdoonvarna?) insulted Ireland and Irishness in at least two ways:
1.) He made little of the Irish language and the fact that the Eurosoviet has cast it aside;
2.) He made fun of patriots and Catholics in his sneering reference to "rosary bead nationalism."

He looks at opposition to the E.U. from a purely Marxist/Leninist viewpoint. How progressive is that, Mr. Gulag? We can all stoop to name-calling. But that militantly atheist and anti-nationalist attitude led many people to their deaths in Siberia, in case you've forgotten.

by P. Hughes Sat Apr 10, 2004 03:43

And where, TT, is your proof that Justin Barrett has connections to the BNP??? I know for a fact he would be insulted at the thought. You are completely right - the BNP are sell-out Blueshirt-style nationalists, who DO promote British imperialism and have a backward ideology.

From a political standpoint, I would say that Justin Barrett and the BNP are diametrically opposed to one another.

But as I have said, it doesn't matter. At the end of the day, the Red media, the politically correct and sell-out nationalists will continue to make war on those hoping to bring some degree of sanity to a society becoming less Irish - and less bothered - by the day.

by P. Hughes Sat Apr 10, 2004 03:37

JH - in response to your message: JB, as any twit could see past media spin, was invited to speak at that meeting, plus thousands of other meetings, on the subject of abortion. Get your facts straight.

And from a personal point of view, your definition of "fascism", that is the umbrella word for any of you Red types who find honest, non-PC nationalism frightening and uncomfortable....... the kind of ideological windbags who only see the Palestinians as an 'oppressed working class', not crushed under the jackboot of Israeli ethnic cleansing and racist policy. In fact, you people are so "radical" in the defense of the Palestinian people one minute, and then simultaneously scream "ANTI-SEMITISM" at anyone who criticises Israeli policy.

As for you TT, I know all about peoples' positions on the National Question. Lets do a resume of current positions on the National Question:

Sinn Fein - Extreme left-wing, no longer Catholic. Pro abortion. Pro EU integration.
Fianna Fail - Pro EU, leading us to servitude.
Fine Gael - Pro EU.
Labour - Pro EU, pro abortion.

So where are the nationalists? In the Fascist heap. It's always going to be that way because of the media, and this political correctness crap infecting the world.

Justin Barrett is a Catholic. He is anti-abortion, and he is a patriot. And therefore he is a Fascist? Remember that most if not all of the Nazis were occultists - so again, don't bandy words. I feel like I'm wasting valuable energy trying to get my point across, because at the end of the day, media spin has the upper hand. I don't know if its for the sake of a good story, boredom or general malice, but the media will always continue to brand as "fascists" people who refuse to see Ireland as European, as socialist, or everything but Irish.

I ask you all - put yourselves in Michael Collins' shoes, or Padraig Pearce's. What would they have thought about EU integration, mass immigration from Asia and Africa, abortion, or the acceptance of some form of watered-down socialist bureaucracy? Not a lot... in fact, I think they would be more vocal than Justin Barrett could ever be.

But then again, they died young, victims of persons and institutions who thought their vision of Ireland was, for a better word, unsuitable. And with the EU becoming more bureaucratic and dictatorial every day, who knows how many more TRUE nationalists will be chased into an early grave?

So I ask you all, GIVE UP THE "FASCIST" GIBE. It's old, insulting, but nevertheless an effective weapon for Red scum and lukewarm champagne patriots to bury Irishness under the carpet.

by TT Sat Apr 10, 2004 01:42

"anti-nationalist" ??
I assure you, my record on the national question is solid, you don't know who you are talking to.
Barrett and the rest of the nazi-lovers are not in a position to present themselves as pro-Irish. His BNP friends have always promoted the interests of British imperialism.

by jh Fri Apr 09, 2004 20:13

you didn't respond to the article re his facist links

by Paul Hughes Fri Apr 09, 2004 19:23

TT, you and you're fellow permissive, anti-nationalist Red ilk don't "like Barrett" because he stands for everything you and those other idiots who make personal attacks are terrified of.

That is truth, morals, national pride, and a fear of not spending at least one bloody day in your life not sucking up to political correctness. Again, you Reds make me sick.

by TT Fri Apr 09, 2004 04:42

Which "elitist studenty anarchisty heads"? All the anarchists I know are workers, and aged between 25 and 60, so I cant really buy into that nonsensical stereotyping. Still, if McD believes those stereotypes I guess he would do as you are suggesting.
Don't know how *anyone* could like Barrett. Very strange.

by Bobs me uncle Fri Apr 09, 2004 04:28

cos on here he's only trying to piss off those elitist studenty anarchisty heads, he goes on RTE to deal with the Shinners, and Barett he propbably likes in a gimpy kinda way!

by TT Fri Apr 09, 2004 04:23

Not sure if it is McD (the other inedible one). McD always used to be against nationalism (at least while there was resistence against the British occupation of the six counties), though he does seem to be trying to lay some kind of claim to "republicanism" - but thats probably only to wind up the shinners.
I find it odd though, that someone would include the words "sane individual" in the same sentence as the words "Justin Barrett". That would appear to be writen by someone who is not in touch with reality, so there is an outside chance that it just might be McD after all.

by (*.?.*) Fri Apr 09, 2004 04:23

the religion is besides the point, it's all the racist, sexist, homophobic, 'Ireland belongs to the white middle class catholics only' buzz that's the bad bit

by Kraster Fri Apr 09, 2004 04:11

You Indymedia people are ridiculous. Can't you see what you're doing? The self-important, self-righteous tone you carry in your articles is about as far as you can get from independent reporting. I came here expecting even-handed reporting on the issues of the day but all I get is the usual leftist clap-trap.

You cannot berate someone on their religious beliefs. That's too personal. Even if those beliefs dictate their social and moral standpoints you have no right to say your way is better. It's just different. This is exactly what's going on in Iraq. I don't personally believe in some of the teachings and guidelines of the Koran but I'm not about to say my view is more relevant than theirs and they need to be 'enlightened'. People like JB offer a viewpoint. Simply that. It might contain opinions that I totally disagree with but petty name calling and cliched stereotyping is hardly progressive. Extreme political views always lead to the same place whether left or right.

by I'll tell me Ma, by burber Fri Apr 09, 2004 03:56

mmm, McDowell is that you rantin n' ravin after a few jars at 2.30am on Good Friday mornin!
go on ya mad yoke!

by Paul Hughes Fri Apr 09, 2004 03:38

And those insults against JB's appearance were not attached to this article, but another one on this site.

by Paul Hughes Fri Apr 09, 2004 03:36

I have seen this article a million times. Can you liberal and far-left types find anything else than the Irish Times, the Irish elitist and Masonic journal of record, or the Irish AFA (or should I say, CCCP) website?

You people make me sick. You continue to churn out this ridiculously insignificant meeting in Passau. If the people in the photos were wearing Hawaiian hula shirts, I'm sure you would have called them some radical Fascist Hawaiian separatists. But I bet when all you SWP types have your little rallies and prepare your red-fist, red star posters emblazoned with the word 'Revolution', you forget to think of the past. You may bandy the word fascism about in an attempt to destroy nationalism.

But just remember this - you're so-called socialist utopia, last time I checked, resulted in purely materialistic outlook on life, suppression of religion, ignorance towards nationality and culture, increase in crime rates. It was in a little place called the SOVIET UNION, where TENS OF MILLIONS of people DIED in Soviet camps because they didn't embrace this 'utopia.'

Justin Barrett, and any sane individual who has a little bit of respect for their country (and not the anti-Irish 'intellectualism' of this site), can see where the European Union is going. It is merely an arrogant, toned-down style of Soviet-style collectivism. YOU people may not care about religion. YOU people may not care about Irish culture and sovereignty. But there are tens of thousands of people who do, and Justin Barrett is one of them.

He is a NATIONALIST. I know that is a big, scary word for all you lefties to stomach, but there you go. And if you want to continue throwing the "racist" and "Fascist" slur at anyone who is proud of their nation and culture, or their Catholicism, then shame on you and you're so-called outlook on freedom.

That is the funny thing about you left-wing types. You rant on about freedom to such an extent that it transmutes into petty political correctness - in such an approach, one freedom cancels out another. Your open-minded approach to doctrines and systems which will destroy this country forever is a disgrace to those who fought to free Ireland. Shame on you all - not that you care. Left-wing radicalism will fade away late in life, when you all wind down and become the jackboot press of the Eurosoviet.

To those who resorted to attacks on Justin Barrett's appearance, grow up. You call Barrett a Nazi? Who are the ones poking fun at people who are different? Again, shame on you all. Grow up and start loving your country. You may think all this debate is clever, but its not. In a world becoming more unequal every day, you Red whiners are becoming non-issues - and meanwhile, people in real need become marginalised while the crowd in control of the world becomes smaller. Wake up.


God bless you all at Easter,
Paul Hughes.

by pat c Wed Apr 07, 2004 18:07

Paul

if you are looking for fascistts then look no furthrer than Justin Barret. Read the info below, theres more at the link.


"Extreme-right group confirms Barrett link
By Derek Scally, in Berlin, and Deaglán de Bréadún, in Dublin

Mr Justin Barrett, the chief spokesman of the No to Nice campaign and a leading figure in the Youth Defence anti-abortion group, has close contacts with an extreme right-wing party in Germany which the authorities there believe has "Nazi characteristics".

Mr Barrett has attended conferences and spoken at an event organised by Germany's National Democratic Party (NPD). Two years ago he attended an NPD rally in the Bavarian city of Passau as a representative of Youth Defence. His name appears as one of the "honorary guests" at the event in Die Deutsche Stimme (The German Voice), the NPD party newspaper. The NPD described the rally, the largest by the party to date, as a day of national resistance. It was held in May 2000, and over 6,000 party members attended."

by Paul Hughes Wed Apr 07, 2004 18:06

You people are so poisoned by political correctness it's not right...

by Paul Hughes - student, 21, proud Irishman. Wed Apr 07, 2004 17:10

Dear Sir/Madam,

I would like to lodge a complaint with Indymedia.ie about your
standards (or lack thereof) in permissive, ultra-liberal journalism, especially
in your treatment of Mr. Justin Barrett.

Since it is clear that you all embrace some perverse form of extreme
Marxism, you would think that the capitalist European Union would fly in
the face of your agenda. But since you Red types are far more obsessed
with the elimination of any form of nationalism, religion or indigenous
culture, it is not surprising that you have chosen to turn on Justin
Barrett.

Mr. Barrett, like myself and other Irish nationalists, will have
something "Alois Vincenzo" and your type will never have. Pride in one's
Irishness, and the determination to defend it from the snares of an EU
superstate which can only be described as having the arrogance of
neo-Sovietism and the jackboot of Fascism. Yes, Fascism - that word you in the
liberal 'media' like to bandy about with gusto when attacking national
pride and Irishness. As you put it, a "rosary bead nationalist tirade",
similar to the ones which won Irish freedom in the 1920s, has no place
in either the E.U. or the "lefty youth... unshaven and bedraggled"
vision for Ireland.

The E.U. is bad news for Ireland. Even when you extreme Marxists manage
to push aside all your cares for Irish sovereignty and culture, you can
still drum up some facts to realise that Brussels means slavery. But by
putting across your not-so-intellectual tirade against Justin Barrett,
you only serve to weaken resistance to Brussels. YOUR opposition to
Brussels is lukewarm, weak and baseless. I'm sure you all think you have
the funky, hip but morally defunct high ground when you jeer Mr.
Barrett's nationalism. But you are all empty and soulless. Once you satisfy
your 'intellectual' fancies with the E.U., you would return to your
pro-abortion, pro-drug and anti-Irish heaven.

The only reason Mr. Vincenzo (who, I'm sure, adds a very international
flavour to a solely Irish subject) and the Red press thrive on
murdering Irish nationalism is that you fear it will usher in a return to
justice and moral fortitude. You fear that it will break your power to
uphold the permissive and the amoral. But as long as you people keep
peddling this anti-Irish, liberal guff, Brussels will ALWAYS win. You people
are the star writers for the Eurosoviet you claim to oppose on such a
heightened intellectual basis.

You may not print this; if not, I don't care. You are lost to the PC
parade, stamping out Irishness and Irish patriotism wherever it emerges.
I'm sure you'll all have wonderful careers in the controlled press of
the future.

God bless,


P.S. In response to Vincenzo's statement that "You would never get a
leader of Sinn Fein condemning abortion, homosexual 'marriage' or
anything of that nature", don't make me laugh. Everyone knows that the Sinn
Fein of today, especially the youth setup, is an anti-Catholic,
anti-nationalist extension of the far left. All you have to do is look at the
Che Guevara posters. Mr Vincenzo, before you make such sweeping comments
about Ireland, learn a bit about it first. This is so typical of the
left. You people make me sick.

by alois vincenzo Thu Mar 25, 2004 18:48

ignoring trolls is the policy I would usually advocate chekov.. I guess this time I started off taking that line and moved towards giving the benefit of the doubt.

but fuck it, yeah, I do have better things to do!

by Chekov Wed Mar 24, 2004 19:31

they're just wasting your time.

"the perception that indymedia.ie is run by an elite clique of anarchist students pervails."

Is a very ill-informed perception that can only be based on accepting the smears that various people like to throw at indymedia - as if it will protect them from any criticism they might receive on it. If truth be told, the average age of the editors is much closer to 40 than it is to 20.

by alois vincenzo Wed Mar 24, 2004 19:16

well mandy, though it's a shame you think the above article and Indymedia in general are of such a poor standard, I guess it's a good thing you are at least thinking about ways to go about making things better.

my point about genuine users arose out of my feelings towards comment contributors who engage in criticism that I do not consider to be in any way constructive. often these people purport to be lefties/ progressives etc., disgruntled with the way Indymedia is being run. however, through their contributions, I suspect many, for whatever reason, are merely engaging in a ruse to discredit and pollute the website.

so maybe you aren't one of these people. maybe you just genuinely thought the article was crap! which is fair enough.

maybe you should start working on some of those proposals you listed, you might find it rewarding and empowering!

by mandy Tue Mar 23, 2004 23:06

You were up late, so fair enough ;)
How about approaching it this way, and its only an idea at this stage: gather some links that have helpful hints and ideas on writting articles, or even, ahead of May 1, hold some intensive work shops on writting for indymedia?

Maybe a little preperation could go a long way....nobody wants the repitition of the word 'chilling' Mrror style, but reading (and writing) news/features is meant to stir the soul and be evocative, descriptive and be hard hitting.

(Im trying to make a proactive suggestion here not just criticise or complain - which I think your comment about bona fide users is about?)

by alois vincenzo Tue Mar 23, 2004 19:18

actually mandy, I am not that interested in your political leanings. perhaps I was hastey to lump you in with the breed of rightists constantly on the prowl on this website, looking to abuse its open nature to damage Indymedia and propagate their shite.

incidentally I was a little worse for wear when I posted that comment (if you inspect the time of posting you will see it's from the wee hours of sunday morning; I would not usually coin such a word as 'categorification') - but I think my point about leaving Indymedia to genuine users still stands.

if we take a genuine user of Indymedia to be one with the best interests of the project at heart, then surely you, despite your claims to the contrary, cannot fit under this heading. I say this because I assume you are intelligent enough to grasp that, as already pointed out on this thread by I.M.C.'ers and others, Indymedia depends on the voluntary contributions of its users, as well as on the important voluntary work put in by its editorial collective.

therefore if you truly did yearn for a higher writing and editorial standard, you would surely recognise that the only way to affect positive change in this direction would be to get involved yourself. with this in mind it is hard to imagine how simply posting comments bashing contributors and editors could seem, even to you, like a means to bettering the low standards you complain of.

therefore your comments are disingenuous, therefore you cannot have Indymedia's best interests at heart, therefore... see my last comment about what non-bona fide users should do.

as for Indymedia being dominated by a clique of anarchist students, I'm afraid I'm not privy to any such clique; this is my first time publishing an article on Indymedia or on any website for that matter, and apart from literally one or two individuals, I have no idea of the identities of those on the editorial collective.

by mandy Tue Mar 23, 2004 16:02

Right wing? Dont be silly. I'm sorry if I offended your ego, but that is what indymedia.ie appears to be all about.

The point I wanted to make is that the indymedia project desrves beter than what the current ".ie" content, and more importantly editorial voice, delievers.

And in my opinion that's an issue that won't be addressed while the perception that indymedia.ie is run by an elite clique of anarchist students pervails.

Or also think calling comment contributors 'right wing' when they make a non-polical points is not in the best interests of anyone.

by John Tue Mar 23, 2004 11:46 dunaree2000 at yahoo dot com

Right-wing nutters. Left-wing nutters. Whats the difference? They're still nutters.

by Saerbhreathach Tue Mar 23, 2004 09:41

The name on the website for Radio Free Éireann is BRENDAN Hughes and he's listed not as "a contributor" but as a frequent guest.

Does anyone on Indymedia bother checking facts before posting? Or is this simply a place to spread lies, rumours and disinformation?

by Sal Farina Mon Mar 22, 2004 21:13

John McDonough, the producer of Radio Free Eireann, also leads the U.S. support group for Republican Sinn Fein. Listed as a contributor on the Radio Free Eireann web site is Bill Hughes-a fascist who has praised the work of English fascist Nesta Webster, and he has also recommended 'Imperium' by Francis Yockey, a book dedicated to Adolf Hitler.

by silo Mon Mar 22, 2004 20:31

Congratulations on an interesting and well-written piece of investigative editorial journalism. Hopefully, others will have a go now as well.

It would be very interesting to have a series of reports on Justin Barrett's national tour, with all the different writing perspectives this would imply.

Well done!

by Saerbhreathach Mon Mar 22, 2004 19:31

Radio Free Éireann is not officially connected to AOH or Republican Sinn Féin. It is simply a radio programme. I would like to point out that Radio Free Éireann interviews people from many walks of life, with varying beliefs - this does not mean the interviewees represent the radio programme.

I hope the readers of this forum are intelligent enough not to believe the comments made by Con Lehane without investigating such allegations themselves.

by alois vincenzo Sun Mar 21, 2004 03:20

mandy, this one's for you:

so this isn't news reporting, eh? maybe that's why I submitted it to indymedia in the 'opinion/analysis' categorification..

oh yeah, and you don't like my writing? well why don't you just leave indymedia to the genuine users, not right -wing lurkers like you looking to cause trouble; if you don't lke that then tough shit.

by Occassional Scribe Sat Mar 20, 2004 21:07

Mandy, If you can do any better then go ahead, if you think you have the talent. Prove yourself. Don't expect everyone else to produce, just so you can slag them off.

by mandy Sat Mar 20, 2004 17:57

This isn't news reporting. This is an opinion peice written by someone who is clear about their agenda. It is not news reporting.
On top of that, it's badly writen, self centred and self serving.
Journalism? I think not.
Just goes to prove Indymedia is the pet project of a select in-group who are so far stuck up their own arses that they have lost sight of what the broader indymedia project is about, and who never had any journalistic talent to begin with. Which is a real pity on both counts.

by Clare Fri Mar 19, 2004 19:23

Well Alois, top of the class!!

by imcer Fri Mar 19, 2004 18:57

This site runs on the contributions from users.

by a reader Fri Mar 19, 2004 18:53

is this news? nothing written but commentary about Barrett.

Barrett is scum, he deserve more than mere commentary. Is some actual reporting and investigation too much to ask for from indymedia?

by Badman Fri Mar 19, 2004 14:05

Ugh!

by John Fri Mar 19, 2004 13:58

It has to be admitted that the website is pretty excellent. BEst i've seen from an prospective lection candidate.

by Hebe Fri Mar 19, 2004 11:04

Yes Barrett is a fascist. But what evidence is there that McGeough is? If you are going to compare him to an anti semitic and pro nazi priest then you should produce evidence to back it up.

Anthony Coughlan also fellow travelled with Barrett. Does that mean Coughlan is a Fascist?

by Paddy X Thu Mar 18, 2004 20:42

Read Barrett's book , The National Way Forward, and you will see that McGeogh and Barett are clearly in the Fascist camp.

by Hebe Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:46

". McGeough has much more in common with the fascist priest Fr. Coughlin than with any Irish republican."

Coughlin was proNazi and was anti-semitic. McGeoughs politics are to the right but did he ever make any pro Fascist or anti Jewish,or anti Black commemtsd?

I would remind you people if you are looking for Nazi comparisons then look no further than our beighbouring Isle. British Imperialism, they slaughtered millions and carried on Ethnic Cleansing world wide. Even in living memory, look at what they did in Malaysia.

In Brunei when they left they put all power in the hands of a genocidal psychotic Sultan. The people of Brunei obviously didnt deserve democracy. This was in the 1970s under a Labour Government!

by Hip shooter Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:13

RBB is not that much of a threat to Irish society, he just likes to think he is.

by Righteous Pragmatist Thu Mar 18, 2004 11:17

The first is an extremist right wing fascist and the other is an extremist left wing wing communist.
They are both extremists nutters and both equally dangerous to Irish society.
The bastards even look the same.
Are they related?

by alois vincenzo Wed Mar 17, 2004 22:33

wow paud, i have to hand it to you, that's the first time
anybody's ever referred to me as 'PC', or insinuated that's
how
i see myself. as it happens I don't. but that doesn't stop me
seeing a smidgen of humour in a rabid right-winger like
mcgeough leaving SF cos they're too PC. I think it's kind of
funny.

as for my attitude towards the aged, sorry, chronologically
challenged, attendees of the meeting, the fact that they were
elderly doesn't make them any better or worse as people. it's
just what they were, and what I considered to be a
characteristic worthy of mentioning in a serious appraisal of
barrett's meeting and all that goes with it. after all, if an
organisation I was aligned to called a public meeting that
ended up being attended by 90% elderly people, I'd be worried
about just how relevant the politics in question were.

i also called them misfits. that's because, to me, they seemed
like people out of step and out of touch with the world around
them. perhaps their agedness might have been a contributing
factor to this. i don't say that flipantly, I say it because a lot of
elderly people inhabit a fairly shitty, marginalised and isolated
lot in contemporary ireland.

by Paud Wed Mar 17, 2004 21:27

Alois:
Why the sneering tone ? And why the ageism ? You continually mention that the crowd were well up in years. Does that make them bad ? If they were all under 30 would that make them radical ? Get real.

As to the numbers present, I doubt that a lot of the groups which post here would get as many to show up for a meeting in Wexford.

But thanks anyway for letting me know that Barrett is on the move, I suspect he'll run in the European Elections. I would consider voting for him, or at least giving him a preference. Not because he's particularly likeable or charismatic, but just because all the other anti-government candidates are so anemic and unimpresive.

by Kevin Wed Mar 17, 2004 20:17

Justin Barrett is a true Irish Patriot and deserves our support.

I say Justin Rock on!

by Con Lehane Wed Mar 17, 2004 19:27

While living in New York City a few years ago McGeough was a regular on Radio Free Eireann spewing his right wing vomit. He was, and is, a great favorite of the A.O.H., who control NYC's St. Pat's day parade. The A.O.H. , said James Connolly were the 'foulest brood ever to come into Ireland'. McGeough has much more in common with the fascist priest Fr. Coughlin than with any Irish republican. The people who run Radio Free Eireann are the New York representatives of Republican Sinn Fein. That they gave a platform for so many years to McGeough raises the question: Is Republican Sinn Fein in the tradition of James Connolly or do they represent the Irish fascist tendency?