éirígí and Socialism

[Hessian Peel]

Does éirígí support workers controlling the means of production, distribution and exchange? I can find nothing on the party's site relating to this central tenet of Socialism.

[conghaileach]

It's more of a slogan than anything else. All kinds of "Marxists" like to spout it, but very few really analyse it.

And I don't believe éirígí have declared themselves a Marxist party.

[Hessian Peel]

It's more of a slogan than anything else. All kinds of "Marxists" like to spout it, but very few really analyse it.

And I don't believe éirígí have declared themselves a Marxist party.

They haven't declared much to be honest.

[FTA69]

They haven't declared much to be honest.

Nonsense. They have been established as a party for little over a year, in that time they have expressed many sentiments. They are open about being anti-GFA, about the necessity of socialism for national liberation as well as being active on a raft of other campaigns. I'd have a look at Bernadette McAliskey's speech on youtube and you will see a brief outline of where éirigi are at in that sense.

[Comrade Ryan]

They haven't declared much to be honest.

Thats patently untrue. Although as a political party less than a year old, you wouldn't expect it to have as well a defined character as movements and parties which have developed over a considerably longer period of time.

[Hessian Peel]

Fair enough.

One more question; why are eirigi opposed to Republican unity?

[Jim]

Fair enough.

One more question; why are eirigi opposed to Republican unity?

In my opinion its a case of not wanting to alienate any potential members coming from psf quite simply.

[Nijinsky]

Fair enough.

One more question; why are eirigi opposed to Republican unity?

They are???

[Nijinsky]

In my opinion its a case of not wanting to alienate any potential members coming from psf quite simply.


What do you base that opinion on Jim?

[lorgadan]

And how did you work that out?

There is a big difference between getting on with the work of rebuilding a Republican Movement on this island and having a bit of a whinge towards reformists.

eirigi are attractive to Socialists and Republicans precisely because of the fact that it is more concerned with practical work than arguing with other groups.

[Jim]

What do you base that opinion on Jim?

What other reason could there be?

The vast majority of psf members have no time for us,some would regard us as british agents and most of the eirigi leadership would im quite sure know this already.
eirigi are basically trying to distance themselves from the likes of ourselves,rsf and irsm which is entirely their decision.

[Nijinsky]

What other reason could there be?

The vast majority of psf members have no time for us,some would regard us as british agents and most of the eirigi leadership would im quite sure know this already.
eirigi are basically trying to distance themselves from the likes of ourselves,rsf and irsm which is entirely their decision.

It is? Have they not taken part in protests and the like with ye?

[Jim]

It is? Have they not taken part in protests and the like with ye?

Big difference in protests and publicly supporting the Republican Unity initative in fairness.

[lorgadan]

What other reason could there be?

Reason for what? Are you really trying to claim that éirigi are some sort of a snobby organisation that refuses to be seen with other republican or socialist groups.

some would regard us as british agents and most of the eirigi leadership would im quite sure know this already.

In fairness now its fairly well known at this stage that the 32s have had more than there share of troubles with infiltration.

And what are you basing the assumption on of the eirigi leadership? Have you spoken to any of their leading members? Any of their members? Or are you just coming up with wild conspiracy theories?

[lorgadan]

Big difference in protests and publicly supporting the Republican Unity initative in fairness.


Do you expect them to hold a press conference on the issue or something. Its a small org. with limited membership and imo it has been very effective in focusing on campaigns that are of relevance to people.

[Nijinsky]

Big difference in protests and publicly supporting the Republican Unity initative in fairness.

Is that a YES they have taken part in protests with ye?

[Jim]

Reason for what? Are you really trying to claim that éirigi are some sort of a snobby organisation that refuses to be seen with other republican or socialist groups.


No but in my opinion they feel that the majority of potential new members will come from psf and getting involved with the republican unity initative could alienate potential support.
They were asked and havent to the best of my knowledge replied.

In fairness now its fairly well known at this stage that the 32s have had more than there share of troubles with infiltration.


No its not,point to one example where the 32CSM has had problems with infiltration.

And what are you basing the assumption on of the eirigi leadership? Have you spoken to any of their leading members? Any of their members? Or are you just coming up with wild conspiracy theories?

People who have been in psf any length of time will know exactly what the leadership of psf has been telling them about other groups.

Its a small org. with limited membership and imo it has been very effective in focusing on campaigns that are of relevance to people.

Fair enough,i never said they didnt.

[Jim]

Is that a YES they have taken part in protests with ye?

Of course it was,do i have to make it any clearer?

[Nijinsky]

Of course it was,do i have to make it any clearer?

Well, in the absence of a YES in your answer, I just wanted to make sure.

[mickyk200]

They are open about being anti-GFA,

Honestly chara, don't think their that open about it. I've never seen them directly relate anything to the GFA, although they have said that armed struggle would be counter-productive at this minute in time.

[Nijinsky]

Honestly chara, don't think their that open about it. I've never seen them directly relate anything to the GFA,

How about here

http://eirigi.org/latest/latest130408.html

[Comrade Ryan]

Fair enough.

One more question; why are eirigi opposed to Republican unity?

They're not - but of course feel free to evidence your accusation.

[Comrade Ryan]

What other reason could there be?

The vast majority of psf members have no time for us,some would regard us as british agents and most of the eirigi leadership would im quite sure know this already.
eirigi are basically trying to distance themselves from the likes of ourselves,rsf and irsm which is entirely their decision.

you seem to have a remarkable insight into the thinking of eirigi Jim.

Don't let your predjudices get in the way of future relationships.

I know many people find this hard to fathom, but eirigi are actually building their structures and their decision to solidify and develop their own project, gain a solid identity, etc, is a sensible one, and one which should come to fruition before joining any joint platforms.

What the more interesting question is, is why do people who profess a commitment to unity seek to pressurise and cajole others to join their platform before they are ready?

If you are confident in your project run with it and allow others to do whatever it is they feel they need to do.

These types of snipes do absolutely nothing to demostrate any commitment you may have towards unity.

[tireoghan]

How about here

http://eirigi.org/latest/latest130408.html

Good article

[conghaileach]

It's interesting that people have come on here asking why éirígí are not involved in the republican unity initiative and at the same time attacked them with some vitriol.

I went to a republican unity meeting in Belfast. It wasn't long started before in turned into a 'whinge about SF' meeting. I think those involved in this initiative need to make a clear case for why individual republicans or a group like éirígí would want to expend time and energy on it, which they have not done so far.

It'd be a lot better than demanding that they take part and calling them elitist if they don't.

[conghaileach]

It's more of a slogan than anything else. All kinds of "Marxists" like to spout it, but very few really analyse it.

Getting back to this point, it may we worth asking ourselves what "workers' control of the means of production, distribution and exchange" actually means in Ireland today.

Especially if we ask ourselves what the 'means of production' are today exactly. It's not like we're talking about a traditional Marxist interpretation of the industrial working class. There isn't exactly much of a steel or coal industry here. The industrial North-East has closed shop - no more shipbuilding, linen factories, etc.

The service industry would make up most of the Irish economy. Then you have the traditionally strong agricultural sector. So what does "workers' control of the means of production" mean for the farmers of Ireland?

It might seem glib but there are questions here that need to be answered by those who like throwing around the above slogan.

[Comrade Ryan]

It's interesting that people have come on here asking why éirígí are not involved in the republican unity initiative and at the same time attacked them with some vitriol.

I went to a republican unity meeting in Belfast. It wasn't long started before in turned into a 'whinge about SF' meeting. I think those involved in this initiative need to make a clear case for why individual republicans or a group like éirígí would want to expend time and energy on it, which they have not done so far.

It'd be a lot better than demanding that they take part and calling them elitist if they don't.

:eusa_clap:

[Hessian Peel]

They're not - but of course feel free to evidence your accusation.

So why do they refuse to work with the 32 CSM, RSF and the IRSM?

[mickyk200]

So why do they refuse to work with the 32 CSM, RSF and the IRSM?
Because of their stance on the armed struggle. To work with any one of those groups would to blatantly fly in the face of their policies.

[Hessian Peel]

Getting back to this point, it may we worth asking ourselves what "workers' control of the means of production, distribution and exchange" actually means in Ireland today.

Especially if we ask ourselves what the 'means of production' are today exactly. It's not like we're talking about a traditional Marxist interpretation of the industrial working class. There isn't exactly much of a steel or coal industry here. The industrial North-East has closed shop - no more shipbuilding, linen factories, etc.

The service industry would make up most of the Irish economy. Then you have the traditionally strong agricultural sector. So what does "workers' control of the means of production" mean for the farmers of Ireland?

It might seem glib but there are questions here that need to be answered by those who like throwing around the above slogan.

Workers are workers. When we say we want "workers' control of the means of production" we're talking about the Dictatorship of the Proletariat as it relates to the control of all the wealth of a country or society. Just because Ireland has very little (if any) heavy industry does not mean there isn't a working class here. Workers who work in the service industry have just much claim to the control of their workplace as those on a factory floor or small farmers and labourers in the field.

Obviously the situation regarding the lack of heavy industry would have to change under a new system. Ideally a Socialist state should become as self-sufficient as possible as trade is unlikely to be forthcoming from capitalist states, and certainly not imperialist ones. In reality Irish Socialism could not survive without a parallel change in Scotland, England and Wales.

[Hessian Peel]

Because of their stance on the armed struggle. To work with any one of those groups would to blatantly fly in the face of their policies.

Or rather it would taint their image.

[mickyk200]

Or rather it would taint their image.
Possible, éirígí being the only republican party without any baggage. The brits have no propaganda on them.

Still I believe my own explanation to be far more logical. I don't see éirígí being that concerned with how the Brits view their movement.

[FTA69]

Honestly chara, don't think their that open about it. I've never seen them directly relate anything to the GFA, although they have said that armed struggle would be counter-productive at this minute in time.

Look at the article posted directly underneath this thread, the one which outlines the GFA as the embodiment of the Ulsterisation, Criminalisation and Normalisation strategy.

[FTA69]

So why do they refuse to work with the 32 CSM, RSF and the IRSM?

When have they ever refused to work with the above? They have already taken part in protests of the above and have voiced support for political prisoners associated with the above organisations. A "refusal to work" with the above wouldn't have seen any of that. The only issue here is éirigi's non-engagement with the unity initiative, as has already explained that is because the party is seeking to establish itself on its own two feet before diving into broad alliances.

Is this somehow retarding whatever your particular group may be trying to achieve? You are seeking to create drama where there is no big issue at hand.

[Hessian Peel]

When have they ever refused to work with the above? They have already taken part in protests of the above and have voiced support for political prisoners associated with the above organisations. A "refusal to work" with the above wouldn't have seen any of that. The only issue here is éirigi's non-engagement with the unity initiative, as has already explained that is because the party is seeking to establish itself on its own two feet before diving into broad alliances.

Is this somehow retarding whatever your particular group may be trying to achieve? You are seeking to create drama where there is no big issue at hand.

There's already plenty of drama.

The fact is other Republicans don't trust eirigi.

[Jim]

you seem to have a remarkable insight into the thinking of eirigi Jim.

Don't let your predjudices get in the way of future relationships.


Jesus christ dont be such a fecking drama queen,i expressed my opinion and have no prejudices of eirigi and i havent criticised them or even mentioned them previously bar asking a few of your members what your stance was on armed struggle.

eirigi are basically trying to distance themselves from the likes of ourselves,rsf and irsm which is entirely their decision.

gain a solid identity,

What is the difference in what i said and what you said ffs.Is it a case of not wanting to be viewed by potential supporters in the provos as "just another splinter group"?

What the more interesting question is, is why do people who profess a commitment to unity seek to pressurise and cajole others to join their platform before they are ready?


It isnt our platform,or the rnfu's platform etc and that has been explained explicitly to people which unfournately hasnt sank in.
The Republican Unity project is a project that republican groups can find issues that they can agree on for the benefit of republicanism.

There is no one going to pressurise eirigi into doing anything but as far as i know eirigi havent even responded to the initiative which is a bit peculiar to be quite honest.

If you are confident in your project run with it and allow others to do whatever it is they feel they need to do.


ffs,how often do people have to tell you that the unity initiative is no one movement project.

These types of snipes do absolutely nothing to demostrate any commitment you may have towards unity.


If you regard a geniune opinion and a question from someone who is sympathetic to your movement as a snipe then i fear you'll be in for a lot of sniping.

The fact is other Republicans don't trust eirigi.

I wouldnt agree with that enver.Its not a question of trust but its lack of discussion that is the problem.

[RisenBelfast]

I don't know how often 32CSM supporters need this reiterated and the increasingly hostile tone when you raise this issue doesn't make it more likely you'll get the engagement you want but once again for those that aren't/won't listen:

éirígí is a new and developing party, defining itself, its policies and its future role in the struggle from the bottom up. To expect positions and engagement with every initiative by every other group is unrealistic until they have decided on their own positions.

If the wait makes you hostile or suspicious, that's your problem. éirígí aren't about rushing in half-cocked on impulse and without full membership consultation.

Here's a wee thought - how long were you in existance before you launched the unity initiative? Can éirígí have similar space to develop their own views on a range of issues including this one? Or do you expect them to decide on things faster than you? Doesn't seem very fair this hard ball, hostility stuff over stuff it took you years to develop.

[Nijinsky]

So why do they refuse to work with the 32 CSM, RSF and the IRSM?


They dont

[Nijinsky]

Or rather it would taint their image.

So why do they work with them in protests etc if they thought it would taint their image?

[Comrade Ryan]

So why do they refuse to work with the 32 CSM, RSF and the IRSM?

They don't.

[Nijinsky]

There's already plenty of drama.

The fact is other Republicans don't trust eirigi.

What other "republicans" do you refer to?

And what is it they dont trust about eirigi?

[Comrade Ryan]

Because of their stance on the armed struggle. To work with any one of those groups would to blatantly fly in the face of their policies.

thats incorrect micky - please do not seek to speak for eirigi as you don't have any grasp of where they are at present or what their intentions are.

[belfast rep]

What other "republicans" do you refer to?

And what is it they dont trust about eirigi?
didn't you know they are part some master plan set up by SF,

[Comrade Ryan]

There's already plenty of drama.

The fact is other Republicans don't trust eirigi.

Who exactly?

And if 'republicans' don't trust eirigi just because they are seeking to build their movement and policies before engaging in broad initiatives, well then thats a matter for them.

Although I have to say, that the elitism that would entail (you have to do as we do or else you are suspect) is a very attractive one for me, in fact, I would much rather cast my suspicions on those who attempt to rail road others into initiatives rather than upon those who choose, for the time being at least, not to engage in them.

[Comrade Ryan]

Jesus christ dont be such a fecking drama queen,i expressed my opinion and have no prejudices of eirigi and i havent criticised them or even mentioned them previously bar asking a few of your members what your stance was on armed struggle..

No Jim you are not being honest here at all.

Its not just simply offering an opinion, its making inferrences on what eirigi is doing and why they are doing it.

You have been told time and time again here that eirigi is a very young org and is in the process of building its policies, structure, membership, and identity, but you choose it continue to insinuate it isn't involved the the republican unity initiative because it is interested in distancing itself from the other groups, so as not to be tainted in the eyes of potential PSF supporters.

That is clearly a prejudice, you have heard more plausible reasons why but you fail to accept them and continue to propagate your own ill-founded claims.


What is the difference in what i said and what you said ffs.Is it a case of not wanting to be viewed by potential supporters in the provos as "just another splinter group"?..

There is a massive difference.

You said: "eirigi are basically trying to distance themselves from the likes of ourselves,rsf and irsm.."

Which infers some type of cynical distancing themselves from the groups listed - which is not the case - I offered the real reason for not being currently engaged in the unity initiative which is entirely more logical, principled and positive, which is: gain a solid identity,

Gain a solid identity of their own before becoming involved in wider initiatives, so that people know clearly where eirigi stand in relation to the future direction required and so that its message is not lost or subsumed through its identification with a broader liner or group.

All the other participants have been around for some time and have their own identity and their own solid policies, why are you determined to deny eirigi the same space that the others enjoyed?


It isnt our platform,or the rnfu's platform etc and that has been explained explicitly to people which unfournately hasnt sank in.
The Republican Unity project is a project that republican groups can find issues that they can agree on for the benefit of republicanism.

Where did I state it was 32 platform? When I use 'your', 'their', etc, in relation to the unity initiative, i'm clearly referring to the unity initiative and not any of the single groups involved in it.


There is no one going to pressurise eirigi into doing anything but as far as i know eirigi havent even responded to the initiative which is a bit peculiar to be quite honest..

There are attempts to pressurise them into it, although they are ill-founded, ill-advised, and result only in ill-feeling and suspicion.

When you insinutate negative reasons for them not engaging, when people state that peopel do not trust them because of it, etc, that is pressure.

When it is used as the sole yardstick through which to judge eirigi present and future intent towards unity it is pressure.



ffs,how often do people have to tell you that the unity initiative is no one movement project...

ffs, show me where I have said otherwise?



If you regard a geniune opinion and a question from someone who is sympathetic to your movement as a snipe then i fear you'll be in for a lot of sniping....

you are quite sympathetic? Really?

Well then why oh why do you assume the worst, consistently.

Why do you assume eirigi is not involved in the unity initiative through singly, elitist and cynical grounds?

Why not give them the same space all of you enjoyed and allow them to find their own place and develop to a sufficient degree, standard and size, whereby they will not just be subsumed by larger groups.

Why not respect the fact that before they can realistically ask people to support them that they have to layout claerly what it is they are asking support for?

It is sniping when you infer a negative inappropriately.




I wouldnt agree with that enver.Its not a question of trust but its lack of discussion that is the problem.

Thanks.

[conghaileach]

The fact is other Republicans don't trust eirigi.

So why the rush to get them involved in the unity project?

[conghaileach]

It isnt our platform,or the rnfu's platform etc and that has been explained explicitly to people which unfournately hasnt sank in.
The Republican Unity project is a project that republican groups can find issues that they can agree on for the benefit of republicanism.

Like what? Numerous meetings have been held, what issues have been found so far that required the unity project to find them? What campaigns are there that organisations and individuals can't support without being involved in the unity project?

[mickyk200]

thats incorrect micky - please do not seek to speak for eirigi as you don't have any grasp of where they are at present or what their intentions are.
Well you tell me Ryan.

Surely that would make sense. They believe the armed struggle is counter-productive at this minute in time. So why campaign with a group that believes it is the way forward?

[Comrade Ryan]

Well you tell me Ryan.

Surely that would make sense. They believe the armed struggle is counter-productive at this minute in time. So why campaign with a group that believes it is the way forward?

I have already told you and everyone else here why I think the situation is the way it is.

I'm merely highlighting the fact that you are in no position to speak for eirigi on any issue, as not only are you not privy to their thinking, your politics aren't exactly similar either.

They do not object to armed struggle, they merely think it isn't the right course of action at present, that would not however prevent them from working with or campaigning on common issues with those that disagree

[FTA69]

There's already plenty of drama.

The fact is other Republicans don't trust eirigi.

And since when do you speak for other Republicans? I've met people from a variety of left-wing and Republican groups who have expressed support for what the party is doing; making statements like the above is simply churlish.

[mickyk200]

I have already told you and everyone else here why I think the situation is the way it is.

I'm merely highlighting the fact that you are in no position to speak for eirigi on any issue, as not only are you not privy to their thinking, your politics aren't exactly similar either.

They do not object to armed struggle, they merely think it isn't the right course of action at present, that would not however prevent them from working with or campaigning on common issues with those that disagree
My politics?
You are well aware that I have jumped ship?

[lorgadan]

Not entirely sure that anyone is too bothered to be honest with you micky.

[Comrade Ryan]

My politics?
You are well aware that I have jumped ship?

You have jumped ship? I wasn't aware.

However, if you have it still doesn't change the fact that some of your views, ie immigrants, and 'white pride', are decidedly dodgey.

I'm not sure eirigi would be an appropriate fit for you.

[belfast rep]

My politics?
You are well aware that I have jumped ship?

jumped ship?, i thought that was dependent on the A/C doing what you wanted?
although i did i point out that after your white power tripe i would be glad to see you go, and yes i am delighted, hopefully the ship you choose is full of immigrants

[belfast rep]

You have jumped ship? I wasn't aware.

However, if you have it still doesn't change the fact that some of your views, ie immigrants, and 'white pride', are decidedly dodgey.

I'm not sure eirigi would be an appropriate fit for you.
your F*****G keeping him, we don't want him back

[Comrade Ryan]

your F*****G keeping him, we don't want him back

:no:

[Hessian Peel]

So why the rush to get them involved in the unity project?

I never said I was in a rush to involve them in anything.

[Hessian Peel]

didn't you know they are part some master plan set up by SF,

:eusa_dance::eusa_dance::eusa_dance::eusa_dance:

[conghaileach]

I never said I was in a rush to involve them in anything.

I never mentioned you, I was referring to all of those "republicans" who you can claim with confidence do not trust éirígí. So you can't speak on their behalf now?

[mickyk200]

However, if you have it still doesn't change the fact that some of your views, ie immigrants, and 'white pride', are decidedly dodgey.
I have not give you a negative opinion of immigration. As regards of being proud of who I am shall we take it over to private debates or something?

I'm not sure eirigi would be an appropriate fit for you.
Who's speaking for éirígí now?

[mickyk200]

jumped ship?, i thought that was dependent on the A/C doing what you wanted?
Doing what I want?
Doing what they should do...

although i did i point out that after your white power tripe i would be glad to see you go, and yes i am delighted, hopefully the ship you choose is full of immigrants
I AM NOT HOSTILE OR BIGOTED AGAINST IMMIGRANTS!!!
If anything I am a f*cking immigrant. My family name is not of Irish origin so being hostile towards them would be a tad hypocritical.

[RisenBelfast]

Speaking for myself, I'd be withdrawing support for éirígí if people like you were accepted for membership (though I don't see that ever happening).

[Comrade Ryan]

I have not give you a negative opinion of immigration. As regards of being proud of who I am shall we take it over to private debates or something??

Well you framed immigration in relation to 'spongers' so yes you did give a negative view of immigration. Thats the fact.

I have no desire to engage in a debate about 'white pride' nor your neo-nazi quotations. That, I see, has been done to death on another thread.



Who's speaking for éirígí now?

I happen to know a little about eirigi, enough to know that people expressing 'white pride' sentiments and engaging in invective about black people through quoting a film character who was a neo-nazi, would not be a good fit for the party.

I also note that I didn't speak for eirigi, I didn't refuse you membership, but I did make a common sense judgement.

Why not go to them with your views in hand, and see what they make of it.

I have no fear of being proven wrong on this one.

[mickyk200]

Well you framed immigration in relation to 'spongers' so yes you did give a negative view of immigration. Thats the fact.
Immigration has negative cogitations as well as positive ones, to deny this you must be a fool.

I have no desire to engage in a debate about 'white pride' nor your neo-nazi quotations. That, I see, has been done to death on another thread.
Fair enough; I've lost what ambition there was for that topic anyway.


I happen to know a little about eirigi, enough to know that people expressing 'white pride' sentiments and engaging in invective about black people through quoting a film character who was a neo-nazi, would not be a good fit for the party.
I have offered you a private debate regarding the matter. If you wish to shy away after simply labeling me racist I think that says more about you than it does me.

I also note that I didn't speak for eirigi, I didn't refuse you membership, but I did make a common sense judgement.
Well, following my statement regarding éirígí's co-operation with other anti-GFA parties, you attempted to tell me I couldn't speak for éirígí. But somehow your statement can speak for them while mine cannot?

Why not go to them with your views in hand, and see what they make of it.
I'm in the process of setting up a éirígí project with some friends of mine so we shall see who will have the last laugh.

I have no fear of being proven wrong on this one.
lol

[RisenBelfast]

You aren't setting up any éirígí project you liar.



I suggest ignoring this lying, racist troll in future.

[mickyk200]

You aren't setting up any éirígí project you liar.

I'm currently working with a member of OSF and speaking to éirígí members to help with a community project for the summer. Don't call me a lair.

I suggest ignoring this lying, racist troll in future.
I look like I care.

[conghaileach]

I'm currently working with a member of OSF and speaking to éirígí members to help with a community project for the summer. Don't call me a lair.
So it's not actually an éirígí project then. And RB was correct to call you a liar.

[Nijinsky]

Mickeyk200: Immigration has negative cogitations as well as positive ones

Such as?

[Comrade Ryan]

Immigration has negative cogitations as well as positive ones, to deny this you must be a fool.

Of course it does, in individual cases, but I note how the only aspect you focussed on was the negative side, even though the negatives would be far outweighed by the positives.

Why did you do that do you think? :hmmm:


Fair enough; I've lost what ambition there was for that topic anyway..

I don't think you'd like to re-visit it, its as well most probably haven't the energy to sift through the 20 odd pages.



I have offered you a private debate regarding the matter. If you wish to shy away after simply labeling me racist I think that says more about you than it does me...

micky, I have seen your private debate with Republican Socialist, and to be quite frank its pathetic.

I wouldn't waste my time engaging in that type of nonsense with you, anyone can have a look and they'll probably agree that it gets quite infantile.

Trust me I am not shying away from your debating 'abilities', I merely have no desire to engage with someone to debate whether or not they are a racist when the evidence that they are has come straight from the source.

See your 'white pride' contributions and my favourite bit whereby you basically quote the neonazi from American History X verbatim.


Well, following my statement regarding éirígí's co-operation with other anti-GFA parties, you attempted to tell me I couldn't speak for éirígí. But somehow your statement can speak for them while mine cannot?...

You spoke on behalf of eirigi about an issue they have not publicly declared their position.

I gave a judgement based upon what was available publicaly, namely that eirigi is anti-racist and therefore those with racist tendencies would not be welcome.

See the difference?


I'm in the process of setting up a éirígí project with some friends of mine so we shall see who will have the last laugh.

Sure you are.

How can you and your 'friends' set up an eirigi project? eirigi projects can only be set up and approved by eirigi members surely?

But it makes little odds, you won't get past the bit where racism is rejected wholesale with out any ifs or buts.

[mickyk200]

So it's not actually an éirígí project then. And RB was correct to call you a liar.
Well a project involving eírígí...I would call that an éirígí project considering involvement of members.

Racist I am far from, the aforementioned project will benefit Romanian gypsies as well as nationalists thus to call me racist was in fact not true.

[mickyk200]

Of course it does, in individual cases, but I note how the only aspect you focussed on was the negative side, even though the negatives would be far outweighed by the positives.
Would you prefer me to post a poll asking "do FN's work?"..Which would be absurd. Of course they do, I'm not rallying a hate speech, I'm analyzing the republican perspective on the issue of the negative aspects of immigration.


BTW when did I ever say the positives outweigh the negatives?
If anything the opposite.

I don't think you'd like to re-visit it, its as well most probably haven't the energy to sift through the 20 odd pages.
You're quite right, I could do with out reading 20 pages of name calling.




micky, I have seen your private debate with Republican Socialist, and to be quite frank its pathetic.
Well prove how pathetic I am. You must be truly the professional of all debate.

Trust me I am not shying away from your debating 'abilities'
I do not pretend to be some expert at debate. I do however claim to be able to display my opinion, whether or not you agree it beyond my concern.

See your 'white pride' contributions and my favourite bit whereby you basically quote the neonazi from American History X verbatim.
Glad to see you're entertained by so little.


You spoke on behalf of eirigi about an issue they have not publicly declared their position.
I simply referred to their stance on the armed struggle compared to that of other movements/ Far from issuing a statement on their behalf.

I gave a judgement based upon what was available publicaly, namely that eirigi is anti-racist and therefore those with racist tendencies would not be welcome.

See the difference?
I see well a chara. Whether I am racist in their eyes or not is not for yourself to say.




How can you and your 'friends' set up an eirigi project? eirigi projects can only be set up and approved by eirigi members surely?
They are éirígí members. It is not done in the name of éirígí however it is a project their members are undertaking.

But it makes little odds, you won't get past the bit where racism is rejected wholesale with out any ifs or buts
What some are willing to deem racism and what isn't seems awful wishy washy to me.

[Nijinsky]

mickeyk200: I'm analyzing the republican perspective on the issue of the negative aspects of immigration

Which are?

[mickyk200]

mickeyk200:

Which are?
The original was unjustified benefit claiming. First one that came to mind and I assumed would be the most predominate

[andreas]

didn't you know they are part some master plan set up by SF,


There is a perception among some republicans that eirigi may be the 'approved' dissident group and were, if not created by, then promoted by some elements within PSF to have a group opposed to some of their policies which they could control. I am not saying that is the case nor do i think any of the other movements hostile to PSF's political position think this in any organisational capacity however there is that perception and i feel eirigi should address it.

[Nijinsky]

The original was unjustified benefit claiming. First one that came to mind and I assumed would be the most predominate

"Unjustified benefit claiming" is not a negative of immigration. We have had it before immigartion and will have it after immigration so it cannot be described as a negative of immigration.

Have you any figures for immigrants falsely claiming benefit btw?

[Nijinsky]

There is a perception among some republicans that eirigi may be the 'approved' dissident group and were, if not created by, then promoted by some elements within PSF to have a group opposed to some of their policies which they could control. I am not saying that is the case nor do i think any of the other movements hostile to PSF's political position think this in any organisational capacity however there is that perception and i feel eirigi should address it.

They have addressed it. Many of those that formed it LEFT Sinn Fein and set up a new political party with policies that are DIFFERENT than Sinn Feins.

Straightforward really

[RisenBelfast]

I'm currently working with a member of OSF and speaking to éirígí members to help with a community project for the summer. Don't call me a lair.


Why shouldn't I call you a liar?

You said:

I'm in the process of setting up a éirígí project

Then promptly admitted you aren't setting up an éirígí project. I wonder how many of your current claims are also untrue.

btw: if you can't keep a civil tongue in your head please don't sent me private messages in future.

[andreas]

They have addressed it. Many of those that formed it LEFT Sinn Fein and set up a new political party with policies that are DIFFERENT than Sinn Feins.

Straightforward really

Thats ok then, now nobody thinks it anymore.

[Nijinsky]

Thats ok then, now nobody thinks it anymore.

Who actually thought it in the first place?

[andreas]

I know several people who have stated it. One of them a provo.

[Nijinsky]

I know several people who have stated it. One of them a provo.

Not very bright then (IF they actually believed it) , are they?

[andreas]

Not very bright then (IF they actually believed it) , are they?

Obviously not if you say so.

[Nijinsky]

Obviously not if you say so.

No, not because I or anyone else says so. You only have to look at the policies of the two to see how different they are, dont you?

[andreas]

How would the fact that they have different policies negate what people some people think? Obviously they would have different policies. Anyway i never said it was true just that i had heard several people state it. You seem to think that no one thinks it and if they do then they are stupid, thats fine.

[Nijinsky]

How would the fact that they have different policies negate what people some people think? Obviously they would have different policies. Anyway i never said it was true just that i had heard several people state it. You seem to think that no one thinks it and if they do then they are stupid, thats fine.

I dont know whether people think it or not. However, if they do, then they are either stupid or didnt bother looking at what either group stands for, did they?

[andreas]

I dont know whether people think it or not. However, if they do, then they are either stupid or didnt bother looking at what either group stands for, did they?

Some of the people who told me they thought it were neither stupid nor did they not bother to look at what the group stands for.

[Nijinsky]

Some of the people who told me they thought it were neither stupid nor did they not bother to look at what the group stands for.

Well, if they looked at what both groups stood for they would see that they are diametrically opposed? Do you not think so?

[andreas]

On the face of it yes.

[mickyk200]

Why shouldn't I call you a liar?

You said:



Then promptly admitted you aren't setting up an éirígí project. I wonder how many of your current claims are also untrue.

btw: if you can't keep a civil tongue in your head please don't sent me private messages in future.
Excuse me but to blatantly call me a lair and a racist then you dare tell me to keep a civil lounge.

A project under taken by éirígí members, what would you call it mr. risen Belfast?

[Nijinsky]

On the face of it yes.

So that implies that they must be stupid

[andreas]

OK, they must be stupid. Many people believe that British intelligence have been running the provos and shinners for years however on the face of it their positions would appear to be diametrically opposed, are the people who think this stupid?

[mickyk200]

"Unjustified benefit claiming" is not a negative of immigration. We have had it before immigartion and will have it after immigration so it cannot be described as a negative of immigration.
Oh I'm well aware we have our own claiming benefits unjustly. I don't blame immigration for that. I do blame immigration for FN's exploiting the benefits system. They are very much in the minority in my opinion, the vast majority coming here purely to work and make their money.

Have you any figures for immigrants falsely claiming benefit btw?
Have you any figures for the amount of red diesel laundered in the 6 counties? lmao

You cannot expect to draw up figures for something like that.

[Nijinsky]

OK, they must be stupid. Many people believe that British intelligence have been running the provos and shinners for years however on the face of it their positions would appear to be diametrically opposed, are the people who think this stupid?


So what do you think Eirigi are? Some SF conspiracy?

[Nijinsky]

mickyk200O: I'm well aware we have our own claiming benefits unjustly. I don't blame immigration for that.

Well thats refreshing

mickyk200 I do blame immigration for FN's exploiting the benefits system.

How are they doing it? How many of them are doing it?

mickyk200Have you any figures for the amount of red diesel laundered in the 6 counties? lmao

No, which is why I am not making any claims about it

mickyk200You cannot expect to draw up figures for something like that

So then how do you know that immigrants are falsely claiming benefits they are entitled to?

[andreas]

So what do you think Eirigi are? Some SF conspiracy?

I think no such thing, i pointed out what some people think and stated that it needs addressed. Do you think that the people who think the PSF/PIRA project has been largely run by the Brits for years are stupid?

[Nijinsky]

I think no such thing, i pointed out what some people think and stated that it needs addressed. Do you think that the people who think the PSF/PIRA project has been largely run by the Brits for years are stupid?

No, what makes you think that?

So how would Eirigi adress it for you?

[mickyk200]

How are they doing it? How many of them are doing it?
The same way our own do it I would assume. I've never done it myself so icouldn't tell ya.

A handful, Jesus mo chara, no-one could give you an accurate figure for that.

So then how do you know that immigrants are falsely claiming benefits they are entitled to?
Seriously?
So no FN is here doing anything they shouldn't be because I cannot prove it?

[andreas]

No, what makes you think that?

So how would Eirigi adress it for you?

Because you judged that people who thought that eirigi were a construct of another group were stupid because the positions of the two groups in question were diametrically opposed.
How would eirigi address what for me?

[Nijinsky]

Because you judged that people who thought that eirigi were a construct of another group were stupid because the positions of the two groups in question were diametrically opposed.
How would eirigi address what for me?

Whatever it is that you think eirigi need to address

[Nijinsky]

mickyk200:
So no FN is here doing anything they shouldn't be because I cannot prove it

This isnt about FN not doing anything they shouldnt be. You made a specific claim about immigrants falsely claiming benefits as a negative aspect of immigration. Yet now you have absolutely no idea if they are doing so or not. Why make a claim on something that you by your own admission know so little about?

[andreas]

Whatever it is that you think eirigi need to address


They need to address what they would see as a misconception about themselves for themselves not for me. I am not one of those who has the misconception. One method of addressing it would be to recognise that it exists, another would be to engage with other republicans in initiatives aimed at protecting the republican position.
So you think people are stupid for thinking PSF run eirigi but not stupid for thinking the Brits run PSF?

[Nijinsky]

andreas: another would be to engage with other republicans in initiatives aimed at protecting the republican position.

Specifically how?

[andreas]

There are many ways to engage, i know that they have been invited to by the 32CSM for a kick off but refused to do so. Specifically i believe they should become part of the republican unity initiative as should RSF, a co-ordinated republican effort at highlighting the denial of our national sovereignty, denial of our right to national self determination and the denial of Irish democracy would be better than several unconnected efforts.

[Nijinsky]

andreas: There are many ways to engage, i know that they have been invited to by the 32CSM for a kick off but refused to do so.

Did they refuse to do so or not respond yet?

andreas Specifically i believe they should become part of the republican unity initiative

Some of the eirigi members of supporters gave fairly detailed reasons on some othe thread here as to why they havent taken any decision as to whether they should get involved in it yet

However, I dont see how whether or not someone takes part in one specific political activity will show that they are a construct of SF or not. RSF arent involved in it, do those that think Eirigi are a construct of SF think the same of RSF?

[andreas]

It is my understanding that they have refused to become involved. Greater cooperation with other republicans would help allay such unfounded allegations and 'thoughts' by showing eirigi for what they are. The best judge of intentions is not what it says on a website but judgement based on actions. Shared actions promote trust. You would need to ask people who think if eirigi are a construct of PSF the same question regarding RSF, no one has said to me that RSF are, only eirigi.

[conghaileach]

Well a project involving eírígí...I would call that an éirígí project considering involvement of members.

Unless it's actually run by éirígí it can't be called an éirígí project. There are some éirígí members involved in the Campaign Against the EU Constitution for example but you could hardly call that an éirígí project.

[conghaileach]

They need to address what they would see as a misconception about themselves for themselves not for me.

How exactly could éirígí address the paranoid notions of some "republicans" that the party is actually some kind of Machiavellian Sinn Féin conspiracy? And regardless, why should it feel the need to? Why would it feel the need to explain its existence to any person or organisation?

And aren't we getting down a road that we've been dragged down on numerous occasions in this forum?

[Nijinsky]

It is my understanding that they have refused to become involved. Greater cooperation with other republicans would help allay such unfounded allegations and 'thoughts' by showing eirigi for what they are. The best judge of intentions is not what it says on a website but judgement based on actions. Shared actions promote trust.

They already take part in "shared actions". This discussion took place already on another thread. If Eirigi and its membership have decided not to yet take part in one specific united campaign, (a unity project other groups took years upon years to agree to) it would be extremely foolish of them to do so just to allay the fears of a few people who for some strange reason seem to think they are a SF construct.

[Liam Lynch]

How exactly could éirígí address the paranoid notions of some "republicans" that the party is actually some kind of Machiavellian Sinn Féin conspiracy? And regardless, why should it feel the need to?

And aren't we getting down a road that we've been dragged down on numerous occasions in this forum?

For a start they could explain the differences between themselves and PSF that actually merit being in existence.

[conghaileach]

For a start they could explain the differences between themselves and PSF that actually merit being in existence.
Been covered numerous times.

[Liam Lynch]

Been covered numerous times.

Not really. What evolved from the discussion here was a position wherein eirigi people denied that eirigi evolved from PSF but where a construct of former PSF personnel. That was an avoidance.

[Nijinsky]

Not really. What evolved from the discussion here was a position wherein eirigi people denied that eirigi evolved from PSF but where a construct of former PSF personnel. That was an avoidance.

Its not liam

And it has been covered here. Are you genuinely saying that you cant see any significant difference between SF and Eirigi?

[andreas]

It's like trying to lift mercury with a fork. Eirigi people refuse to answer any questions about themselves with reference to PSF and their departure. The 32 County Sovereignty Movement were created within PSF then left to form a separate movement. Most 32CSM members now where never in PSF that however does not stop the organisation from stating its position with reference to what it was about the PSF position that necessitated a new organisation. We are quite happy to outline 'specifically' what points of PSF policy forced us to leave.

[Nijinsky]

It's like trying to lift mercury with a fork. Eirigi people refuse to answer any questions about themselves with reference to PSF and their departure. The 32 County Sovereignty Movement were created within PSF then left to form a separate movement. Most 32CSM members now where never in PSF that however does not stop the organisation from stating its position with reference to what it was about the PSF position that necessitated a new organisation. We are quite happy to outline 'specifically' what points of PSF policy forced us to leave.

And fair play to ye but because thats what happened with the creation of your organisation does not apply to everyone else. éirigi is not a split from SF based around a single event. This has all been discussed on previous threads in detail

[andreas]

So the political position of PSF is irrelevant in the creation of eirigi, they are just a variety of individuals who came from a variety of political backrounds and formed a political group and then party for a variety of different reasons.

[Liam Lynch]

Its not liam

And it has been covered here. Are you genuinely saying that you cant see any significant difference between SF and Eirigi?

I can't see any significant eirigi explanation of it. All I see is a denial of their origins.

[Nijinsky]

So the political position of PSF is irrelevant in the creation of eirigi, they are just a variety of individuals who came from a variety of political backrounds and formed a political group and then party for a variety of different reasons.

Did someone say that?

[Nijinsky]

Liam, are you genuinely saying that you cant see any significant difference between SF and Eirigi?

[andreas]

That seems to be the gist of a number of posters on a number of threads, forgive me if i have misread your position.

[Liam Lynch]

Liam, are you genuinely saying that you cant see any significant difference between SF and Eirigi?

I can't see eirigi explaining exactly what differences led them to depart from PSF.

[Nijinsky]

That seems to be the gist of a number of posters on a number of threads, forgive me if i have misread your position.

Its not my position (and I dont know how you would have came to that conclusion) and I havent read anyone from eirigi or supporter of eirigi who claimed that either.

[Nijinsky]

I can't see eirigi explaining exactly what differences led them to depart from PSF.


But are you saying that you cant see any significant difference between SF and Eirigi?

[Liam Lynch]

But are you saying that you cant see any significant difference between SF and Eirigi?

I can't see any explained differences.

[andreas]

maybe i'm stupid, like those who think that Eirigi are a safe 'dissident' option promoted by PSF

[Nijinsky]

I can't see any explained differences.

So you havent even taken the time to read any of their policies or stated positions etc?

[Nijinsky]

maybe i'm stupid, like those who think that Eirigi are a safe 'dissident' option promoted by PSF

I cant speak for whether or not you are stupid andreas. Only you know that

[Liam Lynch]

So you havent even taken the time to read any of their policies or stated positions etc?

Of course I have. But in engaging supporters here I have failed to secure or pinpoint the exact reasons as to their departure from PSF.

[andreas]

I cant speak for whether or not you are stupid andreas. Only you know that

Perhaps i'm too stupid to realise i'm stupid.

[Nijinsky]

Perhaps i'm too stupid to realise i'm stupid.

I wouldnt rule it out if I was you

[Nijinsky]

Of course I have. But in engaging supporters here I have failed to secure or pinpoint the exact reasons as to their departure from PSF.

Thats not what I asked you.

I asked you are you saying that you cant see any significant difference between SF and Eirigi? Is that the case?

[andreas]

No don't rule anything out, that would necessitate ruling something in and that wouldn't do at all, better to keep all options open.

[Nijinsky]

No don't rule anything out, that would necessitate ruling something in and that wouldn't do at all, better to keep all options open.

Whatever makes you happy

[andreas]

Thats not what I asked you.

I asked you are you saying that you cant see any significant difference between SF and Eirigi? Is that the case?

I can't speak for Liam but i can see difference between PSF and eirigi, now as simply as i can put it:
Can you pinpoint the exact reasons for Eirigi's initial departure from PSF, as you understand it.

[Nijinsky]

I can't speak for Liam but i can see difference between PSF and eirigi, now as simply as i can put it:
Can you pinpoint the exact reasons for Eirigis's initial departure from PSF, as you understand it.

What is thew differences that you see between SF and Eirigi?

There was no mass walkout of SF. Eirigi wasnt formed within SF. Eirigi was formed by people that had been in SF (though they didnt all leave SF at the one time) and indeed some that never were in SF. There was no single event that occurred, no 1986 ard Fheis motion when RSF were established etc This has been done to death on other threads

[andreas]

What is thew differences that you see between SF and Eirigi?

There was no mass walkout of SF. Eirigi wasnt formed within SF. Eirigi was formed by people that had been in SF (though they didnt all leave SF at the one time) and indeed some that never were in SF. There was no single event that occurred, no 1986 ard Fheis motion when RSF were established etc This has been done to death on other threads

So a variety of different people from a variety of backrounds for a variety of reasons?

[Liam Lynch]

Thats not what I asked you.

I asked you are you saying that you cant see any significant difference between SF and Eirigi? Is that the case?

With respect, you asked me had I read their stated positions and policies. I said I had. You then asked me if I could see any significant differences between the two. I responded that in dialogue with its supporters on this forum they failed to pin point exactly what the differences were which forced their departure from PSF.

[Nijinsky]

So a variety of different people from a variety of backrounds for a variety of reasons?

No, you have difficulties with english havent you? Eirigi wasnt formed in SF. There was no walk out from SF to form Eirigi. It didnt happen. Just because your organisation and indeed rsf was formed like that doesnt mean that every other organisation had to to do the same.

Eirigi are also quite rightly not falling into a situation where they are going to be seen primarily as being anti-SF. Instead they are quite rightly trying to promote their own organisation and their own policies and what they believe in

I would know a few of the lads that are currently in éirigi from my time in SF and know that like myself that they consistently opposed the GFA within SF and worked to try to change the SF position in relation to that. I presume, but dont know this for a fact, that a point came where they realised that they could not turn the movement around and decided it was time to move on.

I was in a similar position in that I opposed where the movement were going but stayed for many years and fought to change that direction before eventually leaving when I felt that I could not effect the change that I thought necessary

[Nijinsky]

With respect, you asked me had I read their stated positions and policies. I said I had. You then asked me if I could see any significant differences between the two. I responded that in dialogue with its supporters on this forum they failed to pin point exactly what the differences were which forced their departure from PSF.


I asked you "are you saying that you cant see any significant difference between SF and Eirigi?"

You claim you have read Eirigis policies etc so

Any chance of actually answering that Liam?

[andreas]

No, you have difficulties with english havent you? Eirigi wasnt formed in SF. There was no walk out from SF to form Eirigi. It didnt happen. Just because your organisation and indeed rsf was formed like that doesnt mean that every other organisation had to to do the same.

Eirigi are also quite rightly not falling into a situation where they are going to be seen primarily as being anti-SF. Instead they are quite rightly trying to promote their own organisation and their own policies and what they believe in

I would know a few of the lads that are currently in éirigi from my time in SF and know that like myself that they consistently opposed the GFA within SF and worked to try to change the SF position in relation to that. I presume, but dont know this for a fact, that a point came where they realised that they could not turn the movement around and decided it was time to move on.

I was in a similar position in that I opposed where the movement were going but stayed for many years and fought to change that direction before eventually leaving when I felt that I could not effect the change that I thought necessary


How does what you have written contradict what i have written.

[Nijinsky]

How does what you have written contradict what i have written.


You asked "an you pinpoint the exact reasons for Eirigi's initial departure from PSF, as you understand it."

There was no depareture by Eirigi form anyone. It didnt happen, much as you seem to want it to have happened, for some strange reason

[Liam Lynch]

I asked you "are you saying that you cant see any significant difference between SF and Eirigi?"

Any chance of actually answering that Liam?

Please stop avoiding the core issue here. Eirigi have stated positions, who doesn't, The veracity of those positions are gauged and tested by debate. In that debate on this forum eirigi supporters failed to explain or pinpoint their reasons for differing with PSF to the point that compelled them to leave PSF. If they cannot articulate this what's the point in myself seeing anything in relation to them?

[Nijinsky]

It beats me why ye would be so intent in having them involved in the Unity project when ye seem to have so much scepticism about them. Why even contact them about it about it if ye feel that way about them?

[Nijinsky]

Please stop avoiding the core issue here. Eirigi have stated positions, who doesn't, The veracity of those positions are gauged and tested by debate. In that debate on this forum eirigi supporters failed to explain or pinpoint their reasons for differing with PSF to the point that compelled them to leave PSF. If they cannot articulate this what's the point in myself seeing anything in relation to them?


Its you thats avoiding the issue here Liam, not for the first time.


I asked you "are you saying that you cant see any significant difference between SF and Eirigi?"

Any chance of actually answering that Liam? Its a fairly simple question for someone who claims to have read Eirigi policy positions

[andreas]

You asked "an you pinpoint the exact reasons for Eirigi's initial departure from PSF, as you understand it."

There was no depareture by Eirigi form anyone. It didnt happen, much as you seem to want it to have happened, for some strange reason


I couldn't give a ****, the reality is that were it not for a problem within PSF eirigi wouldn't exist, same as ourselves, same as RSF, same, to a degree with the IRSP (osf rather than psf) these are facts. Eirigi didn't spring up organically with no connection to PSF as much as you seem to want it to have happened that way. And if it did happen the way you claim it did then it was a variety of different people, from a variety of backfrounds for a variety of reasons, something that you have issue with me saying.

[Liam Lynch]

Your avoiding the issue here Liam, not the first time.


I asked you "are you saying that you cant see any significant difference between SF and Eirigi?"

Any chance of actually answering that Liam? Its a fairly simple question for someone who claims to have read Eirigi policy positions

As a result of engagement with its supporters no I can't. I don't judge a book by its cover. It is disengenous in the extreme to disassociate the formation of eirigi from the PSF organisation. Now please engage on the substantive issue. eirigi is as product of PSF/PRM, just as the 32CSM are, so explain the core reasons for departure?

[Nijinsky]

Goodnight liam, if you havent the decency to answer a simple question that has been asked of you on a number of occasions or cannot see the obvious differences between Eirigi and SF theres not much point talking to you. As I said though, it beats me why ye even contacted Eirigi considering the obvious hostility you feel for them.:hmmm:

Good night

[andreas]

Goodnight liam, if you havent the decency to answer a simple question that has been asked of you on a number of occasions or cannot see the obvious differences between Eirigi and SF theres not much point talking to you. As I said though, it beats me why ye even contacted Eirigi considering the obvious hostility you feel for them.:hmmm:

Good night


He's after answering you that no he can't.

[Liam Lynch]

Goodnight liam, if you havent the decency to answer a simple question that has been asked of you on a number of occasions or cannot see the obvious differences between Eirigi and SF theres not much point talking to you. As I said though, it beats me why ye even contacted Eirigi considering the obvious hostility you feel for them.:hmmm:

Good night

That's an outrageous accusation to make on the back of a healthy engagement with eirigi supporters on this forum. I bear no hostility toward eirigi and I think it a grevious flaw to interpret honest debate in that fashion.

[conghaileach]

The veracity of those positions are gauged and tested by debate. In that debate on this forum eirigi supporters failed to explain or pinpoint their reasons for differing with PSF to the point that compelled them to leave PSF.

Are you looking for an éirígí position or the position of individual éirígí members/supporters?

You won't get the former because it doesn't exist (and how long will it take for that point to sink in?). You might get the latter, and I believe I've seen it here a few times, but that's a matter of how you approach said individuals.

[Liam Lynch]

Are you looking for an éirígí position or the position of individual éirígí members/supporters?

You won't get the former because it doesn't exist (and how long will it take for that point to sink in?). You might get the latter, and I believe I've seen it here a few times, but that's a matter of how you approach said individuals.

I think there's a problem with credibility here. The political entity that is eirigi is a product of the political entity that is Provisional Sinn Fein. All we are attempting to do is define the political differences that compelled eirigi to be founded from PSF? Saying that its not a direct product comes across as not wanting to acknowledge it.

[FTA69]

I think there's a problem with credibility here. The political entity that is eirigi is a product of the political entity that is Provisional Sinn Fein. All we are attempting to do is define the political differences that compelled eirigi to be founded from PSF? Saying that its not a direct product comes across as not wanting to acknowledge it.

If éirigi emerged from SF as a solid, organised block like the 32s and RSF then it would be fair to ask what differences compelled éirigi as an organisation. However that was not the case, éirigi initially consisted of six people, do you want those six people to explain those political differences? What about those who joined soon after? Or those joining now? Or those who were never involved with anything before?

The fact is you are seeking concrete examples of political differences from individuals who came together over a period of time, each with their own story to tell. There are many ex-SF personnel within éirigi, that is true, but they didn't all leave at the same time or for the same reasons unlike the 32s, so comparing the origins of the two is simply a pointless excercise.

Likewise I see no reason why éirigi should place such emphasis on defining their project by what they currently percieve to be faults within SF. The party's policies, actions and democratic structure demonstrate that difference aptly enough, and will continue to do so in future.

[Carlos McJackle]

[QUOTE]If éirigi emerged from SF as a solid, organised block like the 32s and RSF then it would be fair to ask what differences compelled éirigi as an organisation. However that was not the case, éirigi initially consisted of six people, do you want those six people to explain those political differences? What about those who joined soon after? Or those joining now? Or those who were never involved with anything before?


it should be pointed out here that originally 32 csm was just the sovereignty committee , a small group within sinn fein which was expelled . Others joined later iover the years , some from provisional sinn fein , RSF as well as young republicans with no previous involvement . We also had for want of a better term former insurgents whod formerly swore never to have anything to do with politics , but changed their minds later down the line . That does not prevent 32 CSM from pointing out its political differences with PSF if asked to do so.

The fact is you are seeking concrete examples of political differences from individuals who came together over a period of time, each with their own story to tell. There are many ex-SF personnel within éirigi, that is true, but they didn't all leave at the same time or for the same reasons unlike the 32s, so comparing the origins of the two is simply a pointless excercise.

this is factually incorrect

[RisenBelfast]

The simple fact is that those that started éirígí created it purely as a campaigns group and that was how it operated initially. The political party only came about, grew and developed as more people joined for various and differing reasons. The politics were only defined after much discussion, long after the first few people made a decision to move on from SF. Those people didn't define the positions now developed and being expanded and as such there is no way a single moment or issue that separates éirígí from PSF can be identified, especially as much of the membership defining the positions wasn't ever in SF.

Though, the absolute socialism, the anti-'Agreement' stance, rejection of any unionist veto, and rejection of any British rule in Ireland (including the PSNI) should be easy enough factors to demonstrate differences.

[Liam Lynch]

The simple fact is that those that started éirígí created it purely as a campaigns group and that was how it operated initially. The political party only came about, grew and developed as more people joined for various and differing reasons. The politics were only defined after much discussion, long after the first few people made a decision to move on from SF. Those people didn't define the positions now developed and being expanded and as such there is no way a single moment or issue that separates éirígí from PSF can be identified, especially as much of the membership defining the positions wasn't ever in SF.

Though, the absolute socialism, the anti-'Agreement' stance, rejection of any unionist veto, and rejection of any British rule in Ireland (including the PSNI) should be easy enough factors to demonstrate differences.

But it was started because of opposition to PSF directions. Which ones and why? Certainly that position can change as the group and its membership evolve and that's what we will deal with is as it does but accurate provenance is important.

[Nijinsky]

But it was started because of opposition to PSF directions. Which ones and why? Certainly that position can change as the group and its membership evolve and that's what we will deal with is as it does but accurate provenance is important.


Did you not notice any differences in the post above?

[Liam Lynch]

Did you not notice any differences in the post above?

Like these?

Though, the absolute socialism, the anti-'Agreement' stance, rejection of any unionist veto, and rejection of any British rule in Ireland (including the PSNI) should be easy enough factors to demonstrate differences

[Nijinsky]

Like these?

What do you think? Are they differences in your world?

[Liam Lynch]

What do you think? Are they differences in your world?

They're only differences if they can be demonstrated as such by eirigi. When did they become anti agreement and why?

[Nijinsky]

They're only differences if they can be demonstrated as such by eirigi. When did they become anti agreement and why?

Read their policies (as you already claimed you had but obviously havent) and you woudl their position.

As far as I know Eirigi was always anti-agreement

[Liam Lynch]

Read their policies (as you already claimed you had but obviously havent) and you woudl their position.

As far as I know Eirigi was always anti-agreement

The Agreement was signed in 1998.

[Nijinsky]

The Agreement was signed in 1998.

Jeez you are a bright lad Liam

[Liam Lynch]

Jeez you are a bright lad Liam

So what aspects of the Agreement did they oppose? Did they oppose it in total? Do they still oppose in total?

[Nijinsky]

So what aspects of the Agreement did they oppose? Did they oppose it in total? Do they still oppose in total?

What part of anti-agreement do you not understand?

[Nijinsky]

http://eirigi.org/latest/latest130408.html

It is now ten years since the signing of the Belfast Agreement, or the Good Friday Agreement (GFA) as it is more commonly known. The political establishments in Ireland, Britain and further a field are busily lavishing praise on both those who negotiated it, and the political landscape created by it. It is difficult to find a mainstream news article or television piece, which goes beyond the rhetoric to expose the reality of the current situation.

All of this is, of course, to be expected at the denouement of a British counter-insurgency strategy initiated by General Frank Kitson in the mid 1970s and broadly adhered to by successive British political and military leaders ever since. The GFA and the institutions and context it created are simply complimentary additions to his original three-pronged strategy of ‘Ulsterisation’, ‘Criminalisation’ and ‘Normalisation’.

So as the great and the good crack open the champagne and engage in mutual, and apparently never-ending, back slapping it may be useful for those who support a free Ireland to examine more closely how exactly the British counter-insurgency came to such apparent fruition.

The first prong of ‘Ulsterisation’ entailed the removal of British Troops from the frontline of conflict, to be replaced by a colonial police force such as the RUC or PSNI and local militia such as the UDR or RIR. This process effectively killed two birds with the one stone by stemming the flow of dead British soldiers returning to Britain (with all of the accompanying political fallout) and creating a scenario where the London government could portray the struggle for Irish independence as nothing more than the grubby, sectarian ‘troubles’. Britain’s role in Ireland could then be portrayed as that of honest broker keeping the warring ‘paddies’ from each other’s throats and later as the facilitator of a ‘peace process’.

Another aspect of Ulsterisation, although perhaps not in Kitson’s original plan, has seen an ever-deepening acceptance of partition as a seemingly permanent political reality. The changes made to articles two and three of the Twenty-Six county constitution are just one example of just how far the British government, and their allies in Ireland, have come in convincing people that the national territory of Ireland stops somewhere north of Dundalk and south of Newry. This psychological division is potentially far more damaging than any physical border.

Criminalisation, the second prong of Kitson’s strategy, was itself dual-pronged. On the one hand the liberation struggle was to be portrayed as being little more than a criminal enterprise, with those involved in the struggle being motivated by personal greed, while on the other hand the struggle for national liberation itself was to be categorised as criminal. This strategy was best summed up by Margaret Thatcher in her notorious ‘a crime, is a crime, is a crime’ speech.

While the former was to be achieved through the use of black propaganda, infiltration and agents it was the latter element that represented the most serious threat to Irish republicanism. The jail struggle of the 1970s and 1980s was testament to the importance of this battlefield. The central British position was simple – the Irish people had no right to organise opposition to their rule - most particularly not armed opposition. Any attempt to organise opposition to British rule outside of the gerrymandered parameters laid down by the British government itself was deemed to be ‘criminal’.

The only ‘non-criminal’ mechanism for Irish republicans to pursue their objectives was to be through elections, based upon the unionist veto, to institutions established and controlled by the British state. Thus republicanism was to be slowly confined to a hamster wheel of British defined and controlled struggle. In this regard there could be no space for republicans to pursue a twin track strategy. Instead republicans would need to be convinced through a combination of the carrot and stick to accept that all forms of struggle beyond those deemed acceptable by the British state were criminal.

And finally there was normalisation – the attempt to portray as normal the most abnormal of situations. While war raged on Irish streets the British government sought to convince the wider world that there was no substantial problem in Ireland. But no amount of spin or propaganda could fully hide the truth of their occupation. No amount of landscaping or hanging flower baskets could hide the hundreds of military installations that littered the Six Counties for more than thirty years.

Through the lenses of the Kitson strategy the GFA’s raison d’etre becomes patently clear and the reason for it receiving such universal backing from the political establishment in Ireland and Britain becomes apparent. The GFA had the potential to deliver each and every objective of the British government in Ireland, in a way no amount of troops, black propaganda or piecemeal reform could.

It was and remains a treaty – like so many others in Ireland’s history – designed to entrench and solidify occupation with the acquiescence and support of native politicians. The British government have, through a careful game of brinkmanship and the illusion of negotiation, brought almost all of Ireland’s political leaders to the point of accepting Tony Blair’s assertion that the GFA is ‘the only show in town’. By accepting this analysis one is inherently accepting that all other options, including that of British withdrawal, are unrealistic or unworkable.

It has indisputably been the objective of successive British governments to nullify the Irish national liberation struggle and its revolutionary potential. For them the GFA has become the final solution to the ‘Irish problem’. For its Irish domestic proponents it has become the only option. For the Irish people it has become the all-embracing solidification of foreign political and economic occupation and control.

The British government have, through the GFA, refined their colonial operation for a 21st century Ireland. They have quelled the rebellion and pigeonholed its activists. The need for overt force on the part of the British government has subsided. British occupation forces have been reduced to their pre-1969 garrison levels and nationalist popular resistance has been largely circumvented. Control is now maintained via the vestige of limited powers devolved to the Stormont administration.

Despite all of the superficial changes of recent years the demands of both the national liberation struggle and the civil rights movement remain unmet. The Ireland of today remains occupied and oppressed. And it is this reality, which will give rise to widespread popular resistance to British rule again in the future.

For centuries past the fortunes of the Irish revolution have ebbed and flowed. On numerous occasions republicanism has suffered apparent defeats only to re-emerge stronger and wiser than before. It is highly likely that republicanism is now in such a phase. Ten years on from the Good Friday Agreement republicans need to abandon any thoughts of radical progress within the Stormont assembly, shed any feelings of demoralisation or disillusionment and begin the process of rebuilding opposition to British rule in Ireland again.

[Liam Lynch]

What part of anti-agreement do you not understand?

The bit where they seem to have not been.

[Nijinsky]

The bit where they seem to have not been.


When were Eirigi pro-agreement?

[Liam Lynch]

When were Eirigi pro-agreement?

When its founders did not act against it.

[Nijinsky]

When its founders did not act against it.


First of all, answer the question? When were Eirigi pro agreement? From their formation I believe they were anti-agreement. Have you something that shows different?

[Liam Lynch]

First of all, answer the question? When were Eirigi pro agreement? From their formation I believe they were anti-agreement. Have you something that shows different?

And this goes to the heart of what we are asking. If Eirigi are anti agreement what was the position of its founders on that agreement whilst members of PSF? And if they have changed position on what basis have they done so?

[Nijinsky]

And this goes to the heart of what we are asking. If Eirigi are anti agreement what was the position of its founders on that agreement whilst members of PSF? And if they have changed position on what basis have they done so?


I know quite a few of those who formed Eirigi and know they were anti-GFA from the start. Like myself, they were vociferous in opposing the GFA within SF and the wider Republican movement as well as the general direction that SF were taking in general.

So their positions havent changed though thats not to say that there arent some people who may have originally supported the GFA (I dont know if that is the case) and who have now changed their minds. That guy who joined the 32s from SF in Derry seems an example of the type that might change their mind down the road

But you knew all this already from a previous thread which makes me wonder what your REAL agenda is

[Liam Lynch]

I know quite a few of those who formed Eirigi and know they were anti-GFA from the start. Like myself, they were vociferous in opposing the GFA within SF and the wider Republican movement as well as the general direction that SF were taking in general.

So their positions havent changed though thats not to say that there arent some people who may have originally supported the GFA (I dont know if that is the case) and who have now changed their minds. That guy who joined the 32s from SF in Derry seems an example of the type that might change their mind down the road

But you knew all this already from a previous thread which makes me wonder what your REAL agenda is

And it is more than legitimate to ask that individual why he changed his mind. And that's what's being asked here of eirigi and its founders; on what basis did they leave PSF?

[Nijinsky]

And it is more than legitimate to ask that individual why he changed his mind. And that's what's being asked here of eirigi and its founders; on what basis did they leave PSF?

As has already been explained to you on numerous occasions, there were different reasons why people left SF. All I can talk about are those that I know personally. Those that I do know left because they disagreed fundamentally where the party had been going over previous years, including the GFA and after spending years trying to reverse the direction of the party, felt they were fighting a losing cause and decided to move on.

People left at different stages. Not everyone that is in Eirigi left at the same time, indeed, not all by a long shot were in SF in the first place. I reached the same point a number of years back too after doing al that I could to try to reverse the SF direction. That point comes at different stages for different people

[Liam Lynch]

[QUOTE]As has already been explained to you on numerous occasions, there were different reasons why people left SF. All I can talk about are those that I know personally. Those that I do know left because they disagreed fundamentally where the party had been going over previous years, including the GFA and after spending years trying to reverse the direction of the party, felt they were fighting a losing cause and decided to move on.

And they moved onto eirigi. But are unwilling to specify why.

People left at different stages. Not everyone that is in Eirigi left at the same time, indeed, not all by a long shot were in SF in the first place. I reached the same point a number of years back too after doing al that I could to try to reverse the SF direction. That point comes at different stages for different people

Absolutely. But eirigi is in existence because PSF is in existence and it is more than legitimate to ask eirigi to explain fully why that is.

[andreas]

Those six who left initially formed eirigi at the same time, it would be interesting to hear why they left and felt it necessarry to form eirigi.
Without the conflict within PSF eirigi would not exist as it does so it is at least slightly relevant to ask the questions.

[conghaileach]

And around and around and around we go...

[Liam Lynch]

And around and around and around we go...

Hence provenance and its importance.

[Nijinsky]

LiamLynch
And they moved onto eirigi. But are unwilling to specify why.

Ask those individuals if you really want to know. I have told you why those that I know did. They were staright up about why they left. I have never seen them hide why they doen so or why they helped to create or join a new movement



LiamLynchAbsolutely. But eirigi is in existence because PSF is in existence and it is more than legitimate to ask eirigi to explain fully why that is

Can you not read?

[Nijinsky]

Those six who left initially formed eirigi at the same time, it would be interesting to hear why they left and felt it necessarry to form eirigi.
Without the conflict within PSF eirigi would not exist as it does so it is at least slightly relevant to ask the questions.

What six individuals are you referring to?

Have you asked those individuals?

[Liam Lynch]

[QUOTE]Ask those individuals if you really want to know. I have told you why those that I know did. They were staright up about why they left. I have never seen them hide why they doen so or why they helped to create or join a new movement


Hence this debate.


LiamLynch

Can you not read?



Sure can.

[Nijinsky]

Liam Lynch: Hence this debate.

This isnt a debate. This is you not listening to what has been said on this threads or previous threads



Liam LynchSure can

Doesnt look like it Liam. This has been explained in as simple of terms that the english language allows for and yet you still PRETEND not to know

[Liam Lynch]

[QUOTE]This isnt a debate. This is you not listening to what has been said on this threads or previous threads

On the contrary, its a debate demonstrating a reluctance on eirigi's part to address its political provenance.



Liam Lynch

Doesnt look like it Liam. This has been explained in as simple of terms that the english language allows for and yet you still PRETEND not to know

Actually it hasn't. The position of eirigi supporters here seems to be one that eirigi has no questions to answer concerning its relationship with PSF.

[andreas]

What six individuals are you referring to?

Have you asked those individuals?

The individuals formed a group, if you don't know where exactly the group initially departed from PSF's position thats fine, i shall ask one of them when i can however when a group comes into existence then the group must have a specific reason or reasons for doing so, collectively agreed positions or else they are not a group but a group of individuals.

[Nijinsky]

Liam Lynch: On the contrary, its a debate demonstrating a reluctance on eirigi's part to address its political provenance.

No its not. Its been explained quite openly why they were formed. You seem too dim witted to be able to understand simple english, which is your problem, not Eirigi's.

You seem to have aproblem with someof the individuals that are in Eirigi now that previously were in SF. If you want to know any more detail of their personal positions in the past, why dont you actually go and ask them? I have explained in black and white the position of those that I personally know, which includes some leadership people, yet you still PRETEND to not understand


Liam Lynch Actually it hasn't. The position of eirigi supporters here seems to be one that eirigi has no questions to answer concerning its relationship with PSF

It hasnt. It has no relationship with them, regardless of what you might want.

[Nijinsky]

The individuals formed a group, if you don't know where exactly the group initially departed from PSF's position thats fine, i shall ask one of them when i can however when a group comes into existence then the group must have a specific reason or reasons for doing so, collectively agreed positions or else they are not a group but a group of individuals.

Read their website and you will see what their agreed postions are. Its there in black and white

[conghaileach]

Actually it hasn't. The position of eirigi supporters here seems to be one that eirigi has no questions to answer concerning its relationship with PSF.
And you feel you're owed some kind of explanation from éirígí supporters? It could just be me, but I don't think explaining themselves to you is at the top of their agenda.

[Nijinsky]

And you feel you're owed some kind of explanation from éirígí supporters?

Of course he does. Without his blessing Eirigi cannot become real republicans

[andreas]

And you feel you're owed some kind of explanation from éirígí supporters?

When members of a political party are asked questions such as where they came from and why they exist it is accepted practice to try and articulate why they feel it necessary to exist rather than say 'Its none of your business'

[Liam Lynch]

Liam Lynch:

[QUOTE]No its not. Its been explained quite openly why they were formed. You seem too dim witted to be able to understand simple english, which is your problem, not Eirigi's.

Denying that its existence is not linked to issues within PSF is absurd.

You seem to have aproblem with someof the individuals that are in Eirigi now that previously were in SF. If you want to know any more detail of their personal positions in the past, why dont you actually go and ask them? I have explained in black and white the position of those that I personally know, which includes some leadership people, yet you still PRETEND to not understand

I've no problem with them at all other than explaining their reasons for leaving PSF. I remember when Davy Hyland stood for election the PSF machine rounded on his previous membership of that party in an effort to attack his credibility. Granted that machine has not rounded on eirigi but if it decides to what answer will eirigi give?




It hasnt. It has no relationship with them, regardless of what you might want

That's just disingenuous.

[Nijinsky]

When members of a political party are asked questions such as where they came from and why they exist it is accepted practice to try and articulate why they feel it necessary to exist rather than say 'Its none of your business'

Who asked those individuals? I have already explained why those I know did so.

[andreas]

Read their website and you will see what their agreed postions are. Its there in black and white

So the website will tell me why eirigi split from PSF, must have missed that.
Looking forward to specific reasons for leaving not just,
Policing,
GFA,
Socialism,

[Nijinsky]

Liam Lynch: Denying that its existence is not linked to issues within PSF is absurd.

Once they left SF then that link is broken.

I've no problem with them at all other than explaining their reasons for leaving PSF.

But I already explained to you the position of those that I know. Was there something there that you didnt understand?


Liam Lynch That's just disingenuous

Its not disingenuous. Its fact. It has no relationship with them, just as 32csm or rsf havent either

[Nijinsky]

So the website will tell me why eirigi split from PSF, must have missed that.
Looking forward to specific reasons for leaving not just,
Policing,
GFA,
Socialism,

Eirigi didnt split from Sinn Fein andreas. Did you and Liam both go to the same school?

[Liam Lynch]

[QUOTE]Once they left SF then that link is broken.

Not if they can't explain why.



But I already explained to you the p