Social Items

TPQ
Anthony McIntyre ☠ Last week I opted not to make the vigil. 


An event in Dublin's Academy Plaza made the choice for me. The Independent Writers Union which I recently joined was holding its AGM. A motion had been proposed by the writer Kevin Doyle that:

This AGM agrees that the Irish Writers Union will pledge its support to the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI). PACBI advocates for a boycott of Israeli academic and cultural institutions for their deep and persistent complicity in Israel’s denial of Palestinian rights stipulated in international law.

PACBI is an initiative that got off the ground in 2024. Its aim is:

to contribute to the struggle for Palestinian freedom, justice, and equality. It advocates for a boycott of Israeli academic and cultural institutions for their deep and persistent complicity in Israel’s denial of Palestinian rights stipulated in international law.

That alone seemed an authentic reason to miss the vigil. Even though it seemed to me that Irish writers would be fairly much in line with the prevalent abhorrence throughout Irish society of Israeli genocide to such an extent that the motion passing would be a mere formality, I still felt it worthwhile to attend and give my support to it. 

By the time Kevin Doyle had finished his pitch to the conference I felt to myself that will surely clinch it. When Sally Rooney addressed the conference I was convinced I could have got up and left simply because what she said was so potent, so intellectually persuasive, so limiting in the space it allowed for an alternative approach to sound remotely plausible, that there was no need for me to remain in terms of my vote making a difference. The cerebral quality of the combined appeal by Sally Rooney and Kevin Doyle was an effective double tap strike down of any suggestion that there might be a way for a writerly institution to avoid doing the right thing. I didn't leave but stayed only to learn that the institutional instinct is more self preservationist than it is a commitment to the values it professes to uphold. 

As the debate proceeded, for some incomprehensible reason a tweet by Alan Shatter, the former Fine Gael Minister for Justice, was read out. Shatter tweeted that:

On Saturday the intellectually challenged Irish Writers Union will become the first such body in Europe to join the cultural boycott of Israel. This self perceived group of intellectuals will be shamefully reviving in Ireland Nazi Nuremberg Laws to a state with 14 Nobel Laureates.

Why a statement from a pompous snob who is not a member of the union should have been read out was never explained. Did a conference of writers really need to hear that a trenchant cheerleader for the Nazi-like state of Israel was opposed to a cultural boycott? I can think of lots of people who for different reasons might oppose the boycott and are worthy of being listened to. In fact, on the day we heard a few. But they were members of the union and had every right to be heard by conference.

At that point I sensed a mood change in the room. It wasn't uproarious by any stretch of the imagination but it wasn't imperceptible either. It seemed to set the tone for the discussion which was replete with a lot of what ifs? and yes buts - the type of discursive deflating whose primary aim was described many years ago by the poet of bureaucracy James Boren: to strangle ideas, smother imitative, and suffocate any potential for doing anything effective. The unifying theme was a bogus one - those artists and writers who did not support genocide or who were not silent on it would be targeted by the boycott. Fact checks that pointed out the demonstrable falsity of such a position, with specific reference to the very focused policy of PACBI, were ignored in favour of writerly fictions.

In the end, the proposal fell by the most narrow of margins despite an emotive appeal by Fiona O'Rourke to the union not to abandon Palestinians to their fate.

The vast majority, if not all of the speakers who opposed the motion, expressed their abhorrence of Israeli genocide and the unbearable suffering of Palestinians. They were very forthright. One would be loathe to accuse any of them of lacking moral courage. Yet each contributed in their own way to allowing a union of writers to project itself, again to borrow from James Boren, as a pencil with a rubber at either end. In other words, institutionally ineffectual on matters that matter, or worse.

As we departed the scene of the crime at the Academy Plaza, our abiding memory was that the biggest influence of the day was that of Alan Shatter, who caused the blood to draw from the face of the union as readily as it did the humanitarian ink from its pen.

⏩Follow on Bluesky.

The Plaza Of Broken Dreams

Geordie Morrow ðŸ–Œ with a painting from his collection of art work. 

Coloured Pencils On Card

⏩Geordie Morrow is a Belfast artist.

Winter Morning

Davy Clinton ✒ I am beginning to think I am in an alternative universe. 

I don’t watch a lot of live TV but am glued to YouTube. I watch everything from fishing videos to great fights from the past….currently going through Hagler bouts….what a class act he was. 

Of course if ever I were allowed into Alaska… I won’t be… I could build you a log cabin with a corrugated metal roof and a wood burning stove. And if the Canadians did their own thing and didn’t follow their southern neighbours they could let me in to paddle my own canoe through the Yukon. That probably won’t happen either.
 
But recently I have noticed so many of the YouTube contributors have been having problems with getting lost. All I hear is … I was able to find myself ….or…I need to find myself. Like WTF is all that about. ? Is that the latest buzz words? - like “the reality is…” or  “going forward”.
 
If they want to find themselves then have a look in the mirror …. yep …. that's you right there. I have no need to find myself because I know exactly where I am . . .  and I do look in that mirror every day too. I think I was only ever lost once . . . many years ago in the wilds of Donegal. Myself and two friends were given bad directions . . .  no Sat Nav back then . . .  on our way camping, a different sort of camping than normal but some of you will understand. For an hour we went up lanes and down roads wide enough for a cart. Totally lost, and no mobile phones either then. We knew that where we were to be was four miles outside a particular village but we couldn’t find it either. Then we saw a man cutting turf and we asked him for directions to the village. We started to explain we were lost. As calm as you like he looked us up and down, shook his head, and said you must be the three northerners down for the camping. Gave us exact instructions and we weren’t two miles away.
 
Did we say after that we had found ourselves or found anything else? Would any of had ever used that phrase….? Methinks not. Methinks also that those “finding themselves” are in the main a bunch of pretentious middle class twats.

⏩Davy Clinton is a life long Glasgow Celtic supporter. 

Lost & Found

Friendly Atheist ★ Influential pastors and right-wing figures are openly arguing women shouldn’t vote.

Roughly 80% of white evangelical voters have supported Donald Trump in the previous three presidential elections, and a significant percentage of those voters were white evangelical women. But there’s a movement afoot within those circles to prevent women from voting at all because their husbands should represent their entire family.

A recent New York Times article explores a small but growing movement of ultra-conservative Christians who fantasize about repealing the 19th Amendment and putting head scarves on women (while ironically railing against the dangers of “Sharia Law”).

One of the weak men leading this movement is TheoBro Dale Partridge, who runs King’s Way Reformed Church in Prescott, Arizona, where women are taught to be submissive to their husbands and men are told to… be more manly, I guess. And everyone plays their role perfectly:

[Marybelle East’s] head scarf is a physical reminder of biblical patriarchy, the kind of marriage the church preaches. “It keeps me from running my mouth,” she said.

To her and the other women, patriarchy also means ceding their political voices to their husbands. They believe America would be better off if women could not vote . . . 

Continue @ Friendly Atheist. 

These Christian Men Want Women Barefoot, Pregnant . . . And Off The Voter Rolls

Right Wing Watch 👀Written by Peter Montgomery.


Religious-right leaders have been spent decades trying to get more Christians engaged in politics. So are they excited about a Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate who is a Christian and a seminarian who speaks fluently about how his faith informs his politics? Hell no.

From the moment that Texas state legislator and former public school teacher James Talarico won the March 3 Democratic primary—and even before—right-wing Christian nationalists have been attacking Talarico. It’s not hard to understand why. Talarico is an effective speaker who is comfortable talking about his faith while promoting LGBTQ equality and reproductive choice and challenging his Republican colleagues. When Talarico appeared on Joe Rogan’s podcast last summer, the host who endorsed Trump in 2024 encouraged him to run for president.

Polls show that Talarico is currently running neck-and-neck with either of the two Republicans who are battling each other in a runoff that will be held in May. That means he is drawing support from millions of Christian Democrats and Independents.

That is unacceptable to Christian-right leaders who have tried to make supporting Donald Trump and voting for Republicans an article of faith. 

Continue @ RWW.

Right-Wing Christian Nationalists Fear Christian James Talarico, So They Attack His Faith

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Nine Hundred And Forty Six

 

Pastords @ 40

 

A Morning Thought @ 3121

Donal O'Driscoll ✍ Now that the dust has settled on the fuel protests, we can look at it with perhaps more semblance of calm and reason than was possible during the week. 

However, the question of whether or not I supported the protests, as if it were a binary choice, remains problematic for me to answer without doing a deep dive into the nuances. So I will attempt to do that now.

One of the easier questions to answer is if I support the original stated aims of tackling fuel costs and the cost of living Crisis that it has created. I don't drive so petrol and diesel doesn't affect me, but I did recently have to top up our oil, paying almost double what I normally pay. Even if I hadn't, supporting people taking a stand on such fundamental issues is a no brainer.

Indeed, after initial confusion about the scale of this and the effects on the public, disruption became less of a concern. Effective mass protests do cause disruption and after the first day I think planning around things became easier.

Here is where things become murkier. The issue of organisation and leadership. It was clear from day one that this protest was a bit 'higgledy piggledy' to say the least. The lack of direct involvement from the IRHA and farmers' organisations meant it was hard to see where the buck stopped. The idea of protests being organised through WhatsApp and social media does leave me feeling a bit uneasy.

Then more and more information emerged about the so called leaders of this. Christopher Duffy, was already known to me through social media as an appalling bigot who used his social media to spread lies and hatred against Muslims and migrants. A horrible excuse of a human being that I couldn't even begin to get on board with, even before I heard of his deplorable post saying he didn't care if the IDF raped Greta Thunberg. There is so much shit on Geoghegan, it's a case of take your pick, but again, a notorious spreader of anti-immigrant propaganda. 

John Dallon's drink driving offences again make him an unsuitable spokesperson for Hauliers, but as someone with alcohol issues myself, I don't know enough about the man to know if maybe there were addiction issues he'd since overcome. He's certainly the least objectionable of the three, but that is a low bar.

Again, leadership issues don't mean you can't support the broad movement, but it was clear there was very little attempt to disassociate from the loathsome Duffy in particular. In fact many people insist still that this swamp dweller is some sort of hero. Indeed, even many of the so called 'ordinary people' interviewed, kept bringing up stuff like 'looking after our own'. I don't think I need to explain what this is usually code for. In fairness, I don't think the disgusting attacks on the Muslim Sisters of Eire can be blamed directly on the protests. The plastic patriots may well have attacked them anyway, the protests merely gave them more reason to be in town.

Now we come to the really disappointing thing for me as a socialist, the whitewashing by some on the left of the very real issues with the leaders of this. I don't have a problem with individual parties like SF or PBP supporting the protests, as I say, I get the central issues and they weren't the main gaslighters. But some of the 'left wing' influencers online who were so quick to paint this as some sort of 'glorious revolution' that they instantly shot down any mention of the involvement of people like Duffy, left a sour taste in my mouth.

So when you ask me 'did you support the protesters?', the honest answer is, it depends. I was certainly sympathetic to the aims and acknowledge most protesters were voicing genuine grievances. Nonetheless, there was a dodgy element, especially at leadership level, which made it very hard for me as a socialist, to get fully behind them.

⏩Donal O'Driscoll is political activist from West Cork.

It Depends

The Journal 📰 Independent Senator Eileen Flynn has almost become accustomed to being the target of online abuse in Ireland, and abroad, but she said that comments about her made on X in the past week have been the worst yet.

“I’ve never experienced hate like it,” she told The Journal, after a video of remarks she made in the Seanad about the recent fuel protests went viral in certain circles online on Wednesday.

In the Seanad contribution, Flynn had said she would not attend any protests where the Irish flag was being flown because it has become a symbol exploited by members of the far right, who sought to hijack the fuel protests last week.

She told The Journal the Irish far right and other online agitators “punch down” on minority communities.

“They don’t stand for the Ireland we fought for 100 years ago and we’re still fighting for today,” Flynn said.

“I will not stand by when our flag is being used to promote hatred, division and anti-migrant remarks. For me, the flag means peace, unity and justice and equality.”

Flynn made history when she became the first woman from the Traveller community to sit in the upper house.

Continue @ The Journal.

Senator Eileen Flynn Says She Has Faced Worst Online Abuse And Hate Yet In Past Week

The Fenian Way ðŸ”– In Irish history the figure of Rory O’Connor is primarily focussed on two aspects of his life, his execution ordered by the man whom O’Connor stood as best man at his wedding and his quote concerning military dictatorship in the initial chaos of the acceptance of the Anglo-Irish Treaty.


But in this work Gerard Shannon delves deeply into a man who was a tireless background worker for the revolutionary movement in the post 1916 years. And given his furtive nature, correspondence by him in the most frenetic events are scarce and credit must go to Shannon for unearthing documents that allow us form a credible biography of a most dedicated republican.

Like a lot of politically aware individuals pre-1916 O’Connor leaned towards the Home Rule Movement as essentially the only Irish political show in town. Pearse had shared Home Rule platforms as recently as 1915 before departing on a more radical path.

O’Connor’s comfortable upbringing brought him into contact with individuals of a more intellectual bent, most notably Joseph Plunkett and his family whom he worked most closely with. And whilst more radical thinking was expressed to him it wasn’t enough to deter him from the emigrant ship and an engineering career in Canada.

In extensive correspondence two matters become clear, he wasn’t that happy abroad and he kept broadly abreast of political events back in Ireland. On his return during World War I he contemplated joining the British Army seeing merit in Redmond’s argument that a loyal Ireland would be duly rewarded by receiving its own parliament. But, as ever, British actions scuppered this trajectory which forced individuals like O’Connor to fundamentally re-think their positions.

And in this process of change the book gives a valuable and insightful look on the fluidity of Irish politics at the time which was very far removed from a simplistic dichotomy of either Home Rule or Irish Republic, even in the aftermath of the 1916 Executions.

His role in the 1916 Rising was minimal, although wounded possibly by friendly fire, but it did see the early development of his engineering skills being applied to the military struggle, a discipline reflecting a precise and calculating mind.

As the national mood changed dramatically after the 1916 Executions O’Connor immersed himself in re-organising the national struggle but soon found quite a fractious republican base. The important Roscommon by-election in 1917, which saw Count Plunkett chosen as an Independent, though perceived as Sinn Féin's first election victory, divisions arose as to whether the victory was an endorsement of an abstentionist position or that of Arthur Griffith’s Dual Monarchy approach.

O’Connor had personal loyalty to Plunkett, who had his own political ambitions, and the book outlines O’Connor’s skilful navigation of the personal over the political which sets him firmly on the republican path. The By-election was a dry-run for the 1918 General Election, arguably the most significant election in Irish history, and set O’Connor on the road to his ultimate fate.

At the outset of the War of Independence, following the first meeting of Dáil Eireann and the Solohedbeg Ambush - just as O’Connor was finding his feet for the role of his Engineering Department in the escalating conflict - the author delves into the developing relationships O’Connor was having with key players at leadership level. Opinions of O’Connor and from O’Connor are mixed but are an essential aid in getting into his mindset in the midst of a revolutionary struggle.

Key players such as Tom Barry, Cathal Brugha, Michael Collins, Ernie O’Malley and, of course, Kevin O’Higgins are all cited with a particular detail reserved for his relationship with O’Higgins. In tandem with these insights are a schedule of fascinating plans for prison escapes, some successful, some not and some abandoned, with O’Connor at the helm, demonstrating his penchant for detailed planning in line with his engineering discipline. This early period in the War of Independence establishes O’Connor as a formidable individual with undoubted leadership qualities.

Like many others O’Connor was interned, his brief sojourn being the Curragh Camp in Kildare, wherein ten days later he and a colleague promptly escaped. Although brief his internment is competently covered in that his attention to detail concerning escape proposals reinforces not only his competency but his forming belief that victory could be had. And like many other notable events in O’Connor’s affairs during this period the author references private commenting correspondence from O’Higgins, almost like a subplot, noting his genuine fondness for the former. The net effect of this draws the reader into the text as the inevitable tragic climax is reached.

Shortly after his escape the IRA launched its controversial attack on the Customs House resulting in heavy losses for the IRA in an operation which was deliberately designed as a ‘spectacular’ knowing a truce was in the offing. No evidence is offered for O’Connor’s input into the operation which is unfortunate as it may have given his frame of mind regarding a truce. However the author does reference an intriguing report that O’Connor sent to Richard Mulcahy, IRA Chief of Staff, listing the successful operations carried out by the IRA as a clear indicator that not only could such operations be continued but also improved upon. This is most telling as the IRA’s capabilities formed a central plank of the pro-Treaty side.

O’Connor expressed doubts about the truce but like others of his mindset availed of the respite to reorganise and to re-arm the IRA. To its great credit the book details O’Connor’s efforts and in particular the IRA organisation in England whose healthy operation rate generally gets lost in the historical shadow of operations like Kilmichael and Crossbarry.

It was also at this juncture that O’Connor acted as best man (‘bestest best man’ as described by O’Higgins himself) in the marriage of Kevin O’Higgins, an almost grotesque symbol of personal unity in a time of mounting political division. As reports of the negotiations made their way into the public realm attitudes amongst IRA members began to harden, the terms of the subsequent truce verifying their worst fears. In O’Connor’s case his initial reaction to the truce was to seek permission from Cathal Brugha, Minister for Defence, to arrest the plenipotentiaries on their arrival back in Ireland.

O’Connor, surprisingly, did not attend the treaty debates, the author finds a quote of him having dropped in for ‘ten minutes’ but that in itself is informative. Just like Home Rule and the Easter Rising the political situation was not a comfortable binary one. By and large what ultimately decided the issue for a lot of republicans was personal loyalties, (a scenario which would repeat itself some seventy years later) and, intriguingly, O’Connor inspired both pro and anti-Treaty opinion. Some viewed the Treaty as a practical step, strategically useful, others as an anathema to republican doctrine and others still saw it as the new law of the land and thus a completely new political dispensation.

Insights into anti-Treaty IRA thinking are well presented and essentially portray a dis-unified picture with the sombre shadow of Civil War looming in an increasingly volatile situation. As O’Connor is quoted; ‘if there is a Civil War we will not be the one’s to start it’. But, as ever in such situations, such wars start themselves.

As the new Free State Army was formed it quickly began to fill the vacuum left by the departing British Garrison which became a dangerous flashpoint between the two sides most notably in Limerick. What emerges from this turmoil is a clear indication that the pro-Treaty side had a much more focussed sense of itself both in terms of intent and direction whilst the anti-Treaty IRA were relying on constitutional technicalities and formalities to retain some semblance of cohesion.

Even as de Valera assumed the public persona of anti-Treaty republicans, his own opposition to the Treaty centred on his idea of External Association, as opposed to loyalty to the Republic, which didn’t bode well for a unified approach. What also evolved, and the book credibly outlines it, were efforts by O’Connor and other notable IRA leaders to release themselves from the authority of the Dáil and by default from accountability to the Irish people. War and peace are powerful political motivators which Lloyd George was extremely aware of. This increasing detachment from any semblance of democratic accountability prompted his infamous ‘military dictatorship’ exchange with journalists, a more complete exchange is refreshingly presented and the author, with some justification, views it in terms of O’Connor’s lack of any experience with the media particularly given the circumstances involved. Nevertheless it formed an indelible part of O’Connor’s legacy.

The IRA Convention held in the first half of 1922 is well covered and the detailed accounts of motions and debates further underscores the anti-Treaty IRA’s drift into technical and constitutional refuge with political opposition to the Treaty centred around broad statements of support for the Republic as a functioning reality but only in the minds of those opposing the Treaty. However, as earnest and principled republicans who actually fought the war, their path was set and ultimately the Four Courts beckoned.

The decision to occupy the Four Courts, from O’Connor’s perspective, seems to have been more out of organisational necessity as opposed to a deliberate political statement wherein the book gives the impression that O’Connor failed to realise the explosive implications that the move would have. The decision provoked a broadly negative reaction from both the national and international media, the familiar ‘anti peace and no alternative’ refrain becoming the dominant narrative.

However, despite O’Connor’s formulaic view on the new garrison for others in the building it meant something very different: “It became …..the pivotal point from which radiated the passion and flame of the IRA….”. O’Connor was now the public face of the Anti-Treaty forces.

A fascinating chapter explores the machinations of a proposed united front of pro and anti-Treaty forces regarding a joint northern offensive as the sectarian tensions in the Six Counties ramped up. The brainchild of Michael Collins and Liam Lynch, the offensive ultimately foundered on poor communications but also on the lack of clarity in its actual objectives. But the main point was that even though clear lines of demarcation were being created there was still a lingering hope that both sides could reach a workable solution with a Free State being subordinate to IRA authority. Both Collins and de Valera knew this was unworkable, but for very different reasons. These efforts at reaching a unified position are excellently researched and presented and one can sense the cauldron type atmosphere within which these discussions were held.

The inevitable consequences of British policy in Ireland reached their zenith when pro-Treaty/National Army forces attacked the Four Courts Garrison. The book is highly competent in relating how the volunteers and officers dealt with this beginning with a self realised admonishment of the garrison failing to react knowing that the National Army was surrounding the complex. In essence the Four Courts saga was a microcosm of what was happening in the rest of the country with the ever increasing National Army encircling an ever retreating IRA. In essence the surrender of the Four Courts was the de facto surrender of republican forces.

The Free State was now leaning to a more vicious response to the IRA with the introduction of military courts to ostensibly sanitise an executions policy. In an intriguing episode a clandestine meeting between Richard Mulcahy and de Valera is referenced where Mulcahy is quoted as saying de Valera told him. ‘I would tend to be led by reason, but as long as there are men of faith like Rory O’Connor taking the stand he is taking, I am a humble soldier following after him’. This convinced Mulcahy of the need for executions but it also strongly suggests that the main impediment to de Valera assuming the political leadership of anti-Treaty forces were men like O’Connor. Was de Valera asking Mulcahy to remove this impediment?

As with any civil war bitterness surpasses reason. The tipping point for O’Connor was the IRA’s assassination of Séan Hales TD in Dublin as a reprisal for the Free State’s Government ratification of the military courts policy. Tit for tat! Mulcahy sought Cabinet approval for the execution of Dick Barrett, Liam Mellowes, Joe McKelvey and Rory O’Connor. In that process the book offers a plausible if slightly contrived version of how Kevin O’Higgins responded as a member of that Cabinet. Citing credible sources O’Higgins was said to be hesitant, perhaps a consequence of legal training and thinking, but after a minute of this apparent hesitancy he is quoted as tersely saying ‘Take them out and shoot them’. Contrary to popular belief no death warrant was ever physically signed.

Why these four were chosen is open to debate and the author engages in healthy speculation as to the various theories why. This is important because too often in Irish republican history rumour and half truths can fester into facts however any reader can reach their own conclusions with the material aptly provided in the text.

O’Connor’s reaction to the news of his impending execution and his subsequent preparations for same are presented honestly referencing his final letters to family and his own personal belief system. There are elements of any book that need to be fully understood in the broader context of the text itself and not to be ‘judged’ by any review and this particular passage is one. On the 8th of December 1922 IRA Volunteers Rory O’Connor, Dick Barrett, Joe McKelvey and Liam Mellowes were executed by a Free State firing squad in Mountjoy Prison. The Irish Independent approved!

Legacy is an ever moving state of affairs. The emergence of what has become known as ‘civil war politics’, with the electoral interloping of governance between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, have condemned the drafting of such legacies to the short sighted vagaries of electoral politics. Regardless of anyone’s political stance such an approach does a grave disservice to both people and the events they shaped. Books such as this are essential in countering these narrow narratives but also serve as a crucial aide in how to address subsequent treaties in the yet unresolved Anglo-Irish conflict and those who took different positions on them.

Gerard Shannon, 2026, Rory O'Connor: To Defend the Republic. Merrion Press: ISBN-13: 978-1785375842

⏩ The Fenian Way was a full time activist during the IRA's war against the British.

Rory O’Connor 🕮 To Defend The Republic

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Nine Hundred And Forty Five

 

A Morning Thought @ 3120

Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)