Independent Media Centre Ireland

Fascist Ex Provo Exposed

category national | crime and justice | other press author Friday August 18, 2006 01:58author by Anti-Nazi - Anti-Nazi

This looks fairly sinister... from Searchlight Mag

Author: By Scott Millar | Date: August 2006

Ex-Provo gives new life to Irish clerical fascism

A former senior Provisional IRA member, who until 2003 sat on Sinn Fein’s national executive, is reorganising the extreme nationalist right in Ireland by attempting a takeover of the Ancient Order of Hibernians (AOH), the largely moribund marching organisation seen as the Catholic equivalent of the Orange Order.

Related Link:

Comments (55 of 55)

Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
author by tom eilepublication date Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:51author address author phone

In his Daily Ireland publisher’s blog on Wednesday June 28 , Martin O Muilleoir wrote a cringing endorsement of the sectarian Ancient Order of Hibernians

“In Ireland, the AOH is a social grouping of little political import. In the US, however, it's ubiquitous and powerful. It's the perfect organisation to spearhead (sic) a new campaign for Joint Authority post-November 24. Its influence is legendary and its influence is felt throughout Irish America”
Read more at:

For the provos, the signing of the Good Friday Agreement meant the abandonment of the secular ideals of republicanism and their replacement with the fantasy of an Ireland united on the basis of a future sectarian headcount . It should come as no surprise that the AOH is now taking up the type of racist filth in Ireland that its lodges have been embracing over the years in the U.S.A.

author by differentpublication date Fri Aug 18, 2006 15:54author address author phone

Scott Miller's article is about the AOH in Ireland and the M O'Mulleoir article is about AOH in US. Different organisations.

Both not the greatest organisations in the world I give you, but the one in Ireland is much much more right wing I think

author by Barrypublication date Fri Aug 18, 2006 18:10author address author phone

Just reading through that article Im struck by its inherent dishonesty . While its beyond doubt Gerry McGeough holds strong traditional Catholic views ( that I most certainly dont agree with) that does not remotely equate to fascism and to suggest so as that article attempts to do is not only dishonest but highly insulting to many ordinary decent people who hold the same opinions. Being anti abortion and anti homosexual adoption does not equate to fascism , no matter how objectionable many on the left find such opinions. Furthermore the fact that McGeough whilst capaigning against abortion shared a platform with Justin Barrett does not make him a fascist either . That was prior to Barrets links with the extreme right being exposed . Nobody in Ireland was aware of them at that time , not even on the left and McGeough publicly and immediately severed his ties with Barrett as soon as his activities and links to the ITP in Europe came into the public domain . That is the extent of Gerry McGeoughs links to the ITP , no link at all save for the fact he once campaigned alongside Barrett on a single issue prior to anyone in Ireland being aware of Barrets activities overseas .
The searchlight article goes into a lot of detail on Barrets links to some extremely unsavoury characters that deserve to be highlighted but its attempts to link Gerry McGeough to them are clearly dishonest . There simply is no linkage to McGeough and 90% of the rest of the article save for the fact that he once shared a platform with Barrett on a single issue - abortion . As a traditional catholic Gerry McGeough has every right to oppose abortion and to campaign against it . Just as anyone else has the perfect right to campaign for it and to strongly oppose his views .

Nobody however has the right to call someone a fascist who isnt and that article has literally scraped the barrel in an attempt to portray Gerry McGeough as one . That article smacks of McCarthyism in reverse , a smear and a dishonest attempt at hysteria . The fact is many ordinary people in Ireland share to varying degrees Gerry McGeoughs traditional catholic views on issues such as abortion , homosexual adoption and traditional " family values" , whether we on the left like it or not . And whether we like it or not those people have a right to have their views represented and aired , just as the left has a perfect right to argue against and seek to change those views . Where I to agree that such views make one a fascist Id be screaming fascist at many of my own neighbours . My mass going catholic neighbours most certainly are not fascists or racists , despite being anti abortion , anti gay marriage and having doubts about immigration policies . The numerous migrants into this small rural community have been welcomed by everyone and are now an integral part of our community . My neighbours most definitely are not fascists .

Justin Barrett was for a long time to the fore on those issues in this country without anyone being aware of another agenda he was persuing in secret in Europe with the fascist ITP . Many people would have come into contact with him at different times on the abortion issue and have been completely unaware of his other activities . It is dishonest to then go on and publicly smear such people as fascist simply because they worked with Justin Barrett during a capaign he was to the forefront on. In my opinion it is also dangerous for this reason. The views of Gerry McGeough are shared by a large constituency on this island , north and south . While they may be objectionable and conservative they are certainly not fascist . Its much better in my opinion for such views to be represented by a non facist rather than to be driven underground where they can then be exploited by genuine fascists . I fully agree with a no platform for fascists policy and agree they should be physically confronted and driven out no matter where they rear their heads . Justin Barrett is certainly a fascist in my opinion who attempted to use the traditional catholic values held by many on this island as a vehicle for his fascist agenda . Thankfully he was exposed . But Gerry McGeough is not Justin Barrett . The attempt to link him in that article to fascism because of a previous association with Barrett stinks of hysterical McCarthyism .
Im fully aware too that this post may well draw the ire of many on the left as well as those with an anti republican agenda but in my opinion Scott Millars article was a pile of dishonest scaremongering pap that amounted to little more than a smear . Id need to see a lot more evidence than this scanty padded out dross before Id be convinced McGeough was connected to fascism .

author by Fredpublication date Fri Aug 18, 2006 20:54author address author phone

1) Read the Hibernian magazine - the fascism and celebration of fascist movements and ideas is right there.

2) September 2002 - Barrett exposed. 2004 Euro election McGeough his campaign manager + does speaking tour of the country with him.

3) He is on the record as maintaining a close political and relationship with Barrett.

(Personal abuse removed - ed)

author by Earnanpublication date Sat Aug 19, 2006 02:33author address author phone

Hi Barry, before you start defending McGeough you should check out the crap he publishes.

He's not just opposed to homosexual adoption - he's opposed to homosexuals. Check out Hibernian magazine where he claims that opposing homosexuals isn't discrimination its just trying to stamp out unnatural deviance. Check this quote for laughs "No corner of Ireland is free now from greed, selfishness and the host of evils that emanate from an unbridled indulgence in the perversions of pornography, the homosexual lifestyle, New Age spirituality, drug and alcohol abuse and the contraceptive culture." (This is from the current editorial).

Gerry Brady, another writer for the Hibernian has this to say: "Who could have imagined that the local school would teach sex education and indoctrinate your children that to oppose homosexuality is 'discrimination'? " (this article is interesting in that it discusses 'Distributism' - do a quick search for that on google and see what sort of Third Positionist shite you find).

Tomas McCormaic also writes for Hibernian. He has an organisation in Bantry - An Craobh Gall Geide who have organised Fenian commerations. An ex Sf'er comrade of mine challanged Mac Cormaic over his right wing politics. When he mentioned the Celtic Wolves Mac Cormaic told him that he had met some of the CW members and regarded them as 'Irish patriots'.
If you check out his posts to the forum on the Hibernian website you won't find this too surprising. He states that: "The illusion presented b the lefties in Ireland is that we are all going to benefit from multicultuaralism and immigration. The longterm realiy is, these will destroy our culture and impovirish our people ... We must now defend our country from the plantations of the EU. Ireland for the Irish".

He goes on in another post (after railing against those who support gay rights) to state that "Constitutional politics is now unreformable and the whole system must be abolished for the safety of our children". Another post has him claiming that 'AFA are the enemy of the Irish nation".

Bary, I've seen a lot of your posts on this site and while I wouldn't agree with your 32CSM politics its clear that you're not a right winger. What side of the fence do you think McGeough and Mac Cormaic were on during the recent hunger strike in St. Patricks cathedral? i remember what your (admirable) attitude was towards the rascists that were down there. What do you think McGeoughs would have been?

I believe that McGeough is a fascist - thats not a word I throw around lightly. He probably won't admit to the term - rather he'll describe himself as a 'traditionalist catholic'. the same way that Third Positionists usually won't call themselves fascists. The searchlight article is based on circumstansial evidence to be fair but the point about links from websites is a good one. It says quite a lot when (Details of nazi site removed by editor in line with our 'No Platform' policy) and the inaccuratly named 'Irish nationalism' are the online hang outs of your supporters .

author by Gurley Flynnpublication date Sat Aug 19, 2006 03:01author address author phone

Some years ago in New York City, Mcgeough and John McDonagh, the New York representative of Republican Sinn Fein, organized an 'Irish Race Convention'- the theme being that the Irish are a separate race by virture of their genetic heritage.
McDonagh has McGeough on his radio program, Radio Free Eireann, regularly, but so far he has failed to question him about his backing of Barrett's election campaign, as surely any reputable journalist would, given the publicity the affair has received.
McDonagh has given platforms to fascist fellow-travellers for years. Bill Hughes wrote for 'the Irish People' newspaper when McDonagh was the editor. He frequently favorably quoted the Spotlight newspaper, a now defunct fascist weekly. He praised the work of Francis Parker Yockey, an influential fascist. Hughes also waxed eloquent on the work of Nesta Webster a rabid English fascist, and anti-Irish bigot.
More recently Hughes was McDonagh's 'Washington Correspondent' on Radio Free Eireann, until McDonagh was forced to drop him when his anti-Semitism was exposed.
James Connolly said that the A.O.H. was 'the foulest brood ever to come into Ireland'. The tone and content of McGeough's magazine the Hibernian. bears out Connolly's comment. Those familiar with fascism and its history see McGeough for what he is. He and his cohorts have more in common with the Blueshirts than with Irish republicanism.

author by seanf - AOHpublication date Mon Aug 21, 2006 01:57author address author phone

As a member of the AOH i would like to point out a number of items: Firstly the AOH in America and Ireland are separate organisations. They do however communicate and co-operate. Secondly, the AOH in Ireland is not a Right Wing or Fascist organisation. Thirdly AOH members up and down the country are well aware that Gerry McGeogh has recently joined the AOH in Dublin and have also now become aware of his actions and supposed attempt or intention to take over the AOH for his own purposes. Mr. McGeogh will never succeed in this. The AOH are the largest Irish Catholic Organisation in the world and has existed in various guises and forms since the late 1500s and faced many an enemy and many dangerous situations and perilous times but I can tell you that this is not one of them. The Hibernia Magazine is not connected to the AOH nor does it represent the Ancient Order of Hibernians in any way shape or form. The true voice of Hibernianism in Ireland is the AOH Board of Erin who issued a statement through its Public Relations Officer in regard to an incident alledgedly involving Mr. McGeogh and his fellow travellers and an Irish government Minister. On that occasion the AOH Board of Erin made it quite clear where we as an organisation stand on the issue of Civil Partnerships and further it also made it quite clear that those people involved in the so called protest were not representing or representative of the AOH. If anyone would like any further information on the AOH in Ireland please contact the AOH, Board of Erin, AOH Headquarters, 23 Foyle Street, Derry. The AOH welcome comment and questions, visitors and enquiries. So please, before listening to those who purport to represent the AOH please contact us for information if so required. Yours in Friendship, Unity & True Christian Charity, Seanf

author by ploughmanpublication date Mon Aug 21, 2006 08:56author address author phone

'Fascism', has become a misnomer, it is a meaningless term . Does anybody know what it actually means now ?
'Nazi', likewise has been so overused and abused that like the term 'Fascist', they become the stock in trade of toilet scribblers .
Men as a sex are called fascists
Communists are called fascists
moslems are called fascists
Catholics are called fascists
evangelicals are called fascists
new labour and conservatives are called fascists
Marxists are called fascists
Republicans are called fascists
Loyalists are called fascists
Nationalists are called fascists
etc etc etc
Anybody who actually believes in any set of objective truths or norms is labelled a fascist in todays brave new world.Just to feel that somebody is a fascist is now all that is required to make that somebody a fascist.
Most of the generation that died in their millions to defeat Hitler in ww2 would today be described as Fascists by the likes of search'lite' .Totalitarian Liberalism is the real Fascism of today , Why ?
Because it's creed echo's that Pilates
' Truth what is truth'
And it will enforce it !

Related Link:
author by harrypublication date Tue Aug 22, 2006 19:14author address author phone

bush was calling moslems fascists

author by Liam Ó Conchobhair - Craobh Gal Gréinepublication date Tue Aug 22, 2006 22:52author address author phone

It seems the lefties are once again trying to attack the Gal Gréine society. You make reference to its cathaoirleach Tomás mac Cormaic and his anti immigration views, and a load of crap about an ex-member and friend of yours being in Sinn Féin with him and revealing all about how he met a member of the Celtic Wolves. In fact the person you are talking about is also a former Sinn Féin member in Cork James Mac Barron, turned anarcist.

I have been long aware of Tomás mac Cormaic anti immigration and anti homosexual views, and it comes as no surprise to learn that they were also his views when a member of Sinn Féin and were also the views of a large section of Sinn Féin in Cork. Craobh Gal Gréine was founded by over 30 members who have all previous backgrounds within Sinn Féin and the Provisional Movement, Republican Sinn Féin and the 32 county Sovereignty Committee. So numerically it seems that a far greater section of Republicans support traditional nationalism, as opposed to the neo-colonial policy of Europe that has been embraced by the liberals within Ireland.

The greatest concern in reference to the article about Gerry Mc Geough in the searchlight magazine, is a contribution made by Mags Gleenon, who cliams that the Catholic Religion has no place within Irish nationalism. Yet she is to the fore-front of trying to promote abortion as some sort of national ideology?

Firstly I would like to comment that Searchlight is a foreign organisation and should keep its nose out of Irish politics. The Irish nation is sick of English interference within our nation, and this is just another example of foreigners trying to dictate their policies to the Irish people. Secondly, in the past Catholicism has had a very strong association with the nationalstruggle. Patriots such as Patrick Pearse, Terence Mc Swiney, Sean South and J.J. O' Kelly all make a point of writing of how important their religious faith was to the national struggle. Finally, the days of the Penal Laws are well and truly over. The Irish have a right to express their religious beliefs in harmony with their political beliefs. I don't see the liberals attacking Islamic extremists for their religious beliefs, so it is hypocritical of them to attack Gerry Mc Geough and other Irish nationalists over theirs.

author by Mags Glennonpublication date Tue Aug 29, 2006 15:38author address author phone

Please get spelling of my name correct, at the very least. Also I don't believe abortion should be a 'national ideology'. It is a medical procedure, not a political philosophy. Yes, Catholicism should have no place within Republicanism - no place superior to Protestantism, or any other faith, or no religion at all. Sure wasn't Republicanism founded by Protestants and Free Thinkers anyway, which was why the Catholic church has always opposed it.

author by Charles Fortpublication date Tue Aug 29, 2006 15:47author address author phone

Good to see you contributing again. It is a pity to watch the degeneration of Gerry McGeough. Just because he was brave Republican who served hard time doesnt mean that we now have to defend him as Barry is doing. Gerry has crossed the line, religious sectarianism, homophobia, racism, anti-semitism. What more does Barry have to see before he'll call McGeough a fascist?

author by historianpublication date Tue Aug 29, 2006 16:32author address author phone

The fact is that McGeough was fighting the Brits when some of those posting here to attack him were cheer-leading or nit-picking from the safety of the pub. Irish republicanism is fundamentally about getting rid of the Brits. Leftism has always been a minority strand within it, albeit leftists have played an honourable role in the struggle over the years. That does not apply to some of the above.

author by Joe Blackpublication date Tue Aug 29, 2006 16:48author address author phone

In terms of Irish republicanism what you call 'getting rid of the Brits' was not something seen as the primary objective but rather a necessity in order to introduce the radical ideas of the American and French revolutions to Ireland. The first republicans, the United Irishmen, had links with similar organisations in England and were opponents of the slave trade to the extent that slave ships had to abandon the use of Irish ports. Far from being anti-migrant the military commander of the 1798 rising, Edward Fitzgerald was accompanied on his return to Ireland by Toby who had been enslaved in the America's.

There is nothing republican about Gal Gréine, it is reactionary Irish nationalism of the worst sort which has far more in common with the likes of the BNP then with anything republicanism stands for.

author by historianpublication date Tue Aug 29, 2006 16:55author address author phone

Whatever about the intellectual influences on the United Irishmen, the fundamental motivation for the leaders of the UI and the hundreds of thousands who supported the rebellion was to get rid of the Brits.

For people like McGeough, growing up in Tyrone or Armagh or Belfast the issue was the same. They did not spend their time navel gazing and engaged in the intellectual onanising of the left, as represented here by members of totally irrelvant micro groups. They went out and took up arms. As such he is entitled to a respect that the latter have no right to.

author by veteranleftypublication date Tue Aug 29, 2006 17:43author address author phone

He does not deserve any more respect than anyone else who went out to remove british imperialism, probably less than those who stuck to genuine Republican and Socialist ideals.

Many other people, including many of the "lefties" you despise, also took up arms. Others on the left had a genuine conscientious objection to the use of violence. What put them and many other Irish people off Irish Republicanism in the early seventies was the use of bombs in civilian areas. I think you will find that the people advocating that kind of bombing policy were the "non-political soldier" type who did not want to have anything to do with any kind of socialist ideology.

It would be worth bearing in mind James Connolly's reference to Irish politics becoming a "Carnival of Reaction" if we just set up an Irish state and ignored the needs of the working class. The defenders of McGeogh are a prime example of what he was obviously thinking about.

I dread to think what kind of Ireland we would have if the likes of McGeogh and some of his defenders here ever got into power.

author by Conall - Gal Gréinepublication date Tue Aug 29, 2006 18:07author address author phone

Could you explain why Craobh Gal Gréne are 'reactionary Irish nationalism of the worst sort'.

What has Craobh Gal Gréine done as a society to link them to the likes of the BNP?
Do you even know what Craobh Gal Gréine is about. eg. their philsophies for the Irish nation?
Do you know any of its membership to make such rash judgements?
Are their politics contradictionary to the writings of several leading Republicans who founded the 1st Dáil?
The position of Sinn Féin up to the last twenty years was opposed to 'sodomy'. Are you now telling us that they were not true Republicans, because of your modern interpretation of that philosophy?
Are you involved in every aspect of the national struggle, in the same way as members of Craobh Gal Gréine?

There is nothing republican about Gal Gréine, it is reactionary Irish nationalism of the worst sort which has far more in common with the likes of the BNP then with anything republicanism stands for.

author by Conall - Gal Gréinepublication date Tue Aug 29, 2006 18:19author address author phone

Could you expalin Mags - when exactly has Gerry Mc Geough stated that no Protestants can be involved with either Republicanism or the National Struggle?

Secondly, could you give us an insight into the history of excluding Catholicism from the National Struggle, if there ever was any? For example the 'Wild Geese' or the 'Catholic Confederacy of Kilkenny' or the aims of the 'Defenders'?

Also if Republicanism is opposed to people expressing their faith in conjunction with their politics, why did Republicans never oppose 'the Catholic Bulletin', when printed in the 20's by a senior member of Sinn Féin J.J. O' Kelly?

Why did Republicans support J.J. O' Kelly when he was President of Sinn Féin and both his religious and political beliefs were expressed in the official Sinn Féin Journal at the time, exactly in the same way Gerry Mc Geough edits the Hibernian?

Should Sean South have been excluded from the IRA because of his strong religious beliefs?

author by Charles Fortpublication date Tue Aug 29, 2006 18:29author address author phone

"Also if Republicanism is opposed to people expressing their faith in conjunction with their politics, why did Republicans never oppose 'the Catholic Bulletin', when printed in the 20's by a senior member of Sinn Féin J.J. O' Kelly?"

At this stage the IRA had cut SF loose. They regarded it as largely irrelevant. The IRA at this stage more involved in Left Wing projects, even sending members to the USSR for training. The IRAs political aspirations were expressed through Saor Eire and other political groups.

I would reccomend Brian Hanleys book: The IRA 1926 - 1936. He had access to Moss Twomeys papers.

Sean South was brave Republican who may have been a bit fanatical in his approach to religion. I remember Eamon MacThomás writing on how Sean used to pray so loudly during the night he woke people!

author by Conall - Gal Gréinepublication date Tue Aug 29, 2006 18:43author address author phone

Indeed they may have been sending their members to the USSR for training, while also sending their members to Nazi Germany to buy weapons for a war of freedom.

Saor Éire was a splinter group of the IRA. Most IRA men opposed the left wing politics of that group, while the IRA chief of staff gave a direct order forbidding any of its membership from travelling to Spain to fight in the Spanish Civil War.

The split between Sinn Féin and the IRA was centred upon a disgust for politics by the militarists.

author by Conall - Gal Gréinepublication date Tue Aug 29, 2006 18:48author address author phone

'Sean South was brave Republican who may have been a bit fanatical in his approach to religion. I remember Eamon MacThomás writing on how Sean used to pray so loudly during the night he woke people!'

Its interesting the way you describe Sean South as been a bit fanatical in his approach to religion. How does Mc Geough differ from Sean South? How would Mc Geough differ from the IRB Military Council who seeked permission from the Pope to launch the 1916 Rising against the English nation? How does Mc Geough differ from say Father Murphy in the 1798 Rising?

author by Charles Fortpublication date Tue Aug 29, 2006 18:49author address author phone

"Saor Éire was a splinter group of the IRA. "

I mean the political organisation which was established by the IRA in 1931. I think you will find that the founding of the organisation was carried out under the authority of the IRA Army Council.

author by Harrypublication date Tue Aug 29, 2006 19:14author address author phone

Terence McSwiney, the Lord Mayor of Cork who died on Hunger Strike in Brixton Prison during the War of Independence, commented on the Ancient Order of Hibernians in 1920, from his prison cell:


I wish to make a note on the article under this heading to avoid a possible misconception amongst people outside Ireland. In Ireland there is no religious dissension, but there is religious insincerity. English politicians, to serve the end of dividing Ireland, have worked on the religious feelings of the North, suggesting the danger of Catholic ascendancy. There is not now, and there never was, any such danger, but our enemies, by raising the cry, sowed discord in the North, with the aim of destroying Irish unity. It should be borne in mind that when the Republican Standard was first raised in the field in Ireland, in the Rising of 1798, Catholics and Protestants in the North were united in the cause. Belfast was the first home of Republicanism in Ireland. This is the truth of the matter. The present-day cleavage is an unnatural thing created by Ireland's enemies to hold her in subjection and will disappear with political Freedom.

It has had, however, in our day, one unhappy effect, only for a time, fortunately, and this is disappearing. I refer to the rise of Hibernianism. The English ruling faction having, for their own political designs, corrupted the Orangemen with power and flattery, enabled them to establish an ascendancy, not only over Ulster, but indirectly by their vote over the South. This becoming intolerable, some sincere but misguided Catholics in the North joined the organisation known as The Ancient Order Of Hibernians. This was, in effect, a sort of Catholic Freemasonry to counter the Orange Freemasonry, but like Orangeism, it was a political and not a religious weapon.

Further, as a political weapon, it extended all through Ireland during the last years of the Irish Parliamentary Movement. In Cork, for example, it completely controlled the city life for some years, but the rapid rise of the Republican Movement brought about the equally rapid fall of Hibernianism. At the present moment it has as little influence in the public life of Cork as Sir Edward Carson himself. The great bulk of its one-time members have joined the Republican Movement. This demonstrates clearly that anything in the nature of a sectarian movement is essentially repugnant to the Irish people. As I have pointed out, the Hibernian Order, when created, became at once a political weapon, but Ireland has discarded that, and other such weapons, for those with which she is carving out the destinies of the Republic."

It was a notable aspect of the struggle for political ascendancy of republicanism in Cork from 1912 to 1921 that it was against, and seen to be against, the Ancient Order of Hibernians. McSwiney and others understood the defensive basis for the coming into existence of the Hibernians, but rejected their strategy as sectarian and against the republican ethos. Hiberianism as such would have been associated more readily in the public mind at that time with Redmond’s Irish Parliamentary Party and support for recruitment into the British Army (whose propaganda portrayed the plight of ‘little Catholic Belgium” at the mercy of the depraved ‘Hun’).

Another Cork Republican, Tom Barry, wrote in his autobiography of the "local native politicians, who invoking the names of Parnell, Redmond, Caitlin ni Houlihan... ...cringed to the Army of Occupation and the Loyalists, deprecated, so very carefully, the National Struggle for Freedom, and pursued their petty meannesses under the guise of what they called Catholicism."

Barry, was careful to draw a distinction between 'loyalist' and 'Protestant'. He noted that "bigotry was not confined to the Protestants for the ignorant and petty-minded Catholics had their fair share of this ancient curse".

Irish Republicanism is traditionally neither pro or anti Roman Catholic or Protestant.

Or Judaism for that matter, hence the significant support for Sinn Fein in 1920 from within Ireland’s Jewish community. Unlike Ulster unionism, which had engaged in wholesale anti-semitism during World War One, even to the extent of driving out a Jewish former Unionist Lord Mayor. In 1899 and 1904, the pro-British Jaffe was elected Lord Mayor. The outbreak of war in 1914 saw anti-German sentiment. Even though his son and his nephew were serving in the British Army, Sir Otto was accused of being a German spy. He was forced to resign his seat on Belfast City Council and flee Ulster in 1916. Jaffe was one of many Jews so treated by unionism in the North.

This treatment was reciprocated by the Redmondites in the South of Ireland, who also attacked Jews on the basis that they were ‘German’. James Connolly opposed them in The Irish Worker and was the first Irish politician to produce election literature in a language other than Irish or English – Yiddish. Anti-Semitism was not as virulent or systematic in the south, where it was actively opposed. Some Jews left the North and came south, much to the benefit of what later became southern Irish society.

I sense that the Irish branch of a reactionary ideology is currently being concocted, with all the illogical, prejudicial and unhistorical conclusions that are the hallmarks of such ideas. Hence, it will be anti Muslim in Ireland and anti Jewish abroad – it will conform to the Zionist stereotype of being both anti-Jewish and anti Zionist, supporting Israel’s enemies though also being racist toward them at the same time. It will attempt to be both ‘Republican’ and ‘Catholic’ and will find Protestant (and atheist, Jewish, Muslim, etc) republicans an irritant it will not be able to shake off. Oh yes, and it will be anti-abortion – the most spectacular political failure on the part of the Catholic right in Ireland over the past 25 years. It will be against ‘big’ business, where workers have a greater opportunity to combine into trade unions, and for ‘small’ business, where workers are more apt to be super exploited, under paid and unrepresented. [Note to pedants: this is a generalisation.] It will be small minded in everything and therefore for big business and big business politics in practice.

It will give every cause it touches a bad name and will confuse itself and everybody else who takes its ideas seriously. (I suggest that Barry and his pals, as in so much else, think again before jumping to the defence of a bunch of AOH entryists, who want to transform a largely dormant organisation intro an actively reactionary vehicle.)

(Another note: I am not 'harry', with the small 'h' below.)

author by timmypublication date Tue Aug 29, 2006 19:22author address author phone

Was Gerry Mc Geough trying to infiltrate the AOH or does his agree with the AOH. Are the AOH of the 20's the same as the AOH in America. Is it ok for republicans to accept support from the AOH in America and is it wrong for them to accept support from the AOH in Ireland.

author by Harrypublication date Tue Aug 29, 2006 19:45author address author phone

AOH by timmy Tue Aug 29, 2006 18:22

Was Gerry Mc Geough trying to infiltrate the AOH or does his agree with the AOH.

Who knows? Your guess is as good as mine. Though, since you ask, both I suppose.

Are the AOH of the 20's the same as the AOH in America.


Is it ok for republicans to accept support from the AOH in America and is it wrong for them to accept support from the AOH in Ireland.

It depends on the political context in which the support is offered. A Gerry McGeogh AOH, if it emerges, will be different from the dormant one we have ignored heretofore. McGeogh, the author of the following reactionary gibberish is unlikely to offer the hand of friendship any time soon: “Sinn Fein has been heavily infiltrated by homosexual activists and British double agents in recent years. A lot of republicans can’t fathom the liberal values of the leadership. They do not understand why they are pursuing a liberal British agenda. Immigration is a massive concern and there are a lot of people who are not happy with the level of immigration.”

author by Conall - Gal Gréinepublication date Wed Aug 30, 2006 12:47author address author phone

Nobody disagrees with you that the AOH of Ireland in the 1920's right up to the very present day had strong tendency's towards the Redmondite position. And that it was used as a political weapon against those who fought for Irish freedom, but not everyone in the AOH supports the Redmondite position and some activily work against it. Secondly nobody can lable Gerry Mc Geough a Redmondite or anti-Republican. He still advocates a United Ireland and supports all aspects of the Republican struggle for Independence. What he has disagreed with, is the introduction of liberalism into the Republican position, which in the past it was strongly against. For example year after year 'Abortion' was voted down at the Sinn Féin Ard Fheiseanna. So it would be fair to suggest that Sinn Féin traditionally were anti Abortion. It is the same with Divorce. It is only in the last 15 years that Sinn Féin has taken a position supporting Divorce, whereas traditionally Sinn Féin were opposed to Divorce. Gerry Mc Geough has held the traditonal position, refusing to accept the liberalism which has been seeping from England into Irish politics. If Gerry Mc Geough is Fascist for keeping the tradional position of Republicanism, then the entire Sinn Féin / Republican Movement in the past must also have been fascist. They were not.

Gerry Mc Geough is involved in promoting the Catholic faith, not the Catholic church. If people oppose his religious beliefs and attempt to suppress them, then they are sectarian and against religious liberties. Other Republican / Nationalist journals have carried numerous articles supporting Divorce / Abortion / Gay Rights etc..., none of which has anything to do with Traditional Republicanism. So what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

author by Henry Joypublication date Wed Aug 30, 2006 13:20author address author phone

"It is only in the last 15 years that Sinn Féin has taken a position supporting Divorce, whereas traditionally Sinn Féin were opposed to Divorce."

Not true. In the 1986 Referendum SF called for a no vote. They supported the introduction of divorce long before then. As for gay rights, SF also has a long history of support. The first time I remember them making a statement on it was back in 1981 but there was a specific Lesbian/Gay H block POWs Support Group from 1980.

author by Seeping Liberalpublication date Wed Aug 30, 2006 15:17author address author phone

liberalism which has been seeping from England into Irish politics

If it matters where an idea originates as opposed to how worthwhile the idea is itself then McGeough and co should be advocating for a return to the the autochtonous structures involving non-elected chiefs and weaselly collaboration with foreign imperial powers for short-term gain and long-term colonialism.

author by Harrypublication date Thu Aug 31, 2006 00:54author address author phone


Cosgrave's Free state brought in the ban on divorce in 1927. Fianna Fail brought in a ban on contraception in 1935. This is free statism, not republicanism. It represents the ascendancy of conservative free statism in an alliance with the Roman Catholic church. Those days are over. The Irish people defeated this alliance and won secular reform and democratic rights.

Where in the programme of republicans after 1916 is a demand to ban divorce and contraception? Nowhere, that is where. They were not so small-minded.

Yours is a narrow 26 County nationalism. Go on up North and campaign to ban divorce. See how far you will get. Your campaign against abortion will attract all the Neanderthal constituents of unionism. Join up with the Orange Order who will be happy to participate in an anti-abortion campaign with Reactionary Roman Catholics. You are the answer to their prayers, a reactionary nationalist counterpoint.

I don't remember Ruarai O'Bradaigh running around claiming ‘no rubber johnnies’ is etched on to the programme of Irish republicanism. I don’t remember him having a problem with the right to divorce. He is pretty ‘traditional’ isn’t he?

Most Irish people are not interested in this reactionary clap-trap. And most republicans are in agreement with most Irish people.

author by Kennopublication date Fri Sep 01, 2006 12:54author address author phone

It is a matter of historical fact that Gerry McGeogh was an extremely important figure in the 25 year guerrilla war to force the British to the negotiating table. However, after checking out the 'Hibernian' website, there can be no room for that kind of 'faith and fatherland' guff in Irish republicanism. One of the basic tenets of republicanism given to us from the French revolution is the need for a secular state, the absolute need to seperate all religion from the state apparatus. The 26 county Irish 'republic' of the last 70 years has obviously failed in that central need. Cosgrave/deValera basically took power from the British and handed it to the catholic hierarchy. That was a betrayal of republicanism. So too is Mcgeogh's catholic nationalism. His personal religious beliefs are his own business, but by propagating them in that reactionary magazine, he has forfeited his right to be an Irish republican.

author by tom eilepublication date Fri Sep 01, 2006 16:25author address author phone

I suspect that it isn't the liberalism that seeped in from England that these bigots are worried about so much as the Liberty that seeped in from France. Somebody from Gal Greine made a distinction between the Catholic faith and the Catholic Church -maybe because he knows about the long history of England’s involvement with the Catholic Church in Ireland . Wasn’t Ireland given to the English king , Henry , by an English pope as a penance for murdering Cardinal Thomas Beckett ? And doesn’t the law of papal infallibility decree that the Faith gets decided by the man who runs the Church ?
While we’re discussing history ,could anybody explain what exactly Gerry McGeogh ever did that was so important for Irish republicanism . People on this thread are going on about him as if he's some sort of a Cu Cullan . He forced the British to the negotiating table , did he ? So did Michael Collins and look where he ended up.
Young people who didn't have to live through the mental and physical terror imposed by the Catholic Church when it held sway over Ireland should take a walk down Dublin's O'Connell St sometime and visit the holy book shop there - just before you get to Burger King.The place is a throw back to Ireland in the 1950's - miracle medals, statues of the pope ,adverts for Lourdes all over the place . The atmosphere is one of chilling antiquated madness (but is protected by a most modern security system of course) . That is the sort of Ireland that Gerry Mc Geogh and his pals wants to go back to.

author by Conall - Gal Gréinepublication date Tue Sep 05, 2006 20:15author address author phone

What everyone seems to be over-looking in their discussion about the Hibernian magazine, is whether people of this nation can express their religious beliefs in association to their political beliefs. Gerry Mc Geough has never stated that the religious institutions of the State should be given control over the State. All he has done is express his religious views of how the State should reflect and be designed in a context that respects peoples religious beliefs. As a large percentage of people in this country are Catholics / Christians then the government has an obligation not to develop a state that directly infringes on their religious beliefs.

This was done in the Divorce referendum, where the State over-ruled the religious and spiritual beliefs of true Catholics. If the Catholic church is the only one, that has a right to wed Catholics in the eyes of Gods, then they should be the only ones who can dissolve the marraige between those Catholics. The State infrigned on elements of the Catholic community, for it is a mortal sin to commit Divorce or to have a marraige anulled if the Catholic church disapproves. If people desire to marry under the laws of the nation as opposed to the laws of the Catholic church, let them do so. They can have divorce in their own religious / spiritual beliefs under the guidance of the State and that is where you can keep Church and State separate. But neither should be allowed dictate to the other.

author by curiouspublication date Wed Sep 06, 2006 11:02author address author phone

McGeough did indeed contribute to bringing the Britis to the negotiating table as an IRA Volunteer in one of the most effective units of the IRA. As such he is worthy of respect. As a non Catholic I do not share either his religious views nor most of his political views but he is entitled to them and they are no madder than the ultra leftist nonsense spouted by many of his opponents. I think you would also find that most of those who actually fought the Brits would be far closer in outlook to McGeough than his enemies.

author by Ridiculouspublication date Thu Sep 07, 2006 00:34author address author phone

Really, this hoo-hah over Gerry McGeough is a bit ridiculous. The computer jockeys and Daddy's boy/girl PC lefties pointing fingers should remember that at their age, McGeough was in the thick of taking the war to the British presence in Ulster. He spent the best years of his life in prison because he refused to waver from his beliefs.

In addition, Searchlight Magazine's reputation as an arm of the British security services and the Israeli Mossad is well known. Gerry Gable's reputation precedes him, and that's not to be taken as a compliment.

author by Seamus Mac Aodhapublication date Thu Sep 07, 2006 00:38author address author phone

"His personal religious beliefs are his own business, but by propagating them in that reactionary magazine, he has forfeited his right to be an Irish republican."

The hypocrisy! Kenno, if you call yourself a Republican, then by slamming down on and silencing McGeough's views YOU have forfeited YOUR right to be an Irish Republican.

author by curiouspublication date Thu Sep 07, 2006 09:40author address author phone

Exactly. And again it is worth reiterating that the majority of republicans in Tyrone or Fermanagh or South Armagh (Or Kerry or Dublin for that matter) would be far closer to McGeough's views on religion, abortion, immigration etc than the self appointed ideologists who for the greater part were not in the IRA nor active supporters of the IRA during the armed struggle. Many new SF types are closer to the Labour Party in their views on these issues - and their antipathy to the IRA - than they are to traditional republicans.

author by Truthpublication date Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:28author address author phone

Gerry McGeough does not hold the same views as the majority of Sinn Fein members, anywhere, and the people that spout that crap have absolutely no idea what is going on in real life. Gerry is a facist, he supported Justin Barrett long after he had been exposed as a facist. McGeough became a laughing stock in Sinn Fein and the same morons who are on here supporting him now are the same morons who was condemning him when he was on active service. McGeough isn't a republican he is a catholic nationalist, a term he uses to describe himself. Republicanism is a progressive ideology, unlike the reactionary bigottry which McGeough espouses now. Just because he was on active service does not mean he should receive respect for the views that he holds now, that kind of idiocy really shows how moronic his supporters are. They have no support and neither does McGeough. As for new members of Sinn Fein, curious your knowledge of Sinn Fein memebers are ridiculous, keep these idiotic and completely false opinions to yourself as they are absolute bullshit.

author by curiouspublication date Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:38author address author phone

The majority of SF members is not the same thing as the majority of republicans. Most republicans I know are opposed to abortion, are Catholics and support tighter controls on immigration. Some but not all are emmbers or formers members of SF.

Anyway, my point is that McGeough as someone who was active in the armed struggle is as much a republican as a new member who chose not to join until the IRA decommissioned.

author by Kennopublication date Thu Sep 07, 2006 12:30author address author phone

The type of 'republicanism' espoused by 'curious' and others is just laughable really. Just to want the Brit army to leave Ireland does not make you a republican. Republicanism is a political philosophy and a philosophy which is mutually EXCLUSIVE to Catholic nationalism or Protestant nationalism or indeed, Jewish or Muslim nationalism. It is a SECULAR political theory. Equally, you cannot be a republican if you hold anti-immigrant views (republicanism is about equality ,remember) You cannot be a republican if you hold mysoginistic views, you cannot be a republican if you hold homophobic views. Read more Thomas Paine and less rosary beads/.303 nationalist bullshit.

author by Fredpublication date Thu Sep 07, 2006 15:24author address author phone

Kenno and others are just wrong. Gerry McGeough went around with a gun thinking he was the big man and killing people that does not make him a republican. He is obviously fuelled by hate. As for where were you when he was out fighting, well certainly not in the ranks of rabid nationalist bigots that made up certain sectors of the PIRA but have no fear if McGeough wants to bring his bigotry and bastardisation of ‘Irish Republicanism’ on the streets I and many others will be there to ‘discuss’ his politics with him. NO Platform - and it doesn’t matter how many people you’ve killed. If the majority of so-called Irish republicanism do not believe in equality then they will have to be dealt with politically if, they wish to bear arms then they will have to be dealt with like the mad dogs that they are by the state and others, just because you have McGeough starships in the sky don’t get over confident.


author by Seamus Mac Aodhapublication date Thu Sep 07, 2006 23:47author address author phone

1. I will not respond to the gentleman who labels himself 'Truth' (a misnomer if ever I've heard one) because he's clearly up to his neck in the propaganda of the extreme left, and is incapable of making a rational argument in defence of his anti-McGeoughism.

2. Kenno, in your mind you seem to have the definition of Republicanism sown up, but you are drowning in hypocrisy. You say that Republicanism is based on the concept of liberty, equality and fraternity and liberal, secular notions, and to a certain extent you're right - that was the viewpoint of the Paines, Wolfe Tones and Robespierres of this world. Among the things such liberalism claims to defend is religious freedom. But instead, history has proven that liberalism (or the Revolution, whatever you want to call it) NEVER delivers religious or political freedom. Instead, it becomes its own god. You are a case study of this hypocrisy. You claim to believe in a secular ideology which promises religious freedom, but instead you'd like to silence or defame Gerry McGeough for his beliefs by throwing emotionally charged adjectives at him. As I said before, hypocrisy.

3. Fred, when ridiculing a man's contribution to the struggle in Ulster as going "around with a gun thinking he was the big man and killing people", would you apply the same ridicule to former IRA gunmen who now follow politics of a Marxist persuasion, or one more suitable to your tastes? Would you also apply it to James Connolly? What's more, from all I've seen of McGeough he's never crowed about killing anyone, or played up his role in the conflict. What I do see from his writings is a man who has an innocent love of his country, and would be prepared to give his heart and soul for it. Would you do the same? In fact, what have all of McGeough's detractors here actually given to the struggle in the North, to afford them the power of excluding him from their special little club?

author by Kennopublication date Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:36author address author phone

I just don't get the accusation of hypocrisy which has been thrown at me from 'Seamus'. I couldn't care less what religion Gerry McGeogh believes. He could worship a golden chicken for all I care. And he does have a complete right to choose and profess his own brand of faith. That is a personal issue. However, If religion intrudes into the classroom or the cabinet room, as we have seen in the south of Ireland (Faith and fatherland) and the north (Protestant state for a protestant people) then this is the antithesis of republicanism. The whole argument above is not whether Gerry McGeogh has a right to worship a certain God, it is the fact that he publicly attacks homosexuals and people who are pro-choice etc. As soon as he went public on these views, I had the right to criticise his reputation as a 'republican' , because if that's Irish republicanism, you can keep it. Luckily it is not.

author by curiouspublication date Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:47author address author phone

Republicanism is fundamentally about democracy. Democracy being the rule of the majority. The majority of Irish people as evidenced by referenda and opinion polls on the issues of abortion and immigration for example, clearly show that the majority of people in the 26 counties are opposed to abortion and in favour of tighter immigration controls. I don't imagine there would be much difference on a 32 county basis or within either community there. So on that basis McGeough is closer to reflecting 'republican' views than the minority who have placed some spurious "rights based" nonsense before the fundamental cornerstone of Irish republicanism: the removal of the British presence. You can be an Irish republican and support the "right to choose" if you also support and are active in the pursuit of the latter. You are NOT an Irish republican if you do not make the removal of the British presence the absolute priority or worse still abandon it in favour of liberalism.

author by Truthpublication date Fri Sep 08, 2006 14:06author address author phone

There was no referendum on immigration, there was a referendum on citizenship. This was against the declaration of the proclamation to cherish all the children of the nation equally. McGeough, you and your pathetic brand of catholic nationalism are against this very declaration. I have been a member of the republican movement all my life and I have known McGeough for longer than you have. He became a laughing stock as all you and your ilk are. You are not republicans, you are anti republican. You are at best catholic nationalists and at worst complete fascists. You are pathetic and you will be treated as such. You have no support as is proven every time any of you gombeen's try and run for election. Stick to going to mass.

author by ONNpublication date Fri Sep 08, 2006 14:59author address author phone

Despite the hysterical howls of Fascist, McGeough is a man of proven character who has a history of putting on the line more than simply his keyboard pride. That he has not toddled off down the road of surrender, plunged into the pit of fashionable capitalistic liberal indulgence & that he has stayed true to the common sense, socially responsible & uniquely Irish form of republicanism is something I for one will not reproach him for.

Indeed in choosing not to partake in the capitalistic financed game of child murder or that he recognises that no party benefits from the mass immigration transaction which services only the interests of the capitalist makes him for me - at least - a character of the first rank & a true pioneer of social justice. And no, neither am I a member of the Catholic faith.

author by Seamus Mac Aodha (no inverted commas required)publication date Sun Sep 10, 2006 02:31author address author phone

So, 'Truth', if you believe in the triumph of liberalism why do you speak the language of a Jacobin, language which always winds up in the perpetration of religious persecution (a la the French Reign of Terror and its counterpart in the Soviet Union).

Let's face it, you and your ilk are fanatical, anti-Christian and anti-clerical extremists. Religious freedom or respect for religious belief (which is cleverly cancelled out by your "vision" of society) was never your intention, and you would sooner place the crushing of religion and the bastardisation of Irish society - as Curious pointed out - before the important goal of removing the British presence from the island.

You are no Republican. Neither is Kenno, but at least he tries to have a bit more tact.

author by Salman Rusdie (no comas required)publication date Mon Sep 11, 2006 00:48author address author phone

Seamus you really are so piece of mindless work. The Jacobins created modern Republicanism form which continental strands Irish republican derives. You are a nationalist not a republican and as such are an enemy of true Irish Republicans. James Stephens founder of the IRB was a member of the International Workingman’s Association and stated that if Ireland was ever to find itself on the side of the oppression and counter revolution and England opposing he would take up arms against his own country as his fight was for international justice. Seamus stop claiming to be a republican you devalue the meaning of the term. And yes the Provos in many incidents where not republicans but nationalist bigots. If we were currently in a revolutionary situation you and your ilk would be up against a white washed wall. If such a period does emerge your statements here will stand against you.

author by curiouspublication date Mon Sep 11, 2006 11:01author address author phone

More ahistorical rants. Firstly, had the Jacobins not been overthrown in 1794 France would have become a totalitarian state instead of, eventually, a democratic republic. Likewise, Stephens tenuous connection to Marx's tiny sect is an obscure historical footnote.

It is interesting that you conclude on an anti Provo (pre ceasefire) rant and some fantasies abour putting republicans up against walls! Sounds very sticky circa 1975 to me!! Wonder how far such slabbering would have gotten you around Carrickmore or Cross in the old days!!

author by Eochaidhpublication date Fri Sep 15, 2006 23:27author address author phone

I note an alleged comment by James Connolly that the AOH are the foullest brood that have ever entered Ireland. Worse than the Orange Order? The Freemasons? Had he lived, I think he would have put Provisional "Sell-out" Sinn Féin well ahead of the in the odium stakes. The vast majority of the IRB and other signatories thought Connolly's socialist ideology was aload of bull anyway, as opposed to their superior Christianity and its vision of human dignity and equality, and only accepted him to get the ICA on side. Marxist socialism (in its death-throes all over the world) is a relative new-comer to the Irish political scene;some of those who (unfortunately)lost the civil war went off to Spain to support the nun-killing communists...why go when there was fighting to be done in Ireland? I suppose nuns are easier targets than armed English soldiers. Provisional SF are now using the same excuse to get off the real business..."an Ireland of equals" to be built .ha-ha! Thank God poor James died in the embrace of Holy Mother Church anyway.

author by jacobpublication date Tue Oct 10, 2006 00:48author address author phone

I;'ve seen an article in this month's Hibernian magazine entitled "Indymedia - Lenin's useless idiots".

They seem to be on some kind of intelligence gathering trip...

author by on a postcard, pleasepublication date Tue Oct 10, 2006 16:21author address author phone

IF Gerry McGeough were Muslim, would he still be considered a fascist?

Certainly a lot of his pro-Catholic views, anti-homosexuality, anti-abortion, pro-traditional femal/male roles, pro-Marriage, anti-Divorce, would be similar to those of Islam. It could be argued that his pro-nationalist/m viewpoint on Ireland and the Irish is also similar to the views of Muslims that all should conform to and respect the Islamic faith and its dictats.

So how come McGeough is a "clerical fascist", yet the extremist Muslims who have similar (and in some cases much more extreme) views are not?

Is it a case of Catholicism bad, Islam good? Or what? What, exactly, is the difference? Why should one be respected, and the other condemned?

author by Ex-cathpublication date Tue Oct 10, 2006 17:35author address author phone

What are ye on about? I do not respect any religion. Abolish it completely.

author by wish you were herepublication date Tue Oct 10, 2006 17:40author address author phone

Q.IF Gerry McGeough were Muslim, would he still be considered a fascist?
A. No - socialists would label him a religious fundamentalist

comment: Certainly a lot of his pro-Catholic views, anti-homosexuality, anti-abortion, pro-traditional femal/male roles, pro-Marriage, anti-Divorce, would be similar to those of Islam. It could be argued that his pro-nationalist/m viewpoint on Ireland and the Irish is also similar to the views of Muslims that all should conform to and respect the Islamic faith and its dictats.

Reply: Socialists have no truck with ANY religous fanatics we actually believe that Religion is the opium of the people. His politics stink, his beliefs are the opposite to all that socialists hold. I don't know if this makes him a nazi/fascist but he would certainlly be more comfortable in their company than any socialist, left republican, anarchist, communist or marxist.

Q:So how come McGeough is a "clerical fascist", yet the extremist Muslims who have similar (and in some cases much more extreme) views are not?
A: I think you mix up some left wing views about Religion etc. While we disagree with organised religon and the clergy most on the left respect the right of people to believe as an individuals right. Where we disagree is where there isn't any seperation between church and state. Fundamentalist Zionists, Muslims, Protestants and Catholics are equally bad and reactionary.

Q:Is it a case of Catholicism bad, Islam good? Or what? What, exactly, is the difference? Why should one be respected, and the other condemned?
A:They are all much the same.

What you should ask yourself are questions like

Can you be Gay and want the Brit's Out?
Does nationalism really need a Green version of the Orange Order oozing sectarianism?
Has national chauvinism any place in Republicanism?
Isn't Republicanism about the unity of catholic protestant and dissenter?
Who would support the Craobh Gal Gréine group? Not Socialists nor Republicans.

author by Liampublication date Tue Oct 10, 2006 22:56author address author phone

How can you claim that Republicans and Socialists would not join Gal Gréine. A large percentage of its membership would describe themselves as Republican Socialists. Others would describe themselves as Irish Nationalists and its philosophy is based on the writings of our ancestors and Irish patriots down through the ages. They have taken a Traditionalist stance on Irish Nationalism, which opposes Fascism, Communism, Liberalism, Capitalism, Imperialism and Marxism. They also support the separation of Church and State, though for different reasons than the Liberal agenda. They believe you cannot have religious freedom if the State is dictating over the laws of Religious bodies. But they also believe that the State should be in harmony with the Moral Ethics of the people and their spiritual beliefs.
Every attack on Gal Gréine has been without justification. Maybe you should read their manifesto before you throw false accusations at a society that was formed to promote Irish culture and the freedom of the Irish nation. If Republicans would not support Gal Gréine how come almost its entire membership is made up of long standing Irish Republicans?

author by Frankpublication date Tue Oct 10, 2006 23:56author email frankflynn2006 at yahoo dot ieauthor address author phone

On the contrary, Republicanism is not about the unity of anyone or anything in the name of any ideology. Republicanism with a small 'r' is; Irish Republicanism, with a capital 'r', is simply about the establishment of an sovereign, united 32 county Irish Republic.
There is nothing about Irish Republicanism which stresses that it MUST be secular; a ridiculous notion, since most of those who led the Irish Revolution were devoutly religious.

My e-mail is attached for any responses.

Indymedia Ireland is a media collective. We are independent volunteer citizen journalists producing and distributing the authentic voices of the people. Indymedia Ireland is an open news project where anyone can post their own news, comment, videos or photos about Ireland or related matters.