Recently we have seen frequent discussions around the topic of the Left inadvertently supporting the liberal capitalist system (which they claim to want to tear down) when they actively stand against those who oppose the destruction of traditional social norms, the detrimental effects of Ireland's open border immigration policy etc. From an economic standpoint this may seem contradictory, with nationalists correctly pointing out that immigration harms the native working class by depressing wages, and this is true to a certain degree if it's in reference to so-called Socialist Republicans, who we are told at least care about Ireland's interests as a starting point. However, this seemingly contradictory stance is also perfectly in concert with Marxist-Leninist theory, a brief summary of which will clarify that although some Republicans' nationalistic beliefs may be appealed to, the vast majority of that conglomeration we now call the Left are beyond reasoning and not worth engaging In serious debate with.
In 1913, Lenin noted that "There can be no doubt that dire poverty alone compels people to abandon their native land, and that the capitalists exploit the immigrant workers in the most shameless manner." This obvious truth is acknowledged by nationalists and socialists alike, the difference being that Marxist doctrinaires believe this to be a good thing in the long run. As Lenin explains the logic behind this line of reasoning;
"Emancipation from the yoke of capital is impossible without the further development of capitalism, and without the class struggle that is based on it. And it is into this struggle that capitalism is drawing the masses of the working people of the whole world, breaking down the musty, fusty habits of local life, breaking down national barriers and prejudices, uniting workers from all countries";
"Class-conscious workers, realising that the break-down of all the national barriers by capitalism is inevitable and progressive, are trying to help to enlighten and organise their fellow-workers from the backward countries."
As nationalists we must realise that to these people class war and class identity are the only relevant factors in their worldview. They have removed any other group distinctions from their minds, and most importantly they see this as a necessary step towards their utopian vision. As Lenin put it;
"only reactionaries can shut their eyes to the progressive significance of this modern migration of nations", and that "uniting with the workers of all countries into a single international force for emancipation", is ultimately why migration and the dissolution of National boundaries is desirable. In short, it's a type of accelerationism.
Thus, nationalists whose worldview is based on Man's natural tribalism/ethnocentrism and the liberal Left who see only class have no common ground on which to start a discussion, let alone cooperate.
Just as Lenin took the teachings of Marx and continued their development in one direction, similarly Connolly developed them in another, creating a socialist vision of his own. In Connolly's idea of socialism we see the alternative to Lenin's, one in which the defeat of the capitalist system does not require the workers to forgo any ethnic or cultural distinctions, but rather to retain them as another unifying factor. Connolly's analysis lead him to the same conclusion regarding the corrosive effect it has on distinct identities;
"The chief enemy of a Celtic revival today is the crushing force of capitalism which irresistibly destroys all national or racial characteristics"; But unlike Lenin, and the Leftists we have today, Connolly instead advocated; "translating Socialist ideas into terms of Irish thought, and a channel for conveying the Socialist message to others of his race.
But this he could only do as long as his Socialism did not cause him to raise barriers betwixt him and his fellow countrymen and women, to renounce his connection with, or to abjure all the ties of kinship and tradition".
In 1913, Lenin noted that "There can be no doubt that dire poverty alone compels people to abandon their native land, and that the capitalists exploit the immigrant workers in the most shameless manner." This obvious truth is acknowledged by nationalists and socialists alike, the difference being that Marxist doctrinaires believe this to be a good thing in the long run. As Lenin explains the logic behind this line of reasoning;
"Emancipation from the yoke of capital is impossible without the further development of capitalism, and without the class struggle that is based on it. And it is into this struggle that capitalism is drawing the masses of the working people of the whole world, breaking down the musty, fusty habits of local life, breaking down national barriers and prejudices, uniting workers from all countries";
"Class-conscious workers, realising that the break-down of all the national barriers by capitalism is inevitable and progressive, are trying to help to enlighten and organise their fellow-workers from the backward countries."
As nationalists we must realise that to these people class war and class identity are the only relevant factors in their worldview. They have removed any other group distinctions from their minds, and most importantly they see this as a necessary step towards their utopian vision. As Lenin put it;
"only reactionaries can shut their eyes to the progressive significance of this modern migration of nations", and that "uniting with the workers of all countries into a single international force for emancipation", is ultimately why migration and the dissolution of National boundaries is desirable. In short, it's a type of accelerationism.
Thus, nationalists whose worldview is based on Man's natural tribalism/ethnocentrism and the liberal Left who see only class have no common ground on which to start a discussion, let alone cooperate.
Just as Lenin took the teachings of Marx and continued their development in one direction, similarly Connolly developed them in another, creating a socialist vision of his own. In Connolly's idea of socialism we see the alternative to Lenin's, one in which the defeat of the capitalist system does not require the workers to forgo any ethnic or cultural distinctions, but rather to retain them as another unifying factor. Connolly's analysis lead him to the same conclusion regarding the corrosive effect it has on distinct identities;
"The chief enemy of a Celtic revival today is the crushing force of capitalism which irresistibly destroys all national or racial characteristics"; But unlike Lenin, and the Leftists we have today, Connolly instead advocated; "translating Socialist ideas into terms of Irish thought, and a channel for conveying the Socialist message to others of his race.
But this he could only do as long as his Socialism did not cause him to raise barriers betwixt him and his fellow countrymen and women, to renounce his connection with, or to abjure all the ties of kinship and tradition".
We must avoid falling into the false Left-Right trap that has been set for us, but rather recognise that Connollyism/Gaelic Socialism/Ethnic Socialism (the terminology is less important than the ideal) must be a part of our nationalism. The Left have chosen one strain of anti-capitalist ideology, a foreign strain, born of foreign minds, with a baked-in goal to end our people's unique existence. We have been gifted with our own anti-capitalist theory, from our own and for our own, with the goal of preserving us infused throughout.
They have wrapped their imported ideas in Irish colours and covered them with Connolly's name, but this is a lie, a lie that needs to be exposed, not debated.
They have wrapped their imported ideas in Irish colours and covered them with Connolly's name, but this is a lie, a lie that needs to be exposed, not debated.
When the Leftists talk of "Solidarity" and the "universal brotherhood of the oppressed", we answer back:
"Brothers, but not bedfellows"
"Brothers, but not bedfellows"
The shitlibs will try and push the narrative that Trump's loss signals the end to all nationalist movements. These Ameicanised rootless fools need to be reminded that this is Ireland and the American cultural hegemony that they worship is foreign. We will pursue our own desiny.
"...the frontiers of Ireland, the ineffaceable marks of the separate existence of Ireland, are as old as Europe itself, the handiwork of the Almighty, not of politicians. And as the marks of Ireland’s separate nationality were not made by politicians so they cannot be unmade by them."
"...the frontiers of Ireland, the ineffaceable marks of the separate existence of Ireland, are as old as Europe itself, the handiwork of the Almighty, not of politicians. And as the marks of Ireland’s separate nationality were not made by politicians so they cannot be unmade by them."
"In honouring O’Donovan Rossa the workers of Ireland are doing more than merely paying homage to an unconquerable fighter. They are signifying their adhesion to the principle of which Rossa till his latest days was a living embodiment – the principle that the freedom of a people must in the last analysis rest in the hands of that people – that there is no outside force capable of enforcing slavery upon a people really resolved to be free, and valuing freedom more than life. We in Ireland have often forgotten that truth, indeed it may be even asserted that only an insignificant minority of the nation ever learned it. And yet, that truth once properly adopted as the creed of a nation would become the salvation of the nation.
For slavery is a thing of the soul, before it embodies itself in the material things of the world. I assert that before a nation can be reduced to slavery its soul must have been cowed, intimidated or corrupted by the oppressor. Only when so cowed, intimidated or corrupted does the soul of a nation cease to urge forward its body to resist the imposition of the shackles of slavery; only when the soul so surrenders does any part of the body consent to make truce with the foe of its national existence.
When the soul is conquered the articulate expression of the voice of the nation loses its defiant accent, and taking on the whining colour of compromise, begins to plead for the body. The unconquered soul asserts itself, and declares its sanctity to be more important than the interests of the body; the conquered soul ever pleads first that the body may be saved even if the soul is damned.
For generations this conflict between the sanctity of the soul and the interests of the body has been waged in Ireland.
The soul of Ireland preached revolution, declared that no blood-letting could be as disastrous as a cowardly acceptance of the rule of the conqueror, nay, that the rule of the conqueror would necessarily entail more blood-letting than revolt against the rule. In fitful moments of spiritual exaltation Ireland accepted that idea, and such men as O’Donovan Rossa becoming possessed of it became thenceforth the living embodiment of that gospel. But such supreme moments passed for the multitude, and the nation as a nation sank again into its slavery, and its sole articulate expression to reach the ears of the world were couched in the fitful accents of the discontented, but spiritless slave – blatant in his discontent, spiritless in his acceptance of subjection as part of the changeless order of things.
The burial of the remains of O’Donovan Rossa in Irish soil, and the functions attendant thereon must inevitably raise in the mind of every worker the question of his or her own mental attitude to the powers against which the departed hero was in revolt. That involves the question whether those who accept that which Rossa rejected have any right to take part in honour paid to a man whose only title to honour lies in his continued rejection of that which they have accepted. It is a question each must answer for himself or herself. But it can neither be answered carelessly, nor evaded.
The Irish Citizen Army in its constitution pledges its members to fight for a Republican Freedom for Ireland. Its members are, therefore, of the number who believe that at the call of duty they may have to lay down their lives for Ireland, and have so trained themselves that at the worst the laying down of their lives shall constitute the starting point of another glorious tradition – a tradition that will keep alive the soul of the nation.
We are, therefore, present to honour O’Donovan Rossa by right of our faith in the separate destiny of our country, and our faith in the ability of the Irish workers to achieve that destiny."
For slavery is a thing of the soul, before it embodies itself in the material things of the world. I assert that before a nation can be reduced to slavery its soul must have been cowed, intimidated or corrupted by the oppressor. Only when so cowed, intimidated or corrupted does the soul of a nation cease to urge forward its body to resist the imposition of the shackles of slavery; only when the soul so surrenders does any part of the body consent to make truce with the foe of its national existence.
When the soul is conquered the articulate expression of the voice of the nation loses its defiant accent, and taking on the whining colour of compromise, begins to plead for the body. The unconquered soul asserts itself, and declares its sanctity to be more important than the interests of the body; the conquered soul ever pleads first that the body may be saved even if the soul is damned.
For generations this conflict between the sanctity of the soul and the interests of the body has been waged in Ireland.
The soul of Ireland preached revolution, declared that no blood-letting could be as disastrous as a cowardly acceptance of the rule of the conqueror, nay, that the rule of the conqueror would necessarily entail more blood-letting than revolt against the rule. In fitful moments of spiritual exaltation Ireland accepted that idea, and such men as O’Donovan Rossa becoming possessed of it became thenceforth the living embodiment of that gospel. But such supreme moments passed for the multitude, and the nation as a nation sank again into its slavery, and its sole articulate expression to reach the ears of the world were couched in the fitful accents of the discontented, but spiritless slave – blatant in his discontent, spiritless in his acceptance of subjection as part of the changeless order of things.
The burial of the remains of O’Donovan Rossa in Irish soil, and the functions attendant thereon must inevitably raise in the mind of every worker the question of his or her own mental attitude to the powers against which the departed hero was in revolt. That involves the question whether those who accept that which Rossa rejected have any right to take part in honour paid to a man whose only title to honour lies in his continued rejection of that which they have accepted. It is a question each must answer for himself or herself. But it can neither be answered carelessly, nor evaded.
The Irish Citizen Army in its constitution pledges its members to fight for a Republican Freedom for Ireland. Its members are, therefore, of the number who believe that at the call of duty they may have to lay down their lives for Ireland, and have so trained themselves that at the worst the laying down of their lives shall constitute the starting point of another glorious tradition – a tradition that will keep alive the soul of the nation.
We are, therefore, present to honour O’Donovan Rossa by right of our faith in the separate destiny of our country, and our faith in the ability of the Irish workers to achieve that destiny."
We are well aware that it is only our enemies who intentionally and falsely state that our nationalist historical figures who fought and died for Ireland were simply seeking freedom from the empire. They twist the truth to ignore any ethnic aspect to Ireland's struggle. These lies will only last so long as we allow them.
O'Donovan Rossa, the man who Connolly and the Citizen Army chose to honour:
"...why shouldn't an Irishman be mad; when he grows up face to face with the plunderers of his land and race, and sees them looking down upon him as if he were a mere thing of loathing and contempt!"
O'Donovan Rossa, the man who Connolly and the Citizen Army chose to honour:
"...why shouldn't an Irishman be mad; when he grows up face to face with the plunderers of his land and race, and sees them looking down upon him as if he were a mere thing of loathing and contempt!"
Another Rossa quote:
"Irishmen should have a country; they have a right to the country of their birth. By the use and aid of one steel – the pen – our committee have taken possession of that right, and as their title one day may be disputed, I trust they will be able and willing to prove it by the aid of another steel – the sword."
"Irishmen should have a country; they have a right to the country of their birth. By the use and aid of one steel – the pen – our committee have taken possession of that right, and as their title one day may be disputed, I trust they will be able and willing to prove it by the aid of another steel – the sword."
Forwarded from Archiving Irish Diversity Stuff (AIDS)
mao-ira (1).pdf
463.6 KB
Forwarded from Archiving Irish Diversity Stuff (AIDS)
Good 10-15 min read on IRA's relationship with Maoist China.
tl;dr of it is that Goulding and Costello went looking for arms in 1963/64, China basically said no to anything to do with them and also alerted their offices in London of what was going on.
Chinese also never considered Ireland a truly revolutionary state as they felt that even if British rule was removed that Ireland would remain in the American sphere of influence and the Chinese considered de Velera's government fascist for not taking part in WW2.
Funny then, as China in 1964/5 also had very good, and less lofty, reasons for not wishing to involve itself in the problems of Northern Ireland. For historical reasons, as well as the
continued British possession of Hong Kong and its role in essentially anti-PRC groupings such as the Southeast Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO) and activities such as the establishment of Malaysia in 1963 (contrary to the demands of Indonesia's anti-imperialist President Sokarno) Britain was recognised by China as the second-most prominent imperialist power in the world, after the United States.
ie - China didn't really care about helping ''muh oppressed people's of the world'' as Goulding tried to pander to Chinese and hope for, instead Chinese were doing what was in their own Imperialist interests.
tl;dr of it is that Goulding and Costello went looking for arms in 1963/64, China basically said no to anything to do with them and also alerted their offices in London of what was going on.
Chinese also never considered Ireland a truly revolutionary state as they felt that even if British rule was removed that Ireland would remain in the American sphere of influence and the Chinese considered de Velera's government fascist for not taking part in WW2.
Funny then, as China in 1964/5 also had very good, and less lofty, reasons for not wishing to involve itself in the problems of Northern Ireland. For historical reasons, as well as the
continued British possession of Hong Kong and its role in essentially anti-PRC groupings such as the Southeast Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO) and activities such as the establishment of Malaysia in 1963 (contrary to the demands of Indonesia's anti-imperialist President Sokarno) Britain was recognised by China as the second-most prominent imperialist power in the world, after the United States.
ie - China didn't really care about helping ''muh oppressed people's of the world'' as Goulding tried to pander to Chinese and hope for, instead Chinese were doing what was in their own Imperialist interests.
Forwarded from Archiving Irish Diversity Stuff (AIDS)
Also to add: Irish Dissident Republicans who LARP as Maoists and such are retarded
Forwarded from The National Party │ An Páirtí Náisiúnta
"In these days of doubt, despair and resurgent hope we fling our banner to the breeze, the flag of our fathers, the symbol of our national redemption, the sunburst shining over an Ireland re-born." James Connolly, The Irish Flag, 1916