MENTAL MASTURBATION ON A TRAMPOLINE

A man was spotted in North Belfast recently, jumping up and down naked on a trampoline with his naked dog and having intercourse with his tree. The man who must remain anonymous for legal reasons, was spotted by a young lady in the garden of his North Belfast home at 4 AM  last week. The PSNI/RUC were told that the man reported, had his "manhood" in one hand and a spliff in the other, when his neighbour saw him. The gentleman in question, who pleaded shameless indecency, was placed on a sex offenders list, with a warning to behave himself.

The RUC said, that a young female, who lives in a block of flats in North Belfast, had got out of her bed to go to the bathroom, after being awoken by panting and grunting in the early hours of the morning..As she looked out her bathroom window, she saw a man in her back garden. She said: "He was naked along with his dog,while bouncing up and down on a trampoline. He had a spliff in one hand and his penis in his other. When he tumbled down, the dog ejaculated on his head regularly. She said, he was as bold as brass, and put very bad thoughts in her head. She rang the RUC, because Gerry Kelly told everyone, to inform the British, on their Irish neighbours, if they saw anything suspicious."

The defendant told the RUC,  he took to the trampoline after hearing that Gerry Adams does it all the time with his dog, just for the thrill of it. He said he also likes to hug his tree, while he is naked, just like Gerry. He said when he is feeling intimate with his tree, he has sex regulary with it, but that he locks away his dog first, so that he won't be jealous. He promised the RUC, that he would become an informer like Gerry Kelly and vote Sinn Fein, if they promised, not to send him to Maghaberry. The RUC agreed, but told him that they were forced to put him on a sex offender's list, as there already was a man in Scotland, prosecuted and placed on a sex offender's list, for bouncing up and down on his trampoline in Scotland. When he inquired as to why Gerry Adams wasn't prosecuted, he was told to sgut up and stay quiet, or he would be interned for being a dissident and would be censored.

Belfast Telegraph

EDITOR'S VIEWPOINT – 20 FEBRUARY 2015

Taken at face value, the testimony of Richard Kerr on abuse at Kincora Boys' Home in east Belfast in the 1970s is explosive and compelling. He claims he was abused both there and in London by what appears to have been an organised paedophile ring. And he says he has evidence of MI5 involvement.


His story is tragic. As a teenager he was taken into care after his family life collapsed. His eventual arrival at Kincora led to a life of degradation, including abuse by numerous men and later working as a male prostitute.

One can only guess at the impact this had on his self-worth, as he self-harmed and also tried to commit suicide.


His story adds to the mounting tide of evidence of what went on in that notorious home. It also reinforces the widely held belief that previous investigations which saw three members of staff jailed for abusing 11 boys in their care was far from the complete picture. It has long been suspected that people in senior positions in the intelligence services and in civic society helped cover up the full extent of the abuse.

Whether that indeed is the case can only be determined by a full public inquiry into the allegations of former residents like Richard. Their voices are screaming out to be heard. Their claims are so insistent and consistent that they can no longer be denied a public airing.

Kincora is to be examined in a Northern Ireland inquiry chaired by Sir Anthony Hart QC. While no one doubts that this inquiry will be meticulous in its examination of historic child abuse, including that at Kincora, it does lack the power to compel witnesses to attend. Given the claims being made by former Kincora residents - and how their statements contradict the findings of previous investigations on the scale of the abuse - it is imperative that any new inquiry should have the strongest possible powers of investigation.

The inquiry in London - headed by New Zealand judge Lowell Goddard - into claims that a powerful paedophile ring existed in the very highest echelons of British society fits the bill.

But the Secretary of State, Theresa Villiers, has ruled out the Kincora claims being part of that inquiry. Her decision is being challenged in the High Court here. Justice demands that she should change her mind and agree to the demands of these men who say they were grievously abused as vulnerable boys.

DAILY MAIL

Victims at children's home accuse security service of colluding to protect abusers
Victims of abuse at Kincora Children's Home say MI5 blocked investigation
Claim staff members colluded with security services to protect abusers
Campaigners are now taking legal action at the High Court in Belfast today
Case is the first to examine allegations of a British state cover-up of abuse

By REBECCA CAMBER, CRIME CORRESPONDENT FOR THE DAILY MAIL

PUBLISHED: 01:30 GMT, 17 February 2015 | UPDATED: 08:24 GMT, 17 February 2015

MI5 blocked police investigations into sexual abuse at a children’s home to protect their intelligence gathering operation, campaigners will tell the High Court today.

Victims of abuse at the Kincora children’s home in Northern Ireland have accused senior members of the security services of colluding in protecting abusers from being investigated or prosecuted.

Campaigners are taking legal action at the High Court in Belfast to force a full independent inquiry with the power to force MI5 witnesses to testify and release documents.

+2

Victims of abuse at the Kincor children's home in Northern Ireland, pictured, have accused senior members of the security services of blocking police investigations

The case is the first to examine allegations of a British state cover-up of abuse at the East Belfast home in the 1970s.

Claims that children were molested for years because police and the British security services were using the home, run by a member of a Protestant paramilitary organisation, to gather intelligence are already subject to a separate inquiry in Northern Ireland, the Historical and Institutional Abuse (HIA) inquiry, led by Sir Anthony Hart.But critics of the HIA claim it lacks sufficient powers to get to the heart of the scandal as it may not be able to
compel either evidence or witnesses from MI5.

Victims are applying for a judicial review to establish a similar full inquiry in Northern Ireland to the London-based child abuse inquiry, now chaired by Justice Lowell Goddard from New Zealand.

Lawyers for the victims have lodged papers in Belfast High Court arguing: ‘There is credible evidence (and it is therefore arguable) that the security forces and security services were aware of the abuse, permitted it to continue and colluded in protecting the individuals involved from investigation or prosecution.’

Senior members of the Loyalist community, the British Army and the Royal Ulster Constabulary have also been accused of collusion, blackmail and cover-up.


+2

Claims that children were molested for years because police and the British security services were using the home to gather intelligence is already subject to a separate inquiry led by Sir Anthony Hart, pictured

One alleged victim of the abuse at Kincora, Gary Hoy, was placed there with his younger brother in the 1970s.

He said in a sworn affidavit: ‘If we had had a proper inquiry in the 1980s then I wouldn’t have to relive this again today. MI5 and MI6 cannot be allowed to hide things, and I believe everything needs to be brought out into the open.

‘I find it heart-wrenching that there were security men could have been behind the abuse or involved in it … Because they were in positions of authority or supposed to be protecting the state they get away with it.’

Solicitor Kevin Winters who is representing Mr Hoy and other survivors said: ‘The allegations of our clients and others have been in the public domain for years; the role of state has been alleged for a long time. There is now an opportunity for the truth to be uncovered for our clients to be able to move on with their fractured lives.

‘This opportunity is possibly being lost because of the UK government’s fear of being exposed to impunity and straightforward corruption and criminality against innocents used as pawns in a cynical political exercise.’

He added: ‘This is about state agents in a very dark episode of the conflict in the North of Ireland.’

A former British military official has also backed a full inquiry.
There are longstanding claims that MI5 blocked one or more police investigations into Kincora in the 1970s

Colin Wallace, a former army information officer in Northern Ireland, said: ‘There is now irrefutable evidence that previous inquiries were deliberately engineered or manipulated to mislead parliament by concealing the role of government agencies in covering up the abuses.’

In 1981, three men were imprisoned for between four and six years for a number of offences relating to systematic sexual abuse of children over a period of years.

But the allegations of MI5 involvement have never been fully examined.

It has suggested that William McGrath, Kincora’s housemaster and the leader of an extreme evangelical Protestant group called Tara, was an informant for British intelligence.

McGrath was jailed for sexual offences in 1981 and is now dead.

An Amnesty International spokesman said: ‘There are longstanding claims that MI5 blocked one or more police investigations into Kincora in the 1970s in order to protect its own intelligence-gathering operation, a terrible indictment which raises the spectre of countless vulnerable boys having faced further years of brutal abuse.

‘It’s only Justice Goddard’s inquiry that will be able to ensure that evidence doesn’t remain hidden in Whitehall filing cabinets and that even senior politicians will have to attend the inquiry.’

A Home Office spokesperson said: ‘The government is cooperating fully with all investigations into allegations relating to the Kincora boys’ home. It is not appropriate to comment further while these investigations are under way.’

SCHIZO SINN FEIN KITSCH

Britain's Dirty War in Ireland started in 1970, with the arrival of former Aide-De-Campe to the Queen, Frank Kitson, who formed British death squads, that run amok in all parts of Ireland. That war continues to the present day, with varying degrees of intensity. Kitson wrote the modern day manual for such dirty wars, all over the world, which includes, employing the use of politicians, police, media, courts, prison service and any Government agency, fit for purpose. One of the first facts of life, any child learns in this conflict zone, is that the price of being a 'Tout,'(informer   singular A person whom the government pay to snitch on people) is death. I have explained in previous posts, my own personal experience, with regard of this matter. To look your own Irish people and community in the eye, and betray them to British Occupation forces, is something I personally could not do, and I was prepared to take a bullet, rather than engage in this activity. I call it crossing the rubicon and it is an extremely fine line in reality, which must be explained with absolute clarity, by any Irish Republican, who claims any leadership status. It is not for me to judge Gerry Kelly, one of provisional Sinn Fein's most senior leaders but bearing in mind, its critical role in the history of his party, I do believe he has crossed the rubicon, calling on all Irish people to become informers to British Occupation forces, which certainly includes the PSNI<RUC, despite his qualities of courage. 

Young children in Occupied Ireland, after 45 years of Britain's Dirty War, deserve better leadership than this. The photograph and excellent video above, not for the first time, portray an irresponsible leadership of schizophrenia, as far as I am concerned and does not have credibility, as presented thus far. It is the result of a populist, reformist, party politic, that not alone betrays young teenagers, like the young lad, featured in the article below, but also all of the volunteers, who sacrificed so much, for the Cause of Ireland over the last 45 years and beyond. Irish politicians at the highest levels in all parties, continue to exhibit a considerable lack of compassion and responsibility to both the young and the vulnerable, to a neo-fascist extent, with consistency. Schizo Sinn Fein under the microscope, exhibit all the same, sell out bacteria of Me Fein, that seems to be the consistent factor of bearers of this tag, generation after generation. I would be overjoyed, to be proven wrong, but for people, with a couple of brain cells, who have evolved over 45 years, observing the schizo, neanderthal, butcher of Derry, its a no brainer.

Below is an article from Ciarán MacAirt, that I borrowed from somewhere or other,to explain the Dirty War a little more.

Digging for documents in the Britains' Dirty war National Arin Kew, London, at the start of the year, a “personal and confidential” letter dated 30th December 1971 caught my eye.

It was from Howard Smith, Whitehall’s UK Representative in Northern Ireland, to leading civil servant, Philip Woodfield CBE, head of the Northern Ireland department at the Home Office. It began:


“I think you will you will be interested to see the enclosed copy of a paper written by Frank Kitson”

I was very interested as Brigadier Frank Kitson is a renowned author and counter-insurgency expert who was commander of the British Army in Belfast at that time. The impact of his short tenure here is still debated by historians as I discussed in my book, The McGurk’s Bar Bombing: Collusion, Cover-Up and a Campaign for Truth.

I argued though that he laid the foundations for the British military strategy in the north of Ireland for years thereafter, especially with regards to armed contact with Britain’s enemy and the management of information. On our streets, this meant he oversaw Britain’s deployment of in-depth interrogation techniques, psychological operations, pseudo-gangs and covert Special Force units who murdered civilians with impunity.

The Military Reaction Force (MRF) (1) was one of Kitson’s creations and he actually records the importance of this covert death squad in the paper which is dated the 4th December 1971, the day of the McGurk’s Bar massacre. The paper is entitled Future Developments in Belfast:


“The main interest of the paper”, Howard Smith writes, “is that it shows how the man on the ground is feeling the lack of policy guidance on matters going wider than the redevelopment of Belfast… You will also see that the first paragraph expresses a cautious view about the prospects of success in dealing with the IRA”.

The main body of the paper draws on Kitson’s experience of counter-insurgency and community relations in the likes of Cyprus. Whilst he warns that his analysis is a “gross over simplification”, he can be insightful – if not at times prescient – as the problems he highlighted continue to blight us today: sectarian housing, segregation, the acceptability of policing and the lack of political direction. Nevertheless, it is this first paragraph of Kitson’s paper that I find most resonant. The very first sentence gives his – and by inference, the British Army’s – mission with regards to Internment:


“Operations in Belfast since 9th August have been carried out on the basis of so weakening the IRA that a future political initiative can be launched under favourable circumstances”

What a mess that turned out to be. Kitson recognised the “clumsiness of the Security Force machine” and that any success it had enjoyed in the months after Internment was “largely because both wings of the IRA were also clumsy, and indeed much too big for the purpose for which they were designed to fulfil”. The counter-insurgency theorist was mindful though that a slicker, leaner IRA would prove problematic for a lumbering British Army but he had prepared to develop just like his enemy:


“It is likely that having fined down the enemy organizations to the extent we have done, future successes will be increasingly hard to achieve from an operational point of view, unless we are able to make our own organization very much more efficient.”

Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese military strategist, wrote hundreds of years before the birth of Christ “To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy”. Kitson may have had this in mind when he wrote:


“As you know we are taking steps to do this in terms of building up and developing the MRF and we are also steadily improving the capability of Special Branch… by building up Special Branch’s records with Int Corps Sections.”

Armed contact and information gathering are the foundations of Kitson’s low intensity counter-insurgency theory, and this is evident in this very sentence. So too is the importance of the MRF in his future plans. This is the earliest record of the MRF which I have found and here written by Frank Kitson on the day of my grandmother’s murder.

It may have been a ghost force for generations but the MRF was evidently the spearhead of Kitson’s campaign to eliminate the IRA. Indeed military reaction and military reconnaissance represented the two masked faces of the MRF – contact and information. We now know from this letter and paper too that the top brass of the British Army and the cream of Britain’s political class in the north of Ireland at the time also knew of its development and importance. Therefore, they cannot shirk the responsibility for the crimes the MRF carried out with impunity and in Britain’s name.

Lawyers representing the families of civilians murdered by the MRF, such as Daniel Rooney and Patrick McVeigh, should demand that the PSNI question 88 year old Brigadier Frank Kitson as the police have done elderly suspects of Loyalist and Republican killings carried out at the same time. Frank Kitson is allegedly as much a director of terrorism as any paramilitary leader as he records here the development of a clandestine unit at the cutting edge of British military plans which killed ordinary civilians.

As one former member of the MRF admitted to journalist John Ware in a recent Panorama programme:


“We were not there to act like an army unit. We were there to act like a terror group.” (2)

If the Police Service of Northern Ireland is truly impartial, Frank Kitson would be arrested and interrogated about these taped allegations. The PSNI may even take this paper as proof that he was instrumental in the initial development and direction of this death squad.

Unfortunately, though, we know that the PSNI does not deal with our past impartially. The police refusal to investigate filmed allegations of MRF criminality proved that.

Then again, none of these old soldiers – Frank Kitson included – have ever needed to go on the run or worry about amnesty, so why should police inaction surprise any of us.

Further Information:

Read the archive Future Developments in Belfast by Commander 39 Airportable Brigade (PDF 3MB)

Read more about the book The McGurk’s Bar Bombing

Download for free: From Belfast to Palestine: Post-War Counterinsurgency… A Very British Family Affair

Footnotes: (1) The MRF is also recorded as Military Reconnaissance Force but both may be correct as reconnaissance and reaction are two sides of the Kitson coin: information and contact; one section for each.

(2) Reported in the online Irish Times, 21 Nov 2013 (subscription link)






Ciarán MacAirt is an Irish writer and author of The McGurk’s Bar Bombing: Collusion, Cover-Up and a Campaign for Truth.
He also manages Paper Trail, an innovative social enterprise which offers legacy archive research services and helps families unearth the truth hidden in public records.

Boy agent reveals frame-up plot

A vulnerable teenager in west Belfast was recruited by the PSNI as an informer and then put under pressure to plant explosives and weapons on his neighbours, it has emerged.


The terrified nineteen-year-old Thomas Boyle, who has a history of self-harm, came forward to the media with a shocking account of PSNI abuse and illegality.

He said he was recruited last year after being arrested for shoplifting. He was then forced to plant tracking devices under the cars of prominent ‘dissident’ republicans at the behest of PSNI Special Branch and was even asked to plant a gun in a neighbour’s car and Semtex explosive in another neighbour’s shed.

Boyle confessed to his activities alter becoming afraid that he was “in over his head”.

Security sources are reported to have confirmed that Boyle had been working for the PSNI since last year.

The west Belfast teenager said he was prompted to confess after becoming afraid he was being coerced into carrying out ever more dangerous activities by his police handlers.

“They told me they wanted me to break into a car of a man who lived near me and plant a gun under the driver seat,” he said

“They said smash the side window and make it look like I was trying to steal [the car] and then leave the gun so they would find it when investigating the break-in.

“I met one man a few times at the top of the Whiterock [Road]. He gave me money and mobile phone SIM cards.

“He told me they were going to give me Semtex and wanted me to put it the garden shed of a man.

“If I didn’t they said I was going to be done with making hoax bomb calls and would get seven years [in prison]. They said they could pin other charges on me any time they wanted.

“It just all got too much and I told my ma about what had been happening.”

He was also ordered to try and join the dissident group Oglaigh na hEireann so he could report back on their activities. In return, the PSNI promised him thousands of pounds -- although he was only ever paid fifty pounds.

Oglaigh na hEireann said it had interrogated Boyle and released him over the weekend. PSNI and British army helicopters had been visible over west and north Belfast as they undertook a massive search for their teenage informant.

In a statement the group said the teenager had contacted them willingly.

“He is alive to tell his tale for a number of specific reasons, including the fact that he is quite plainly vulnerable and has fully admitted his covert activities,” it said.

The breakaway IRA group warned other informers to come forward.

“If we discover other agents in the future then the penalty will be death,” its statement read.

Sinn Fein Policing Board member Alex Maskey said that any use of informers against republicans should be ‘open to thorough scrutiny’.

“Using informers would be standard practice for police services the world over,” he said.

“However, we obviously have a polluted history of politicised activity which has often seen the use of agents provocateurs.

“I have no knowledge of this particular case but there has to be proper protocol and any allegations such as this need to be scrutinised,”he said.

Suicide prevention campaigner Phil McTaggart said the use of vulnerable young people as informants by the PSNI was a “disgrace”.

“When you have a young person who is already vulnerable and at a low ebb and put them under this type of enormous pressure then you leave them with very limited options.”

He advised any young person who is in a similar predicament as Boyle to seek help.

Carl Reilly of the Republican Network for Unity warned that people may have been charged by the PSNI on the back of evidence planted by an informer.

“Once again the re-branded RUC has destroyed its carefully contrived facade of normal civil policing by manipulating a young person to become an Informer and spearhead a British dirty tricks campaign in an attempt to whip up anti-republican hysteria in Belfast,” he said.

Throughout the recent conflict, the RUC and MI5 had blackmailed “scores” of agents to undermine working-class communities and the republican struggle, he said,

“This disturbing affair highlights the nefarious tactics used by Crown Forces to set up Irish Republicans for arrest, imprisonment or worse.”

He called for an independent investigation.

“Given the above revelations, the Republican Network for Unity ask nationalists and republicans to re-examine their support for the re-branded RUC, as it is clear they are not capable of the changes many believed were possible.”

THE THATCHER & PROVO EXCREMENT FILES

In the beautiful picture above, are images of Margaret Thatcher, Denis Donaldson, Gerry Kelly, Freddie Sacappattici, Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams, the reason is covered in excrement is explained below. This is what was the bulk of what was left, in the leadership of Brit Sinn Fein, after Ruairi O'Bradaigh, along with ethical  republicans left, to form Republican Sinn Fein. Now as every Irish person knows, you will not find a more truthful race of people, on the face of this earth, other than the Irish. Of course when dealing with perfidious Albion, and particularly it's politicians, the Irish do employ an occassional bit of blarney, because the reason God did not allow the sun to set on their British Empire, was because, he simply couldn't trust them in the dark. Now before I go any further, I wish to male it clear, that the author is not aligned to any political organization, in the interest of journalistic objectivity.

After Thatcher made these comments, she was taken aside by an aide and told that 70% of English people, had Irish ancestry from centuries of Irish emigration. However many experts believe, that Thatcher's prejudice towards the Irish, was coloured by her dealings with the leadership of Brit Sinn Fein. Of course the Brighton bomb, didn't help matters either, as she was just relieving herself on the toilet seat, when it exploded beside her and covered her in excrement, from head to toe. This has been a closely guarded secret for many years, but recent revelations. along with what she was doing with Jimmy Saville over their Christmas holidays together, have revealed a treasure trove of information, which we may return to at a later date. She did not trust her own intelligence services, to deal with the Adam's groupies, after the assassination of her close friend Airey Neave, she had her own handpicked, services, to deal with the Irish troubles. Below are two articles that explain matters further. One an older one from The New Statesman, the other from todays Guardian Newspaper, based on newly declassified government documents. If you like the articles I would appreciate you sharing, particularly in Irish Facebook groups, as they have temporarily managed, to have these articles censored there.  

Why did Margaret Thatcher have a jaundiced view of the Irish? Brit Sinn Fein?

Did Margaret Thatcher have a problem with the Irish? It seems a fair question after Peter Mandelson’s odd revelation the other day about meeting her after he had just been appointed Northern Ireland Secretary in 1999:

She came up to me and she said ‘I've got one thing to say to you, my boy’. She said, ‘you can't trust the Irish they're all liars’, she said, ‘liars, and that's what you have to remember so just don't forget it.’

With that she waltzed off and that was my only personal exposure to her he added.

This vignette is of a piece with what we know to be her attitude to Northern Ireland and Irish affairs more broadly; mistrustful, simplistic and, well, a wee bit bigoted.

In 2001 it came to light that Thatcher had suggested to a senior diplomat who was negotiating with the Irish government over the landmark Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1985 that Catholics living in Northern Ireland could be moved to live in southern Ireland instead. She made the suggestion to Sir David Goodall during a late night conversation at Chequers. He explained:

She said, if the northern [Catholic] population want to be in the south, well why don't they move over there? After all, there was a big movement of population in Ireland, wasn't there?

Nobody could think what it was. So finally I said, are you talking about Cromwell, prime minister? She said, that's right, Cromwell.

Cromwell’s policy of ‘To Hell or to Connaught’, forced Catholics to the less fertile lands on Ireland’s western-most province, forfeiting the land in the north and central parts of the country at the point of a sword in what we would now recognise as ethnic cleansing. Cromwell was also, in modern parlance, a war criminal too; butchering thousands of men, women and children as his forces cut a bloody swathe across the country.

To this quite glaring historical faux pas can be added the substance of what Thatcher did in office in relation to Northern Ireland. The "dirty war" which raged throughout the 1980s culminated in the notorious murder of solicitor Pat Finucane in 1989, killed by loyalists in his own home in front of his wife and children with the connivance of elements of the security services.

The Pat Finucane Centre for Human Rights and Social Change this weekrepublished a handwritten note  from Thatcher in 1979, found in the National Archive, which shows her mixing up the terrorist Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) with the Ulster Defence Regiment (then the largest infantry regiment in the British Army) – inadvertently praising the former’s "valiant work."

Meanwhile, her intransigence during the 1981 hunger strikes, when ten republican prisoners starved to death in a dispute over their political status, may have shown what her admirers regard as her iron resolve in refusing to accede to their demands, but she effectively granted them all a short time afterwards.

In the current edition of Prospect magazine, the Independent’sesteemed Ireland correspondent David McKitterick offers a more generous assessment, arguing that Thatcher paved the way for the peace process by signing the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which gave the southern government a consultative role in the affairs of the north for the first time, to the chagrin of unionists. However, given Thatcher’s own strident unionism, this is something of a back-handed compliment, as she herself later regretted signing it.

So what shaped Thatcher’s jaundiced view of Irish affairs? Was it merely the loss of her close colleagues Airey Neave and Ian Gow in republican bombings and her own near miss at the hands of the IRA in Brighton in 1984? Or is it simply that a Grantham girl remembered Cromwell fondly, (perhaps because his first successful battle of the English Civil War was to capture the town from Crown forces?)

Or was she merely echoing Churchill’s equally exasperated view of the Irish: "They refuse to be English."

Margaret Thatcher’s intransigence in Irish talks revealed in archive files

PM argued that giving Dublin an official role in the running of Northern Ireland would plunge it into civil war

• Share95
• inShare0
• Email

• Press Association
• The Guardian, Saturday 27 December 2014

Garret FitzGerald and Margaret Thatcher in 1985. Photograph: Peter Kemp/AP

Redrawing Northern Ireland’s border would be a fatal mistake, former Irish premier Garret FitzGerald privately warned the then British prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, newly declassified government files reveal.

During robust exchanges at a critical summit in the runup to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, Thatcher argued that giving Dublin an official role in the running of the region would plunge it into civil war.

Venting her fears that the north of Ireland was heading towards a Marxist state, Thatcher told her Irish counterpart in the November 1984 talks that resolving the crisis could mean “simply” moving the border. “She wondered if a possible answer to the problem might not simply be a redrawing of boundaries,” records an official note of the top-level meeting, which has only just been declassified under the 30-year-rule.

But Taoiseach FitzGerald rejected the apparent offer.

“What we have achieved at present is a lowering of expectations,” he said. The pair later discussed a federal, Belgium-style model. FitzGerald said the Irish government had worked on dampening hopes among some for an end to Northern Ireland as it was constituted.

Most people had accepted “unity was not on” in the short term.

The secret files, just released in Dublin’s National Archives, include an official note of the two-hour Chequers summit, which reveals Thatcher’s “incomprehension” as to what exactly Irish nationalists wanted.

FitzGerald, leader of the Fine Gael party, explained that the minority felt Irish and part of the majority of the island of Ireland “from which they had been cut off by an arbitrary act”.

The British had drawn a line around the six counties, creating a Protestant majority, cutting off the minority from the nation, and people were “set against each other within a narrow space”, he said.

FitzGerald added there was hard evidence of bias in the justice, security and policing systems in Northern Ireland while the guns of the British Army’s Ulster Defence Regiment were being used to “bully” Catholics.

He warned Thatcher that she needed to deal with the alienation of northern nationalists.

FitzGerald pressed Thatcher for a new system of governing Northern Ireland, based on agreed policies between Britain’s secretary of state and an Irish government minister. Where they could not agree, decisions would be appealed to the prime minister and the taoiseach, he said.

But Thatcher “reacted strongly” to the plan, according to the Dublin government files. “No, no – that is joint authority. You are giving them 40% of our country.”

Thatcher said Catholics in Northern Ireland, who made up 40% of the population, argued that they owed no allegiance to London, “but they took the government’s money”.

They thought they were different to any other minority and were “drawing on resources which the republic did not provide,” she told FitzGerald. “The nationalists feel that all they have to do is to wait.”

She accepted there were problems with Catholics getting jobs and admitted some areas – pointing to Lisburn as an example – “would not accept Catholics”.

During their exchanges, described by those at the meeting as rapid and vigorous, Thatcher fretted about the wider consequences of addressing Catholic alienation in relation to ethnic minorities in Britain.

She said: “If these things were done, the next question would be what comes next? Were the Sikhs in Southall to be allowed to fly their own flag?”

Southall is a west London suburb with a large Asian community which was the scene of a notorious race riot just three years earlier.

FitzGerald said there had been agreement on an Irish government role in running the region, adding that he could not ask the nation to give up its territorial claim over Northern Ireland without such a deal.

But Thatcher insisted: “It smacks too much of joint authority. That was definitely out.”

She added: “The unionists would say you are giving up your constitutional claims but you are coming across the border and don’t really need the claim. That would put us well on the way to civil war.”

Her Northern Ireland secretary, Douglas Hurd, could “no longer manage”, and she would not “fetter his judgment in that way”, she said, urging the taoiseach to “please understand that”.

During one sharp exchange, as she argued that Westminster was answerable for Northern Ireland, FitzGerald retorted that “for 50 years they had not regarded themselves as being answerable.

“They had never permitted a question on Northern Ireland to be discussed in the house,” he said. “That was partly the reason for the present trouble.”

On a suggestion from the taoiseach of a Belgium-style solution – a federal arrangement under a monarchy – Thatcher said she “had not ruled it out, even though it would be attacked by unionists as an effective repartition”.

She added: “History shows that the Irish, whether the Scottish-Irish or the Irish-Irish, don’t like to move. However, they all seem to be terribly happy to move to Britain.”

Thatcher complained there was too much public-sector employment in the north of Ireland, there was no wealth creation and that it was costing London £2bn a year in subventions at the time.

During the two-hour meeting at her country house retreat, Chequers, Thatcher said there were worries about a threat of more violence as a result of the Anglo-Irish talks.

“There was a real danger that a Marxist society could develop,” she added.

Later that day, in a press conference, Thatcher gave her infamous “out, out, out” declaration, when she rejected three options put forward from the Irish for a solution to Northern Ireland – Irish unity, a two-state federation or joint authority.

It was later reported that FitzGerald thought her behaviour was gratuitously offensive.

BORN AGAIN WHORES OF REVOLUTION

When Gerry Kelly and Martin McGuinness, encourage their foolowers to inform British Occupation forces in Ireland to become Informers or Touts on Irish revolutionary elements in Ireland, they have crossed the rubicon as far as I am concerned and there can be no turning back. That is not to say that everything they have done in their lives is wrong, I am in no position to be the judge of that but they have surrendered any leadership role in Ireland's future, it is time for them to go quietly into the night, as gracefully as they can. I did my own surrender personally, almost 30 years ago, with regard to alcohol and the many things in life, I simply could not manage on my own, on a daily basis. It took a while for me to try to get a handle, on any sort of alternative solution that worked, as I first had to learn what the phrase, "Above all else to thine own self be true." means, in the absence of any religion or ideology and learn to trust something. Trust is critically important, because without it, there is fear in one form or another with all it's other illusionary substitutes, like drug addiction, control addictions, rigid ideologies or craving for the extremes of money and power. I am writing this from own experience, so it is not simply an opinion. I am trying to learn from it, to correct the numerous mistakes I have personally made and continue to make.


Henry David Thoreau once wrote that, “Most men lead lives of quiet desperation and go to the grave with the song still in them.” From what I have observed this seems to be true and in our comtemporary world there are plenty of distractions from being true to ourselves or worse, simply losing our Spirit in cynical and reactionary cycles. Each day I awake, this would be my instinctual, habit formed mental programming before I switch through my new habit, of starting my day by chatting and listening to the Stardust in the heavens and in my own gut, to make a connection with Life, to enable me, to step out of the extremes of Self, to embrace Life with trust. I am far too extreme in many areas for it to ever disapppear, either totally or permanently, so all I can do is my own personal surrender daily to the Startdust and I simply ask is for the extremes to be relieved. An approximate explanation of Stardust for me is the remnants of the Big Bang theory, which in my case is beyond cerebral comprehension, which in my case is probably a good idea.

I have an aversion for formal religion, because it hands too much our hard earned empowerment, to other human control, which from personal experience, is another form of betrayal in the concept of being true to myself, thats not to say I find widom in all the beliefs that I have investigated. Now when this route of personal surrender, was first suggested to me, I frankly thought it a load of bollix, but fortunately for me it was suggested, that I simply try and see if it works, before I totally condemned it. So the following, is approximately my own daily mantra of surrender. "Stardust, I offer myself to you, to do with me as you will, please relieve me of the prison of myself, my extreme self-centredness, my extreme selfishness, my extreme self will, and my extreme self-centred fear. Please give me the emotional power that I need today, the material power that I need today, the physical power that I need today, the mental power that I need today, the social power that I need today, the spiritual power that I need today and the sexual power that I need today, to do your will, your unconditional Love and your way of Life, Thanks. " Now a lot of you may think. I am completely off my head and there is a lot of evidence out there to confirm you suspicions, but frankly my dear, I couldn't give a fuck what you think. All I know, is that it has worked very well for me, for 27 years now and for that I am very grateful, especially when I remember the state I was in, to begin with. From experience I now have proof that my trust is grounded in the reality test of daily life experience.

Anyway, enough about my own narcissistic self, it's boring but a necessry daily reality check, that I cannot afford to ignore. Ireland is my Spiritual home for better or for worse. As they say, the savage loves his native shore, so do birds and fish apparently and in my case sometimes I hate it because it mirrors my own dysfunctionality, particularly related to my past. Currently I believe the island is at a crossroads, with some very importand choices to make. It is in a state of chassis, indeed the whole world appears to be in astae of chassis right now, as Sean O'Casey wrote in Juno and the Paycock, "Th' whole worl's in a terrible state o' chassis." I believe Capitalism is on it's last legs and for those who learn from the lessons of experience, so are the ideologies of Corporate Fascism and Stalinism. 

According to rough guesstimates, the human casualty figures of various ideologies are as follows, in Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) 12,000,000 (concentration camps and civilians deliberately killed in WWII plus 3 million Russian POWs left to die), Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908) 8,000,000

Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39) 7,000,000 (the gulags plus the purges plus Ukraine's famine), Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44) 5,000,000 (civilians in WWII),Ismail Enver (Ottoman Turkey, 1915-20) 1,200,000 Armenians (1915) + 350,000. What is obviously missing from this list, are the many millions of Irish liquidated by the British in Ireland, and the mounting huge numbers worldwide by the UK/US axis. This blog is already slowed by intranets for distribution and would probably be totally censored in the Western world, if I give all of the correct numbers, which can be easly researched. So the conclusion is obvious, ideologies are particularly dangerous, especially in the hands of power craven dictators and manipulators, who will exploit them. This is also, I believe the principal lesson from the current long war in Ireland and its equvalent in both Fascist and Stalinist Europe.

The principal tools of dictators and manipulators within ideologies, under the guise of the, "Dictatorship of the Proletariat " is secrecy and censorship. In Catholic conservative southern Ireland and it's equivalent in Presbytarian northern Ireland, this has a particularly ignomious history. The island culture is steeped in secrecy, censorship and fascism with a current emerging Stalinist cabal of Secret Societies in the wake of the Provos. To understand the threat of Stalinism in Ireland and the censorship that accompanies it, I believe the following letter to the revolutionary Leon Trotsky in Mexico, before a Stalinists hitman murdered him, with an ice pick in his head, describes it best;

To Leon Trotsky 11 December 1938 New York City Leon Trotsky Coyoacan Mexico DF My Dear Leon Trotsky: We were both very pleased to receive your note. Hortense, jokingly, says that it must all be a Stalinist plot. While she is not disinterested in politics, she is, in no sense, a political person. However, she is no bitter foe. And in her own profession, the theatre, she must pay a price for her attitudes and the stand that she has taken. Stalinist influence is permeating the American theatre, and Hortense is automatically excluded from even being considered for roles in plays by certain managements because of this fact. Concerning ‘the mysteries of my style', you may be amused to know that one Communist Party functionary described it, once in The Daily Worker, as ‘Trotskyite.’ And one of the most current criticisms of my writing in Stalinist sources is that ‘the rationale of Trotskyism’ has given a basis for his ‘despair,’ and through that means he is degenerating. This summer I was in Ireland, and I saw Jim Larkin. All men have weaknesses, but all men are not the victims of their weaknesses. Jim Larkin is a victim of his own weaknesses, and his own temperament. Now, he is embittered and envenomed. He feels that the Irish working class has sold him out. He was not returned in the last elections for the Dáil, and he ran in a working class district. He defended the trials, but thought that Bukharin could not be interested. But Larkin's formal attitudes do not have much meaning. He is untheoretical and unstable intellectually. He is always a direct actionist, and his direct actionism takes whatever turn that his impulses lead him toward, In the midst, for instance, of a severe fight, he might be walking down the street and see a sparrow trapped in some electric wires where it might die. He will become incensed, and will telephone important members of the government and demand that they have men sent down to release the sparrow immediately, and then this will loom more important than the fight in which he is engaged. He is very garrulous, human and humane, witty, vindictive, vituperative, and he is Irish. At times, he is almost like an embittered version of the stage Irishman. In Ireland, there has never been much theory, and in consequence, never been many men with a rounded view of the reasons why Ireland was struggling. Before the war, the Irish labor movement was very militant and well toward the forefront of the European labor movement. It was defeated in the great Dublin transport strike of 1913, and out of this crushing defeat, the Irish Citizen Army was formed. Larkin left for America, and Larkin says that one of the last things that he said to Connolly was not to go into the National movement, not to join the Irish Volunteers, which was the armed force of the nationalist movement. Connolly did go into the Easter Rebellion, and there is the disputed question as to whether or not he made a mistake. Sean O'Casey, the Irish playwright, in a pamphlet he wrote on the Irish Citizen Army, declares baldly that James Connolly died not for Irish socialism but for Irish nationalism. Others maintain that Connolly could not have remained out of the rising. At all events, the Irish Citizen Army was decimated, and crushed by the Easter Rebellion. There were no leaders left to carry on the social side of Connolly's doctrines. The entire movement was swept along in a frenzied rise of Irish patriotism and Irish nationalism. Sinn Féin was in complete control of the movement. The leaders of Sinn Féin had only the most vague notions of what they wanted – an Irish Ireland speaking Gaelic, developing its own Irish culture, free of the British crown, and some were not even fighting them for freedom from the crown. In 1921, when the treaty was negotiated in England, there was this same unclarity. Following the treaty, there was the split in the Irish ranks. The record of that split is most saddening to read. It was not a split on real issues. There were two or three documents with different wordings, and they all meant much the same thing. Instead of discussing social programs, they discussed Ireland, and they insulted one another. Out of this split the bitter civil war developed, and the comrades in arms of yesterday assassinated one another. The treatment which the Free State government meted out to its former comrades matches almost that which Stalin has meted out. The bravest fighters of the Irish Republican Army were taken out and placed up against a wall and butchered without any formality. And now, after all the trouble, the Irish people have changed masters, and a new Irish bourgeoisie is developing and coagulating, and the politicians of Sinn Féin are aligned with them and the Church, with reaction rampant, poverty to match even that of Mexico, progressive ideas almost completely shut out, a wall of silence keeping out the best Irish tradition – that of Fintan Lalor, Davitt, and Connolly, and poor Ireland is in a hell of a state. Larkin returned in the early twenties. After defeat, the Irish labor movement needed someone to lead it who could remould a defeated class. Larkin was a great and courageous agitator, but not a leader of a defeated army, and he could not work with any one. Gradually, he lost influence, and now he is old and embittered. Of course, Catholicism plays a strong role in Ireland, and Larkin is a Catholic and talks of the virtues of the Christian home. And suddenly out of his garrulous talk, a flash of his old fire comes through. Perhaps you are riding through the Dublin slums with him, and suddenly, seeing the poor in their filth, standing in front of the filthy buildings in which they are forced to live like animals, and a strong denunciation comes, and there is something of the Jim Larkin who defied the British Army, and at whose words the poor of Dublin came out into the streets in thou-sands, and flung themselves against the might of Britain and that of the Irish bourgeoisie. Human beings are social products, and Larkin is a product of the Irish movement. The principal instrument of the Irish revolutionaries was always terrorism and direct action, and when Larkin was unable to function with these methods on the wave of a rising and militant movement, he was lost, and the labor bureaucrats outmaneuvered and outsmarted him. When he returned to Ireland from an American jail, he got his following together, and marched on the quarters of the union he had formerly led. He took the building, but later lost it in the law courts, and he is no longer the leader of the transport workers. He has union following, and among his strongest support is that of the butchers and hospital workers. He showed me something in Ireland that few people in Dublin know about. In the Parnell days, a terrorist organization, composed almost exclusively of Dublin workingmen was formed and named the Invincibles. The Invincibles committed the famous Phoenix Park murders in front of the vice-regal lodge, and were denounced by the Church, by Parnell, and by almost the entire Irish nation. There are no monuments in Ireland to the Invincibles. They died in isolation, some of them defiant to the end in their utter isolation. At the spot across from the vice-regal lodge in Phoenix Park, where the murders were committed, there is a patch of earth alongside of the park walk. No matter how often grass is planted over this spot the grass is torn up by the roots, and this spot of earth is left, and always, there is a cross marked into the dirt in commemoration of the Invincibles. Every week, someone – principally, I believe, one of Larkin's boys – goes there and marks that cross. This has been going on for a long time. In Larkin, there is something of that characteristic of defiant defeat that runs through so much of Irish history, and with it, never any real investigation of causes. But even up to today, he remains the only figure of commanding proportions in the Irish labor movement. The rest is pretty nearly all bureaucracy, tied to the tail of nationalism, enfolded in the cassock robes of the priestcraft, seeing the problems of Irish labor as an Irish question. Ireland is having something of an industrial boom. Certain sections of the Irish working class, the most advanced trade unions – which have been in existence some time – these are better paid than corresponding trade unions in England. But the country is partitioned between an industrial north and an agricultural south. In the south, de Valera is engaged in a program of industrialization. The Irish market is small, and that means that monopolies must be parcelled out to various groups or persons. When these monopolies get going, there will be resultant crises, because they will be able to supply the Irish market with a few months work and production. Also, the new factories are being spread over the country – a program of decentralization – and in many instances, factories are being set up in agricultural areas where there is no trade union strength. It is necessary to further industrialization in Ireland to have, as a consequence, sweat shop conditions. There is a small labor aristocracy and even this lives badly. And below it, poverty that reduces thousands upon thousands to live like animals in the most dire, miserable, and inhuman poverty. I saw some of this poverty. One family of eleven living in one room. The family has lived in this same room for twenty-four years. The building is crumbling, walls falling, ceiling caving in, roof decaying. The oldest in the family is nineteen, the youngest is an undernourished infant of eight months. Six sleep in one bed, three in another, two on the floor. The infant was born last Christmas eve in the bed where six sleep. The role of the Church is important. The Church tells the Irish that they are going to live for ever and be happier in heaven, and this engenders patience. There is a mystic fascination with death in Ireland. In all the homes of the poor, the walls are lined with holy pictures, those of the Sacred Heart predominating. The poor live in utter patience. They have lived in this patience ever since the heyday of Jim Larkin. In those days, at his word, they thronged the streets and threatened the power of England, and of the Irish and Anglo-Irish bourgeoisie. But no more. How-ever, with the industrialization program, there is likely to be some enlargement of the Irish working class, and the economic factors of proletarianization, plus the resulting effects of factory work and familiarity with machines is likely to cause some changes in the conscious-ness of Irishmen. Familiarity with machines is likely to rub off some of the superstition, and the economic conditions will pose their problems to the Irish workers. There is possibly going to be a change in Ireland because of these factors, and some of the eternal sleep and mud-crusted ignorance is likely to go. But being an agricultural country, a poor country, a country ridden by superstition, it now sleeps, and there is a lot of talk about Ireland, and little is done about Ireland, and a characteristic attitude is sure and what is the bother. Ireland is no longer merely a victim of England, but of world economy now. Irish nationalism correspondingly has altered from being a progressive movement to a reactionary movement. Fascism could easily triumph in Ireland were fascism vitally necessary to the new rulers of Holy Ireland. The Irish Republican Army is split into factions, some demanding emphasis on a social program, others on a national program. Stalinists are in the former group, but Stalinism is very weak in Ireland, practically inconsequential. It amounts to a few pensionaries. Ireland does not need Stalinism. It has Rome. Rome handles these problems with the necessary efficiency. Rome confuses the struggles, poses the false questions, sidetracks protests as Stalinism now does in advanced countries. As a kind of compensation, Ireland a defeated nation has developed a fine modern literature, just as Germany, defeated and still un-unified at an earlier period, developed German philosophy. But the moral terrorism in the name of the Church and the Nation, and the parochial character of the life and of intellect in Ireland might choke the literature now. So backward is Ireland that even the American motion pictures have a progressive influence in the sense that they make the youth restless, that they produce freer and less strained relationships between the sexes, and that they give a sense of a social life of more advanced countries that is not permitted because of the state of economy in Ireland. Ireland impresses me as being somewhat parallel to Mexico, except that in Mexico there are progressive strains in the country, and in Ireland these are weak and morally terrorized. In part, this is undoubtedly because of Ireland's lack of mineral resources and wealth, the backwardness and sleep of its labor movement, and the role of the Church. In Ireland, the Church was not the feudal landholder. Behind the scenes, the Church always fought against the Irish people, and spoke for law and order. But at one time, the Church itself was oppressed. The Church and the people became entangled in the consciousness of the Irish, and the religion question befogged the social and economic one. In Mexico, Spain, France, and Russia, the Church was more openly a part of a feudal or pseudo-feudal system. The peasants became anti-clerical because they wanted land. This did not happen in Ireland. In consequence, anti-clericalism did not take the same form. Anti-clericalism amounts to jokes at the priesthood, dislike of the arch-bishops, and so forth. In earlier days, it was stronger, particularly among the Fenians. But it never took the real form it took in France, Spain, etc. And so the Church has great power in Ireland today. In the most real, vivid, and immediate sense it gives opium to the people. Poor Ireland! She is one of the costs demanded by history in the growth of what we familiarly call our civilization. There is an old poem with the lines – They went forth to battle And they always fell. And today, after having fallen so many times, Ireland is a poor island on the outpost of European civilization, with all its heroic struggles leaving it, after partial victory, poverty-stricken, backward, wallowing in superstition and ignorance. My favorite Irish anecdote is the following. The last castle in Ireland to fall to Cromwell's army was Castleross on the lakes of Killarney. At that time, the castle was held by the O'Donoghue. For several months, the British could not take the castle. The Irish infantry was more lightly clad than the British, and would always lead the better armored and more heavily clad British down into the bogs where their armed superiority became a handicap, and then the Irish would cut them to pieces. There was an old Gaelic prophecy that Castleross would never fall to a foreign foe until it was attacked by water. There was a proviso in this prophecy. For the lakes of Killarney empty into Dingle Bay, where the water is so shallow that foreign men of war from the sea cannot enter it. The British general heard of this prophecy. He went to Dingle Bay and built flat-bottomed boats and floated them up the lakes of Killarney. He fired one cannon shot at Castleross. And the O'Donoghue, thinking that the prophecy had been fulfilled, surrendered without firing a shot in return. I took the liberty of writing in such detail about Ireland because I thought you might be interested in modern Ireland. They call it the ‘new Ireland’ these days. Hortense joins me in sending our warmest greetings to you and Natalia. Yours, Farrell This summer I saw Alfred and Marguerite Rosmer a number of times, and they were very well. Madame Rosmer talked very often of you and Mrs Trotsky. Currently in Ireland the "Dialectic of Materialism" is being stifled by the censorship of former 'Provos' and 'Stickies' who are Stalinist. On the the other side it is being censored by the Blueshirt and Orange Order Fascists in their Corporate mainstream media. Without a transparent, informative open dialogue of these apparently opposing views, Ireland is again doomed to make incorrect choices, at it's current critical crossroads. The Banksters and Corporations will always find a 'useful idiot' demagogue to distract and expoit them, such as Hitler. They abound in every revolutionary organizations and thrive in secrecy and are exploited by the British, in an environment of humility by genuine comrades, who make the big sacrifices often with their lives. This is why CENSORSHIP is such a deadly enemy of progress and critically important in keeping Ireland ignorant, where simply reactionary politics can thrive. People of change, need to be aware of it's destructive power and fight it. We are as sick as our secrets within organizations or without, this is a critcally important lesson from our Irish experience. It is not the way to go forward, it's baggage far outweighs it's short term benefits. Recent revelations about this culture within the Provos, make that clear, for anyone open to learning the lessons of our history. On the other extreme, there is nothing so pure, as a born again whore, particulary of the fascist variety. Hitler was vegetarian you know? I do hope the 'Sunlight of the Spirit' saves Ireland from such a horrific calamity.