Showing posts with label Anglo Irish. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anglo Irish. Show all posts

Thursday, 4 December 2014

THE ANGLO IRISH JUDAS KISS



Songs sung by songwriter Dominic Behan, brother of author Brendan Behan.


The Tory Bluenose is the work of generations of the British class system. The civil rights movement in Ireland didn't become mediagenic until the 1960s. Women only gained a modest degree of physical autonomy in the 70s. Neither of those were slumbering before that. The two paranoid, bluenose, bigoted Anglo Irish security states, are embellished with a further layer of mentored Orange Order sectarianism, coupled with Fascist Blueshirts in the south, being still the norm of governance in John Bull's other island. All Blueshirt Bluenose male dominated pyramid hierarchies tend in that direction.


A traditional Tory Bluenose started each day by eating a poor person for breakfast, served to him by a stable of butlers and attendants. Before his round of morning polo (in which the head of a homeless man was used for a ball), an the Irish Tory Bluenose (including our Orange Order brethren) spends half an hour, in the Blueshirt, Blue Nose family room, where he and his father, reaffirm their ancestral connection to blue-blooded British types, who either owned slaves or coveted them.


If you are worried that Blueshirts might try and bring back slavery in Ireland, we will do absolutely nothing to allay your fears. A Blueshirt from Irish Water, recently paid an exorbitant sum, for a colon operation, that made his gas smell like daisies. When asked a difficult question by an Irish Water shareholder, as a diversion, he will break wind and ask, "My gosh. Do you smell daisies?" Its a typical case of the stiff upper nose, as opposed to the the former British stiff upper lip.


The Devil's Dictionary Pronouces - NOSE, n. The extreme outpost of the face. Getius, whose writings antedate the age of humor, calls the Fine Gael blueshirt nose, the British organ of quell in Ireland. It has been observed that Fine Gael Blueshirt noses, are never so happy, as when thrust into the affairs of public amenities, like health care or public water, from which some physiologists, have drawn the inference, that the Blueshirt nose is devoid of any natural human sense of smell, other than the smell of blood, cultivated over many generations, since they were first blooded with cruel intent, and smeared with the fox blood of Anglo Irish hunts, as young children, at the their first traditional Blueshirt, Bluenose, Irish foxhunt.

There's a Blueshirt with a Nose,
And wherever he goes
The people run from him and shout:
"No cotton have we
For our ears if so be
As Enda blows his interminous snout!"

So the lawyers applied
For injunction. "Denied,"
Said the Judge: "the defendant prefixion,
Whate'er it portend,
Appears to transcend
The bounds of this court's jurisdiction."


Below is and article from the Irish Times, concerning a previous Irish Blueshirt Prime Minster, of the same Blueshirt Party as present Prime Minister, Enda Kenny.





Former taoiseach John Bruton criticised for comments about Easter Rising

Ex-Fine Gael leader failed to take account of the context of Rising, commemoration told

Former taoiseach John Bruton: the Kilmichael Ambush Commemoration was told at the weekend that his comments about the Easter Rising and the War of Independence marked the most extreme articulation of a particular view of Irish history. Photograph: Aidan Crawley



Former taoiseach John Bruton: the Kilmichael Ambush Commemoration was told at the weekend that his comments about the Easter Rising and the War of Independence marked the most extreme articulation of a particular view of Irish history. Photograph: Aidan Crawley


Barry Roche



First published:Mon, Dec 1, 2014, 01:00

Former Taoiseach, John Bruton has been accused of failing to recognise the context in which the 1916 Easter Rising took place when he said the rebellion was not justified and Ireland could have achieved freedom through the Home Rule Bill.


Historian and pamphleteer Jack Lane told the annual Kilmichael Ambush Commemoration in west Cork at the weekend that Mr Bruton’s comments about the Easter Rising and the War of Independence marked the most extreme articulation of a particular view of Irish history.


“It is mind-boggling to hear an ex-taoiseach condemn the founding fathers of this state of which he was a leader. Can you imagine a US president denouncing George Washington for their War of Independence or a French president denouncing the French Revolution?


“It is unimaginable and there was a lot more war and bloodshed in establishing these and other states than was the case here where overwhelming popular support for independence minimised the bloodshed,” he told the crowd of about 800 people who gathered at the ambush site.


The annual commemoration marks the victory by Tom Barry and members of the Flying Column of the West Cork Brigade of the IRA over a contingent of Auxilaries from Macroom in the War of Independence


Mr Lane of the Aubane Historical Society said that when Mr Bruton feels the need to claim that Easter 1916 and the War of Independence were misguided and seeks to promote that view, then it is necessary to examine very closely the merits of his arguments.


Mr Bruton had argued that Volunteers of 1916 should have trusted in the Home Rule Bill as it was on the statute and would have evolved into a republic and that there was therefore no need for war and bloodshed, he said.


However this view ignored the fact that the Home Rule Bill was immediately suspended and that volunteers of 1916 had for a period trusted in the Home Rule Bill as evidenced by Padraig Pearse sharing a platform with John Redmond in support of Home Rule in 1912.


However Pearse and others had changed their minds when they witnessed a very real rebellion against the British government’s plan for Home Rule when Tories and unionists “organised themselves to set up an alternative provisional government to prevent Home Rule” in 1912.


An illegal army, the Ulster Volunteer Force, was set up and arms were imported which led to the establishment of the Irish Volunteers “to support the government in implementing Home Rule – to assist in implementing the law not to break it as the UVF were planning to do.”


The British army supported this unionist rebellion with the Curragh Mutiny of 1914 when officers refused to enforce the law on Home Rule and the British government allowed all this to happen and conceded all along the line, he said.


Mr Lane said critics of the Easter Rising say that the organisers had no mandate but the same point could be made about the British government, as it failed to hold an election as it should have done in 1915 and instead did a deal to invite Tories and unionists into government.


“The unionists had their own army, with plenty arms, they had British army support and now they were in government. They had won and it was absolutely clear that Home Rule or any form of Irish independence was off the agenda,” Mr Lane added.


“There was no two ways about it. If that government had its way, we would still be waiting for Home Rule. It was already suspended on the day it was passed on 18th September 1914 and that is where it would remain.”


It is true that those who organised the Easter Rising had no mandate but neither had the British government nor had the unionists for their rebellion other than what they gave themselves. “There were no mandates all around,” he said.


Similarly, Redmond committed the Irish Parliamentary Party to a British war on Germany and Turkey without an electoral mandate as he never put to the Irish electorate that he would take Ireland into an imperial war if the empire gave him Home Rule.


“The Irish Volunteers decided that a rebellion was the only way to get the government to respond to what had been proved by the success of the Unionists and this is the political and moral case for the 1916 rebellion,” he said.


Unfortunately, this narrative had been twisted and was not articulated in either academia, the media or by mainstream politicians, which is why commemorations such as Kilmichael offered a valuable opportunity “to put the record straight about 1916 and the War of Independence”.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Ireland, Ireland

Wednesday, 9 April 2014

ANGLO IRISH PLUTOCRACY FRUCKIN IRELAND


span dir="auto">

Plutocracy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Part of the Politics series
Basic forms of
government
Power structure
Power source
Democracy
Monarchy
Oligarchy
Authoritarianism
Other
Politics portal
Plutocracy (from Greek πλοῦτος, ploutos, meaning "wealth", and κράτος, kratos, meaning "power, dominion, rule") or plutarchy, defines a society or a system ruled and dominated by the small minority of the wealthiest citizens. The first known use of the term is 1652.[1] Unlike systems such as democracy,capitalism, socialism or anarchism, plutocracy is not rooted in an established political philosophy and has no formal advocates. The concept of plutocracy may be advocated by the wealthy classes of a society in an indirect or surreptitious fashion, though the term itself is almost always used in a pejorative sense.[2]

Usage[edit]

The term plutocracy is generally used as a pejorative to describe or warn against an undesirable condition.[3][4] Throughout history, political thinkers such as Winston Churchill, 19th-century French sociologist and historian Alexis de Tocqueville, 19th-century Spanish monarchistJuan Donoso Cortés and today Noam Chomsky have condemned plutocrats for ignoring their social responsibilities, using their power to serve their own purposes and thereby increasing poverty and nurturing class conflict, corrupting societies with greed andhedonism.[5][6]

Examples[edit]

Examples of plutocracies include the Roman Empire, some city-states in Ancient Greece, the civilization of Carthage, the Italian city-states/merchant republics of Venice, Florence,Genoa, and pre-World War II Empire of Japan, zaibatsu, and,[7][8] the modern day United States of America.
One modern, perhaps unique, formal example of a local plutocracy is the City of London.[9]The City (not the whole of modern London but the area of the ancient city, which now mainly comprises the financial district) has a unique electoral system. More than two-thirds of its voters are not residents, but rather representatives of businesses and other bodies that occupy premises in the City, with votes distributed according to their number of employees. The principal justification for the non-resident vote is that about 450,000 non-residents constitute the city's day-time population and use most of its services, far outnumbering the City's 7,000 residents.[9][10]
Another contemporary example involves the municipalities of Lake Buena Vista and Bay Lake, Florida. Both are owned and governed by The Walt Disney Company, per state statutes. The only landowners are fully owned subsidiaries of Disney, and right-of-way for state and county roads, and the only residents are Disney employees.[citation needed]

Modern politics[edit]

See also: Upper class
Historically, wealthy individuals and organizations have exerted influence over the political arena. In the modern era, many democratic republics permit fundraising for politicians who frequently rely on such income for advertising their candidacy to the voting public.
Whether through individuals, corporations or advocacy groups, such donations are often believed to engender a cronyist or patronage system via which major contributors are rewarded on a quid pro quo basis. While campaign donations need not directly affect the legislative decisions of elected representatives, the natural expectation of donors is that their needs will be served by the person they donated to. If not, it is in their self-interest to fund a different candidate or political organization.
While quid pro quo agreements are generally illegal in most democracies, they are difficult to prove short of a well-documented paper trail. A core basis of democracy, being a politician's ability to freely advocate policies which benefit his or her constituents, also makes it difficult to prove that doing so might be a crime. Even the granting of appointed positions to a well-documented contributor may not cross the line of the law, particularly if it happens that the contributor can actually boast a qualified résumé. Some systems even specifically provide for such patronage.
Quite often, wealthy individuals either finance their own political campaigns or leverage their affiliations with other wealthy persons and organizations to do so on their behalf. In the United States, as of November 2011, 250 members of Congress both Democratic and Republican are millionaires, with 57 belonging to the top 1% of American wealthy[11]

United States[edit]

See also: American upper class
Some contemporary and modern historians, politicians and economists believe the United States was effectively plutocratic for at least part of the Gilded Age and Progressive Eraperiods between the end of the Civil War until the beginning of the Great Depression.[12][13][14][15][16][17] After the Civil War, with large industries reachingmonopolistic or near-monopolistic levels of market concentration and financial capitalincreasingly integrating corporations, a handful of very wealthy heads of large corporations began to exert increasing influence over industry, public opinion and politics. Money, according to contemporary progressive and journalist Walter Weyl, was "the mortar of this edifice", with ideological differences among politicians fading and the political realm becoming "a mere branch in a still larger, integrated business. The state, which through the party formally sold favors to the large corporations, became one of their departments."[18]
In his book The Conscience of a Liberal, in a section entitled The Politics of Plutocracy,economist Paul Krugman says plutocracy took hold because of three factors: at that time, the poorest quarter of American residents (African-Americans and non-naturalized immigrants) were ineligible to vote, the wealthy funded the campaigns of politicians they preferred, and vote buying was "feasible, easy and widespread", as were other forms ofelectoral fraud such as ballot-box stuffing and intimidation of the other party's voters.[19]
In modern times, the term is sometimes used pejoratively to refer to societies rooted in state-corporate capitalism or which prioritize the accumulation of wealth over other interests. According to Kevin Phillips, author and political strategist to U.S. PresidentRichard Nixon, the United States is a plutocracy in which there is a "fusion of money and government."[20] A similar position was taken by the Fourth International in January 1941, which stated "Roosevelt’s administration, which claims to be democratic, is really the representative of these piratic plutocrats" and that "the twin capitalist parties control all the main avenues for reaching the masses (the press, radio, halls, etc) ...they collect millions from their wealthy masters and spend them to bamboozle the public and buy elections".[21]
The U.S. instituted progressive taxation in 1913, but according to Shamus Khan, in the 1970s, elites used their increasing political power to lower their taxes, and today successfully employ what political scientist Jeffrey Winters calls "the income defense industry" to greatly reduce their taxes.[22]
Chrystia Freeland, author of Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else says that the present trend towards plutocracy may not be a deliberate power grab:[23]
You don't do this in a kind of chortling, smoking your cigar, conspiratorial thinking way. You do it by persuading yourself that what is in your own personal self-interest is in the interests of everybody else. So you persuade yourself that, actually, government services, things like spending on education, which is what created that social mobility in the first place, need to be cut so that the deficit will shrink, so that your tax bill doesn't go up. And what I really worry about is, there is so much money and so much power at the very top, and the gap between those people at the very top and everybody else is so great, that we are going to see social mobility choked off and society transformed.
— Chrystia Freeland ,  NPR
When the Nobel-Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz wrote the 2011 Vanity Fairmagazine article entitled "Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%", the title as well as the content pointed to evidence that the United States is increasingly ruled by the wealthiest 1%. In it he states,[24]
Of all the costs imposed on our society by the top 1 percent, perhaps the greatest is this: the erosion of our sense of identity, in which fair play, equality of opportunity, and a sense of community are so important. America has long prided itself on being a fair society, where everyone has an equal chance of getting ahead, but the statistics suggest otherwise: the chances of a poor citizen, or even a middle-class citizen, making it to the top in America are smaller than in many countries of Europe. The cards are stacked against them. It is this sense of an unjust system without opportunity that has given rise to the conflagrations in the Middle East: rising food prices and growing and persistent youth unemployment simply served as kindling. With youth unemployment in America at around 20 percent (and in some locations, and among some socio-demographic groups, at twice that); with one out of six Americans desiring a full-time job not able to get one; with one out of seven Americans on food stamps (and about the same number suffering from “food insecurity”)—given all this, there is ample evidence that something has blocked the vaunted “trickling down” from the top 1 percent to everyone else. All of this is having the predictable effect of creating alienation—voter turnout among those in their 20s in the last election stood at 21 percent, comparable to the unemployment rate."
Bill Moyers interviewed author Chrystia Freeland and Rolling Stone contributing editor Matt Taibbi on Moyers & Company on October 19, 2012. Her book, Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else is the inaugural book in the Moyers Book Club.[25]
BILL MOYERS: Income inequality has soared to the highest level since the Great Depression...Left unanswered, where does this vast inequality take America?
CHRYSTIA FREELAND: Well, I think to a very bad place. And I see two real and present dangers. One is that you see an increase of the political capture.
BILL MOYERS: Of what?
CHRYSTIA FREELAND: Of the political capture. So of the people at the very, very top, capturing the political system. And most crucially, I think something that an economist, a guy called Willem Buiter, who's the chief economist at Citigroup, he calls it cognitive capture. Where he says, look, it's not like this vast conspiracy. It's not as if, you know, everyone is on the payroll of the plutocrats.
And this guy, okay, he is now the chief economist of Citigroup. He wrote this when he was an academic economist. But so it's, he's hardly, you know, some kind of Marxist on the barricades. His argument was that part of the reason the financial crisis happened is the entire intellectual establishment, not just people inside investment banks, but regulators, academic economists, financial journalists, had all been captured by the financial sector's vision of how the economy should work. And in particular, light touch regulation.
And I think there is a broader cognitive capture of, you know, you might call it the intellectual class, the public intellectuals, around maybe the inevitability of plutocracy. You know, as Matt [Taibbi] was saying, this notion that if you're poor, it's your own fault. You're part of this dependent 47 percent. Unions are very bad. All of that sort of stuff.
So I think that that cognitive capture increases. And I think what you see increasingly is, you know, elites like to think of themselves as acting in the collective interest, even as they act in their personal vested interest. And so what I think you'll end up seeing is social mobility, which is already decreasing in the United States, being increasingly squeezed. You see particularly powerful sectors, finance, oil. I would say the technology sector is going to be next in line, getting lots of government subsidies.
And meanwhile, I think you see much less money spent on the things that the middle class and the poor need. That's why have this, you know, full bore attack on entitlements, right? Why is the plutocracy so enthusiastic about cutting entitlement spending? Because they don't need it. But they're very worried about their tax dollars funding it.
— Moyers & Company

As a propaganda term[edit]

In the political jargon and propaganda of Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and the Communist International, western democratic states were referred to as plutocracies, with the implication being that a small number of extremely wealthy individuals were controlling the countries and holding them to ransom.[21][26] Plutocracy replaced democracy andcapitalism as the principal fascist term for the United States and Great Britain during theSecond World War.[26] For the Nazis, the term was often a code word for "the Jews".[26]

See also[edit]

Portal iconPolitics portal

References[edit]

  1. Jump up^ "Plutocracy". Merriam Webster. Retrieved 13 October 2012.
  2. Jump up^ "The study of attitudes is reasonably easy [...] it's concluded that for roughly 70% of the population - the lower 70% on the wealth/income scale - they have no influence on policy whatsoever. They're effectively disenfranchised. As you move up the wealth/income ladder, you get a little bit more influence on policy. When you get to the top, which is maybe a tenth of one percent, people essentially get what they want, i.e. they determine the policy. So the proper term for that is not democracy; it's plutocracy." Extract from the transcript of a speech delivered by Noam Chomsky in Bonn, Germany, at DW Global Media Forum, 15 August 2013.
  3. Jump up^ Fiske, Edward B.; Mallison, Jane; Hatcher, David (2009). Fiske 250 words every high school freshman needs to know. Naperville, Ill.: Sourcebooks. p. 250. ISBN 1402218400.
  4. Jump up^ Coates, ed. by Colin M. (2006). Majesty in Canada: essays on the role of royalty. Toronto: Dundurn. p. 119. ISBN 1550025864.
  5. Jump up^ Conservative thinkers: from John Adams to Winston Churchill. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. 2006. pp. 19–68. ISBN 1412805260.
  6. Jump up^ Toupin, Alexis de Tocqueville; edited by Roger Boesche; translated by James; Boesche, Roger (1985). Selected letters on politics and society. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 197–198. ISBN 0520057511.
  7. Jump up^ http://www.commondreams.org/further/2014/04/02-0
  8. Jump up^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-brenner/plutocracy-in-america_b_2992965.html
  9. ^ Jump up to:a b The medieval, unaccountable Corporation of London is ripe for protest, The Guardian, retrieved 01/11/2011
  10. Jump up^ René Lavanchy (12 February 2009). "Labour runs in City of London poll against ‘get-rich’ bankers". Tribune. Retrieved 14 February 2009.
  11. Jump up^ http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-11-15/congress-wealthy-1/51216626/1
  12. Jump up^ Pettigrew, Richard Franklin (2010). Triumphant Plutocracy: The Story of American Public Life from 1870 to 1920. Nabu Press. ISBN 1146542747.
  13. Jump up^ Calvin Reed, John (1903). The New Plutocracy. Kessinger Publishing, LLC (2010 reprint).ISBN 1120909155.
  14. Jump up^ Jr, Robert H. Brinkmeyer, (2009). The fourth ghost: white Southern writers and European fascism, 1930-1950. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. p. 331. ISBN 0807133833.
  15. Jump up^ Allitt, Patrick (2009). The conservatives: ideas and personalities throughout American history. New Haven: Yale University Press. p. 143. ISBN 0300118945.
  16. Jump up^ Ryan, foreword by Vincent P. De Santis; edited by Leonard Schlup, James G. (2003). Historical dictionary of the Gilded Age. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe. p. 145. ISBN 0765603314.
  17. Jump up^ Conservative thinkers: from John Adams to Winston Churchill. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. 2006. p. 103. ISBN 1412805260.
  18. Jump up^ Bowman, Scott R. (1996). The modern corporation and American political thought: law, power, and ideology. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press. pp. 92–103.ISBN 0271014733.
  19. Jump up^ Krugman, Paul (2009). The conscience of a liberal ([Pbk. ed.] ed.). New York: Norton. pp. 21–26. ISBN 0393333132.
  20. Jump up^ Transcript. Bill Moyers Interviews Kevin Phillips. NOW with Bill Moyers 4.09.04 | PBS]
  21. ^ Jump up to:a b http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/fi/vol02/no02/editors2.htm
  22. Jump up^ Kahn, Shamus (18 September 2012) "The Rich Haven’t Always Hated Taxes" Time Magazine
  23. Jump up^ National Public Radio (October 15, 2012) "A Startling Gap Between Us And Them In 'Plutocrats'"
  24. Jump up^ Joseph E. Stiglitz (May 2011) "Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%" Vanity Fair
  25. Jump up^ Chrystia Freeland (October 2012) [1] Moyers & Company
  26. ^ Jump up to:a b c Blamires, Cyprian; Jackson, Paul (2006). World fascism: a historical encyclopedia, Vol. 1. ABC-CLIO. p. 522. ISBN 978-1-57607-940-9.

Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,
Ireland, Ireland
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)