|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 6, 2021 22:16:55 GMT
|
|
|
Prolife.
Jul 6, 2021 23:18:26 GMT
via mobile
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 6, 2021 23:18:26 GMT
I haven't read The National Way Forward, which I believe Barrett now disowns. All I can say is I've watched lots of Barrett's speeches on YouTube and he seems neither stupid nor a fascist. (Yes, I've called him a jackass, but that's more based on his completely disproportionate sense of self-importance and grandiose claims). He seems on the ball about quite a lot of things, in terms of analysing our malaise. I don't think the nativist approach of the NP fits with Catholic ethics (for instance, the threat to revoke Irish citizenship from those who have already been given it), nor does their support for the death penalty. But I sympathize with their anti-globalism and their desire to reclaim the republican tradition from the Marxists who hijacked it.
I think it's naive, however, to believe we can just reverse or opt out of globalization. The question is how we respond to it.
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Jul 9, 2021 12:50:35 GMT
I'm sure the Liberal left are more than happy to see us argue the bit about who is beyond the pale, or not, in the area of nationalism or on the right. Lets be honest, everyone on this forum would be regarded as 'far right' by the liberal left even if one only declared oneself to be pro life and believe that there are only 2 human sexes, male and female.
The liberal West has decided that the Fascist massacres are going to be the touchstone of choice for going forward. The Socialist/Communist example with a history of massacre far outweighing the Fascist one throughout history is given a pass. The reason I think is that it suits the narrative of the liberal elite to use the Fascist example because the elites preferred utopia is more in line with a mechanical socialist one.
Instead of being constantly on the defensive and self flagellating, it is better to attack globalism, ironically and justifiably using the type of language they have been using. We should call them out for the following:
They are racists. They have targeted white people for censure (white privilege) and have started to promote apartheid in parts of America (Dormitories, graduations ceremonies for Black students only).
They support Child Abuse. The promotion of transgenderism for children as young as primary age is child abuse. For a child who is troubled it is utterly cruel for adults to suggest that changing sex is a possible solution. Firstly the child is no way sexually or mentally mature enough to understand the consequences of such a decision on their minds and their bodies should drugs and surgery eventually be used. It is also stealing their innocence during a period of their life when they should enjoy the simplicity of life.
They are misogynist. By supporting transgenderism the are saying that male and female are mental or social constructs. So the entire feminist movement is negated in one fell swoop.
That would be for starters.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jul 9, 2021 16:24:57 GMT
I'm sure the Liberal left are more than happy to see us argue the bit about who is beyond the pale, or not, in the area of nationalism or on the right. Lets be honest, everyone on this forum would be regarded as 'far right' by the liberal left even if one only declared oneself to be pro life and believe that there are only 2 human sexes, male and female. The liberal West has decided that the Fascist massacres are going to be the touchstone of choice for going forward. The Socialist/Communist example with a history of massacre far outweighing the Fascist one throughout history is given a pass. The reason I think is that it suits the narrative of the liberal elite to use the Fascist example because the elites preferred utopia is more in line with a mechanical socialist one. Instead of being constantly on the defensive and self flagellating, it is better to attack globalism, ironically and justifiably using the type of language they have been using. We should call them out for the following: They are racists. They have targeted white people for censure (white privilege) and have started to promote apartheid in parts of America (Dormitories, graduations ceremonies for Black students only). They support Child Abuse. The promotion of transgenderism for children as young as primary age is child abuse. For a child who is troubled it is utterly cruel for adults to suggest that changing sex is a possible solution. Firstly the child is no way sexually or mentally mature enough to understand the consequences of such a decision on their minds and their bodies should drugs and surgery eventually be used. It is also stealing their innocence during a period of their life when they should enjoy the simplicity of life. They are misogynist. By supporting transgenderism the are saying that male and female are mental or social constructs. So the entire feminist movement is negated in one fell swoop. That would be for starters. Assisi, the far left can say whatever they want, but it doesn't mean that we ought to embrace the far-right label and groups like the National Party, especially when there are far more reasonable and stonger alternatives that one can vote for to protect life and family. You are correct about the last two points though.
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Jul 10, 2021 17:15:26 GMT
I'm sure the Liberal left are more than happy to see us argue the bit about who is beyond the pale, or not, in the area of nationalism or on the right. Lets be honest, everyone on this forum would be regarded as 'far right' by the liberal left even if one only declared oneself to be pro life and believe that there are only 2 human sexes, male and female. The liberal West has decided that the Fascist massacres are going to be the touchstone of choice for going forward. The Socialist/Communist example with a history of massacre far outweighing the Fascist one throughout history is given a pass. The reason I think is that it suits the narrative of the liberal elite to use the Fascist example because the elites preferred utopia is more in line with a mechanical socialist one. Instead of being constantly on the defensive and self flagellating, it is better to attack globalism, ironically and justifiably using the type of language they have been using. We should call them out for the following: They are racists. They have targeted white people for censure (white privilege) and have started to promote apartheid in parts of America (Dormitories, graduations ceremonies for Black students only). They support Child Abuse. The promotion of transgenderism for children as young as primary age is child abuse. For a child who is troubled it is utterly cruel for adults to suggest that changing sex is a possible solution. Firstly the child is no way sexually or mentally mature enough to understand the consequences of such a decision on their minds and their bodies should drugs and surgery eventually be used. It is also stealing their innocence during a period of their life when they should enjoy the simplicity of life. They are misogynist. By supporting transgenderism the are saying that male and female are mental or social constructs. So the entire feminist movement is negated in one fell swoop. That would be for starters. Assisi, the far left can say whatever they want, but it doesn't mean that we ought to embrace the far-right label and groups like the National Party, especially when there are far more reasonable and stonger alternatives that one can vote for to protect life and family. You are correct about the last two points though. It's more about the tone of the arguments in general, as well as the scope and nuance of the arguments. Sure, Young Ireland, you can call Barrett to task over crass comments and things he wrote about in the past. But it isn't Barrett who is in power, isn't Barrett who is vitriolically anti-Catholic, isn't Barrett who celebrated and toasted abortion. We should be opposing the establishment with at least the same if not much more vitriol than seems reserved for Barrett and the National party. Moreover, we shouldn't follow the mainstream's narrative which seems to include telling us the Fascism is the bogey man while turning a blind eye to the equally barbaric leftism. The public has been programmed to detest Fascism which is fine. But they have also been programmed to have 'far right' or 'alt right' associated with Fascism, a deliberately contrived move which they use to silence and demonise the Right in total. Does the same happen with the left? Do the real extremists who burn buildings, burn books, eradicate history and literature in academia get associated with Stalin and Mao Zedong? By jumping on anything on the right and crying Fascist, debate is killed off straight away. We should criticise the Right as well as the Left. But my gripe is that there is a tendency here to be ultra harsh on the Right for fear of being associated with Fascism and one is therefore playing the game on the rules set by the elite, not as fair and just analysis dictates. Sinn Fein would have a proven history of outrages and opportunism and dodgy policies that would make the National Party blanch. They would probably destroy the Catholic church tomorrow if they could. So critiquing the parties in a general way we could say that, for example, the National Party have some love of tradition, family and Irishness but may have extreme tendencies but are at least theoretically closer to a society we could imagine than Sinn Fein who are internationalist, leftist and anti-God and are a disaster for society. But that sort of nuance is not there in my opinion.
|
|
|
Prolife.
Jul 10, 2021 17:53:31 GMT
via mobile
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 10, 2021 17:53:31 GMT
Assisi, the far left can say whatever they want, but it doesn't mean that we ought to embrace the far-right label and groups like the National Party, especially when there are far more reasonable and stonger alternatives that one can vote for to protect life and family. You are correct about the last two points though. It's more about the tone of the arguments in general, as well as the scope and nuance of the arguments. Sure, Young Ireland, you can call Barrett to task over crass comments and things he wrote about in the past. But it isn't Barrett who is in power, isn't Barrett who is vitriolically anti-Catholic, isn't Barrett who celebrated and toasted abortion. We should be opposing the establishment with at least the same if not much more vitriol than seems reserved for Barrett and the National party. Moreover, we shouldn't follow the mainstream's narrative which seems to include telling us the Fascism is the bogey man while turning a blind eye to the equally barbaric leftism. The public has been programmed to detest Fascism which is fine. But they have also been programmed to have 'far right' or 'alt right' associated with Fascism, a deliberately contrived move which they use to silence and demonise the Right in total. Does the same happen with the left? Do the real extremists who burn buildings, burn books, eradicate history and literature in academia get associated with Stalin and Mao Zedong? By jumping on anything on the right and crying Fascist, debate is killed off straight away. We should criticise the Right as well as the Left. But my gripe is that there is a tendency here to be ultra harsh on the Right for fear of being associated with Fascism and one is therefore playing the game on the rules set by the elite, not as fair and just analysis dictates. Sinn Fein would have a proven history of outrages and opportunism and dodgy policies that would make the National Party blanch. They would probably destroy the Catholic church tomorrow if they could. So critiquing the parties in a general way we could say that, for example, the National Party have some love of tradition, family and Irishness but may have extreme tendencies but are at least theoretically closer to a society we could imagine than Sinn Fein who are internationalist, leftist and anti-God and are a disaster for society. But that sort of nuance is not there in my opinion. Agree completely. Well put. We are persuaded to be terrified of some mostly-imaginary far-right while the far-left tightens its stranglehold on our societies every single day. The National Party (with less than one percent in this week's by-election) proproses tighter immigration control, possibly even repatriation, and reintroduction of the death penalty. Not compatible with Catholic ethics, at least the last two. But is it really worse than abortion, gay marriage, transexualism, and imminent euthanasia and religious repression-- the agenda of our entire political and media class? Isn't there a loss of perspective here?
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jul 10, 2021 18:31:44 GMT
Assisi, the far left can say whatever they want, but it doesn't mean that we ought to embrace the far-right label and groups like the National Party, especially when there are far more reasonable and stonger alternatives that one can vote for to protect life and family. You are correct about the last two points though. It's more about the tone of the arguments in general, as well as the scope and nuance of the arguments. Sure, Young Ireland, you can call Barrett to task over crass comments and things he wrote about in the past. But it isn't Barrett who is in power, isn't Barrett who is vitriolically anti-Catholic, isn't Barrett who celebrated and toasted abortion. We should be opposing the establishment with at least the same if not much more vitriol than seems reserved for Barrett and the National party. Moreover, we shouldn't follow the mainstream's narrative which seems to include telling us the Fascism is the bogey man while turning a blind eye to the equally barbaric leftism. The public has been programmed to detest Fascism which is fine. But they have also been programmed to have 'far right' or 'alt right' associated with Fascism, a deliberately contrived move which they use to silence and demonise the Right in total. Does the same happen with the left? Do the real extremists who burn buildings, burn books, eradicate history and literature in academia get associated with Stalin and Mao Zedong? By jumping on anything on the right and crying Fascist, debate is killed off straight away. We should criticise the Right as well as the Left. But my gripe is that there is a tendency here to be ultra harsh on the Right for fear of being associated with Fascism and one is therefore playing the game on the rules set by the elite, not as fair and just analysis dictates. Sinn Fein would have a proven history of outrages and opportunism and dodgy policies that would make the National Party blanch. They would probably destroy the Catholic church tomorrow if they could. So critiquing the parties in a general way we could say that, for example, the National Party have some love of tradition, family and Irishness but may have extreme tendencies but are at least theoretically closer to a society we could imagine than Sinn Fein who are internationalist, leftist and anti-God and are a disaster for society. But that sort of nuance is not there in my opinion. The thing is Assisi that you seem to be painting our situation as a binary choice between the National Party on one hand and the mainstream parties on the other, when in fact this is far from the case, in that there are several other parties that we can support that don't have the NP's repulsive tendencies, Aontú being chief among them. As regards your point about the left, anyone with any familiarity with Catholicism knows that Communism is evil and why. This is so obvious that really it ought to go without saying. The only part of the world where your point might apply is South America, but we are in Ireland, and the fact of the matter is that there are several more viable and reasonable alternatives for those who wish to vote with their consciences. I should also add that right-wing regimes like Russia and Hungary have no qualms about collaborating with Communist regimes either, even when they commit genocide as is happening in Xinjiang, only backtracking in the face of massive opposition, so the lines are not as clear cut as you seem to suggest: chinaobservers.eu/the-fight-over-fudan-a-chinese-university-in-budapest-sparks-reckoning-for-sino-hungarian-relations/Your complaint that we shouldn't play by the rules ignores the fact that that sort of recklessness is really destructive and can in fact make things even worse. Finally, can you give me one good reason why the NP is preferrable to say Aontú? Last time I checked, Aontú do not advocate the unilateral revocation of citizenship for non-ethnic Irish people, do not support the death penalty, have an inclusive view of Irishness that is far more organic and in keeping with our traditions, do not have a leader that has in the past attended neo-Nazi advocated for dictatorship and (ironically!) the abolition of free speech, nor do their members beat up counter-protesters in public. If you can give me one good reason why all this should be ignored when there are more palatable alternatives available, I'd certainly like to hear it.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 10, 2021 18:51:48 GMT
The argument is not that the NP should be preferred to Aontú. The argument is that we shouldn't cooperate with the left's efforts to push political positions they dislike "beyond the pale".
Instead of pushing people beyond the pale we should be listening and talking to them. Catholic supporters of the NP should be told how their positions clash with Catholic teaching. Not demonized.
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Jul 10, 2021 21:00:22 GMT
It's more about the tone of the arguments in general, as well as the scope and nuance of the arguments. Sure, Young Ireland, you can call Barrett to task over crass comments and things he wrote about in the past. But it isn't Barrett who is in power, isn't Barrett who is vitriolically anti-Catholic, isn't Barrett who celebrated and toasted abortion. We should be opposing the establishment with at least the same if not much more vitriol than seems reserved for Barrett and the National party. Moreover, we shouldn't follow the mainstream's narrative which seems to include telling us the Fascism is the bogey man while turning a blind eye to the equally barbaric leftism. The public has been programmed to detest Fascism which is fine. But they have also been programmed to have 'far right' or 'alt right' associated with Fascism, a deliberately contrived move which they use to silence and demonise the Right in total. Does the same happen with the left? Do the real extremists who burn buildings, burn books, eradicate history and literature in academia get associated with Stalin and Mao Zedong? By jumping on anything on the right and crying Fascist, debate is killed off straight away. We should criticise the Right as well as the Left. But my gripe is that there is a tendency here to be ultra harsh on the Right for fear of being associated with Fascism and one is therefore playing the game on the rules set by the elite, not as fair and just analysis dictates. Sinn Fein would have a proven history of outrages and opportunism and dodgy policies that would make the National Party blanch. They would probably destroy the Catholic church tomorrow if they could. So critiquing the parties in a general way we could say that, for example, the National Party have some love of tradition, family and Irishness but may have extreme tendencies but are at least theoretically closer to a society we could imagine than Sinn Fein who are internationalist, leftist and anti-God and are a disaster for society. But that sort of nuance is not there in my opinion. The thing is Assisi that you seem to be painting our situation as a binary choice between the National Party on one hand and the mainstream parties on the other, when in fact this is far from the case, in that there are several other parties that we can support that don't have the NP's repulsive tendencies, Aontú being chief among them. As regards your point about the left, anyone with any familiarity with Catholicism knows that Communism is evil and why. This is so obvious that really it ought to go without saying. The only part of the world where your point might apply is South America, but we are in Ireland, and the fact of the matter is that there are several more viable and reasonable alternatives for those who wish to vote with their consciences. I should also add that right-wing regimes like Russia and Hungary have no qualms about collaborating with Communist regimes either, even when they commit genocide as is happening in Xinjiang, only backtracking in the face of massive opposition, so the lines are not as clear cut as you seem to suggest: chinaobservers.eu/the-fight-over-fudan-a-chinese-university-in-budapest-sparks-reckoning-for-sino-hungarian-relations/Your complaint that we shouldn't play by the rules ignores the fact that that sort of recklessness is really destructive and can in fact make things even worse. Finally, can you give me one good reason why the NP is preferrable to say Aontú? Last time I checked, Aontú do not advocate the unilateral revocation of citizenship for non-ethnic Irish people, do not support the death penalty, have an inclusive view of Irishness that is far more organic and in keeping with our traditions, do not have a leader that has in the past attended neo-Nazi advocated for dictatorship and (ironically!) the abolition of free speech, nor do their members beat up counter-protesters in public. If you can give me one good reason why all this should be ignored when there are more palatable alternatives available, I'd certainly like to hear it. I have voted for Aontu in elections in the North. But my argument is not about which party is the best or most conducive to Catholicism, but how the mainstream and establishment automatically demonise any right leaning party, organisation or person thus preventing them any chance to express an opinion contrary to the liberal left. In other words to be labelled 'on the right' is deemed to be almost fascist and therefore deserving of disgust and outright opposition. We, at this forum should not ape this tendency. You say that "anyone with any familiarity with Catholicism knows that Communism is evil and why". But is this true? BLM are run by Marxists who proudly declare their Marxism. Yet many so called Catholics like Biden and Pelosi will get on their knees to BLM and George Floyd without a second thought. Can you imagine them taking a knee to an organisation whose leaders called themselves trained fascists? We know the answer to that. You say that "Your complaint that we shouldn't play by the rules ignores the fact that that sort of recklessness is really destructive and can in fact make things even worse." What I am saying is that is a big mistake to blindly accept the rules and narrative created and propagandised by the enemies of Catholicism, that is the Liberal Left.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jul 10, 2021 21:12:10 GMT
The thing is Assisi that you seem to be painting our situation as a binary choice between the National Party on one hand and the mainstream parties on the other, when in fact this is far from the case, in that there are several other parties that we can support that don't have the NP's repulsive tendencies, Aontú being chief among them. As regards your point about the left, anyone with any familiarity with Catholicism knows that Communism is evil and why. This is so obvious that really it ought to go without saying. The only part of the world where your point might apply is South America, but we are in Ireland, and the fact of the matter is that there are several more viable and reasonable alternatives for those who wish to vote with their consciences. I should also add that right-wing regimes like Russia and Hungary have no qualms about collaborating with Communist regimes either, even when they commit genocide as is happening in Xinjiang, only backtracking in the face of massive opposition, so the lines are not as clear cut as you seem to suggest: chinaobservers.eu/the-fight-over-fudan-a-chinese-university-in-budapest-sparks-reckoning-for-sino-hungarian-relations/Your complaint that we shouldn't play by the rules ignores the fact that that sort of recklessness is really destructive and can in fact make things even worse. Finally, can you give me one good reason why the NP is preferrable to say Aontú? Last time I checked, Aontú do not advocate the unilateral revocation of citizenship for non-ethnic Irish people, do not support the death penalty, have an inclusive view of Irishness that is far more organic and in keeping with our traditions, do not have a leader that has in the past attended neo-Nazi advocated for dictatorship and (ironically!) the abolition of free speech, nor do their members beat up counter-protesters in public. If you can give me one good reason why all this should be ignored when there are more palatable alternatives available, I'd certainly like to hear it. I have voted for Aontu in elections in the North. But my argument is not about which party is the best or most conducive to Catholicism, but how the mainstream and establishment automatically demonise any right leaning party, organisation or person thus preventing them any chance to express an opinion contrary to the liberal left. In other words to be labelled 'on the right' is deemed to be almost fascist and therefore deserving of disgust and outright opposition. We, at this forum should not ape this tendency. You say that "anyone with any familiarity with Catholicism knows that Communism is evil and why". But is this true? BLM are run by Marxists who proudly declare their Marxism. Yet many so called Catholics like Biden and Pelosi will get on their knees to BLM and George Floyd without a second thought. Can you imagine them taking a knee to an organisation whose leaders called themselves trained fascists? We know the answer to that. You say that "Your complaint that we shouldn't play by the rules ignores the fact that that sort of recklessness is really destructive and can in fact make things even worse." What I am saying is that is a big mistake to blindly accept the rules and narrative created and propagandised by the enemies of Catholicism, that is the Liberal Left. Honest question: how far is too far when it comes to defending groups on the political right? Where do you think is the boundary beyond which such groups are no longer defensible?
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Jul 11, 2021 18:27:57 GMT
I have voted for Aontu in elections in the North. But my argument is not about which party is the best or most conducive to Catholicism, but how the mainstream and establishment automatically demonise any right leaning party, organisation or person thus preventing them any chance to express an opinion contrary to the liberal left. In other words to be labelled 'on the right' is deemed to be almost fascist and therefore deserving of disgust and outright opposition. We, at this forum should not ape this tendency. You say that "anyone with any familiarity with Catholicism knows that Communism is evil and why". But is this true? BLM are run by Marxists who proudly declare their Marxism. Yet many so called Catholics like Biden and Pelosi will get on their knees to BLM and George Floyd without a second thought. Can you imagine them taking a knee to an organisation whose leaders called themselves trained fascists? We know the answer to that. You say that "Your complaint that we shouldn't play by the rules ignores the fact that that sort of recklessness is really destructive and can in fact make things even worse." What I am saying is that is a big mistake to blindly accept the rules and narrative created and propagandised by the enemies of Catholicism, that is the Liberal Left. Honest question: how far is too far when it comes to defending groups on the political right? Where do you think is the boundary beyond which such groups are no longer defensible? A quick answer would be that the use of violence and the banning of free speech, both things would be beyond the pale. Ironically, both of these are already being used by the liberal left: violence, via abortion and euthanasia and the banning of free speech via the selective reporting of the mainstream media and the moves currently under way to introduce 'hate speech' laws which will give the elite more power to curb anyone whose opinion they do not like or whose opinion does not correspond to their ideology.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 13, 2021 20:19:57 GMT
I wouldn't vote for far-left groups like People Before Profit under any circumstances either. The reason I don't pay more attention to them on this forum is because I expect most contributors to this forum recognise fundamentalist Marxists for the totalitarians they are, and know what such people have done in the past. (That said, I think it would be legitimate to discuss where the Trots get their support. Some of it obviously comes from pro-aborts and wannabe Dzerzhinskys, but some of it comes - for example - from people who are really on the edge of homelessness and feel that only the Trots are promising them anything. I've met such people. We ought to be more aware of such social problems and the need to do something about them.) Such NP material as I have seen seems to be very short on analysis and very long on a cult of the NP in general and Barrett in particular as strong and uncompromising. That's not a party - that's a cult. "No enemies on the right" is a suicidal policy.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 13, 2021 21:41:54 GMT
But who called for a "no enemies on the right" policy?
I've been accused of this a couple of times on this forum, but I've never called for it, nor do I think this is a fair description of assisi's posts.
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Jul 15, 2021 13:30:13 GMT
I wouldn't vote for far-left groups like People Before Profit under any circumstances either. The reason I don't pay more attention to them on this forum is because I expect most contributors to this forum recognise fundamentalist Marxists for the totalitarians they are, and know what such people have done in the past. (That said, I think it would be legitimate to discuss where the Trots get their support. Some of it obviously comes from pro-aborts and wannabe Dzerzhinskys, but some of it comes - for example - from people who are really on the edge of homelessness and feel that only the Trots are promising them anything. I've met such people. We ought to be more aware of such social problems and the need to do something about them.) Such NP material as I have seen seems to be very short on analysis and very long on a cult of the NP in general and Barrett in particular as strong and uncompromising. That's not a party - that's a cult. "No enemies on the right" is a suicidal policy. If The National Party are a cult because they are very short on analysis and their leader strong and uncompromising, then surely many other parties must be deemed cults also. Are/Was Sinn Fein a cult because of Gerry Adams status and their sugercoated PC nonsense that is short of analysis? Was/Is Fianna Fail a cult due to Eamon De Valera? SNP because of the bolshy Nicola Sturgeon. DUP because of the founder Paisley. I would hazard a guess that many people North or South, if put on the spot on the street, wouldn't be able to name Barrett as leader of the National Party. In fact, up North at least Eamon McCann would have been a lot more well known as political leader of the People before Profit, surely more of a candidate for cult status than the relatively unknown Barrett. Again, this is not saying that the NP are great. Simply you seem to have a standard to judge them which is different to how you judge others. I would have thought that Sinn Fein are far more likely candidates to be called a cult from all the parties in Ireland using your criteria.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 16, 2021 22:43:48 GMT
Eamon McCann is not the leader of PBP (I think it's Richard Boyd Barrett but they probably have collective leadership with a politbureau.) In my opinion Leninist parties based on "democratic centralism" can legitimately be called cults, given their top-down leadership; I've certainly seen the term used to describe them. Paisley has also been described as a cult leader, though this is debatable since for much of his career there were limits to what he could get away with (e.g. he could not have come out for a united Ireland, embraced ecumenism etc.) SF is a sinister party because it is run on a top-down, military-style basis with very little room for internal debate. Most people may not know that Barrett is the leader of the NP, but anyone who knows anything about it knows that Barrett is the leader. Their propaganda is centred on him. Furthermore it strikes me as being less oriented towards political education than those other examples you mention (except for de Valera's FF which was a party of power - and even this had the IRISH PRESS to explain a rationale for Dev's actions to the faithful), and more about asserting the NP's supposed strength and determination. There's a reason why PBP/SWP has a good deal of success in infiltrating academia - they're quite effective at stating their ideology in simple terms and producing arguments for it. (McCann is a case in point.) I criticise Barret and the NP because they explicitly appeal to pro-lifers on grounds which I think are harmful and baseless. I don't devote attention to pointing out that PBP are militant Marxists, pro-aborts and secularists because they proclaim it from the rooftops themselves at every opportunity.
|
|