"We are the boys of Wexford...."

by T Fri Jul 12, 2013 23:05

Sean,

That is the best quote yet that cuts straight to the heart of the matter:

However it is an interesting irony that after a millennium of struggle we have led ourselves into profound slavery and thralldom in our own day.

Could you say a bit more on the above?

by JoeMc Sat Jul 13, 2013 11:14

Sean should say who he’s referring to when he says that "we" have led "ourselves " into "profound slavery and thralldom" . As far as I can remember I have never led myself or anybody else into profound slavery and thralldom - or any other type of slavery and thalldrom for that matter.

Education that denies or attempts to ignore the existence of class can never be a liberating factor.Shareholders, bankers ,capitalists , parasites, rake in billions for themselves , then when their bubble busts collapses ,”we” have to pay it all back .

(It should be "shelter the despot or the slave " btw)

.

by T Mon Jul 15, 2013 23:49

Joe, I don't think that I would quite agree with you there. Whilst I never led myself either into slavery or debt and I am fully aware of the corporate PR bubble people are immersed in, I still do not think we can remove the collective we.

In general I notice Left thought does not like the idea of attributing any self responsibility on the masses and yet when many Left writers talk of revolutionary change, there is this implicit idea that the masses will suddenly take on responsibility of their actions and awareness and purposely make decisions to change society. Unfortunately though it seems to be a no-go area to talk about or analyse the lack of action by the masses and this brings us back to the collective we and the above quote: "...led ourselves into profound slavery and thralldom in our own day."

...because there is a certain truth to that. There were and are still many people today who are in daily thrall by the trivial whether that be the latest gadget and celebrity gossip and yet many of these same people are just as intelligent as the next person and mildly aware of the larger problems of the world just beyond the attention horizon. These people have responsibilities to take their head out of their asses.

A good example is the protest back on Sat 13th April of this year against the Property Tax. It was billed as a National Protest and actually got reasonably good coverage and in the prior months the Property Tax was properly the main bone of contention in people in work and anywhere else conversation arose and yet compared to the massive scale of talk and moaning, a miserable 8,000 or so turned up. In other words f**k all for whatever reason. One of the people who attended with me has a Facebook page and got lots of "likes" and well-done for going, or all the best or good on ye and so on. In other words, none of them could or would get up off their arses for just one day in the year to go and do something. What do they expect?

It seems the "masses" treat society like some kind of service where they take and receive but do not seem to recognise they have to give whether that is to do a few days a year of some kind of activism, political work, self education, attendence at some event or some other form of engaging in civil society.

And in some ways this leads back to the foundation of the state and the Rising in 1916. We have so often heard about how Britain never truly conquered Ireland and the fighting Irish. That doesn't really ring true for me, as we find in history, was it that 50,000 Irish men went and fought for the empire in the First World War? -although granted many were economic conscripts but then we hear that only 2,000 to 3,000 showed up to fight in the Rising to try and throw off English rule. So where were the fighting Irish then? -They were off fighting for the British. So as usual the few made the huge personnal sacrifice that the many benefited from. Relating this to the collective we being led back into slavery and debt. In this case the few who did not lead themselves into that state are unable to counter-balance the very many who through their inaction, lack of self thought and critical thought allowed themselves to be swept along.

Continuing this line of thought with the few versus the many. In our current technological world, whilst we have advanced a lot technically, we have not made any significant progress socially. The difference though between technology and the social fabric is that a relatively few geeks and engineers in the corner can create and do things that affect everybody technically requiring practically zero action by everyone else, whereas for society to advance socially, it means the vast majority have to be involved and have some knowledge of what the social change is about and given the lack of action by the masses in general perhaps that explains the lack of progress socially.

And in the article Sean briefly touches on psychiatry and includes a photo of the Enniscorthy mental hospital and it is sort of appropriate because collectively the actions of society have been mental and the fields of psychiatry and psychology surely have a lot to say about the collective condition because it is quite clear that many are in complete denial, about their world and their behaviour is more akin to somebody suffering one of many conditions rather than that of a fully mature and well balanced individual. The way we all react to the global problems, political problems, environmental problems, the media bubble and so on and so on is surely to the outside observer disturbing to say the least. At best on the global scale, we are committing planetary suicide and whilst I know corporations and capitalism have a very large role in that, we can't just separate out completely the role of people.

by W Finnerty Tue Jul 16, 2013 11:28

There are ONLY TWO basic forms of governance.

One can roughly be described in general terms as "government of the people, by the people, for the people", and the other as "government of the ruling-elites, by the ruling-elites, for the ruling-elites".

The first form, or set of forms more like, can also labelled -- albeit in a rough-and-ready and imprecise manner as well -- as "constitutional"; and, the second as "totalitarian".

Recorded human history shows, beyond all doubt (in my opinion), that of the two, "constitutionalism" is generally far healthier and safer for humanity as a whole than "totalitarianism"; and, as evidence of this, I would point to the amazing bout of socially benign "human creativity" associated with what is one of the very earliest recorded forms of "constitutionalism" (such as it was at the time) of ancient Athens (circa 2500 BC).

The founding fathers of the Republic of the United States of America -- also in a rough and ready way -- in their day, replicated the Athenian form of constitutional governance, and, the 16th president of the Republic of the United States of America (Abraham Lincoln) came VERY close to making "government of the people, by the people, for the people" a permanent global fixture (as I see and understand that particular historic situation in and around the mid 1800s): before very suddenly having a bullet discharged into the back of his head from point blank range by an assassin (who apparently was part of a considerably larger group of conspirators, and some of whom were later hanged in connection with the assassination).

More recently, and although very few -- if any (?) -- seem to have researched the situation in depth (as far as I know), a very desperate group of people in the United States eventually managed to "assemble" (during the 1930s, 40s, and 50s) what later grew into the now global fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous. Those who have looked closely at the very finely-tuned texts of the "Three Legacies" of Alcoholics Anonymous which eventually emerged from a lengthy "trial and error" style learning process, will know that it is arguably the best example of "constitutionalism" at work -- in a socially benign way, and on a GLOBAL basis -- in human history (so far). By very deliberate design, and of absolute necessity it seems, the Alcoholics Anonymous application of "constitutionalism" is extremely tightly restricted around a single very well-defined "primary purpose"; and, very interestingly, the main reason for this extremely tight restriction is to prevent the "ruling elite types" from taking over the whole global organisation of Alcoholics Anonymous for themselves, and, given the chance, to then set about arrogantly demanding that they be allowed to do everybody else's thinking for them: as is their way, and/or their very worrying and sickening "affliction", as some might see it.

Among the main reasons we do not now live under a "government of the people, by the people, for the people" form of governance is the fact that the "ruling elites" have made it their business to take FULL CONTROL (more or less) of "popular ideology"; and, now that they have control of it, they do not wish to let go of it. Far from it!!

Note the growing desperation just now of the Obama Administration to get their hands on Edward Snowden, which includes the recent outrageous -- and in so far as I know COMPLETELY UNLAWFUL -- "stop and search" grounding of the Bolivian President's aircraft about a week ago. They want to know everybody's business (in detail) through the secret snooping activities of the NSA and GCHQ (which they deny in public, brazen liars that they are), and to use it for every form of manipulation and control imaginable: all for the purpose of sustaining "government of the ruling-elites, by the ruling-elites, for the ruling-elites", on a GLOBAL basis; and, all "justified" under sly pretext of: "national security needs".

In this arrangement of theirs, the "ruling elites" -- whose membership includes the banksters, many leading lawyers, psychiatrists, "big business" people, religious leaders, university professors, trades union leaders, main stream media journalists, and so on -- the majority of "the people" ( or the "general public" if you prefer that term) are, for all worthwhile practical purposes COMPLETELY EXCLUDED from the decision making processes of how we are governed as a nation: and therein lies the core problem connected with the "ruling elite" form of governance: a core problem which has a great many "difficult and very challenging offspring", as far as the general well being of humanity as a whole is concerned.

"Participation is the key to harmony" (as the old saying goes).

Related Link:
"Totalitarianism Versus Constitutionalism, THE BIG WORRY, Chief Justice Susan Denham, Human Rights Ireland ..."
http://tinyurl.com/pftob35

Related www Page Bookmark:
"Re: Government Accountability and Article 6.1 of Bunreacht na hEireann..."
http://www.humanrightsireland.com/ChiefJusticeSusanDenh...ppeal

by Joe Mc Tue Jul 16, 2013 18:20

The use of this undifferentiated , collective “we” ignores the fact that Irish society - like the rest of the world's -is divided into classes.Since the near collapse of their economic system in 2008, the richest five percent of the population has grown richer while everybody else has grown poorer . The poor in Ireland consists of those who have to work for a living or survive on benefits - they have far more in common with poor people in other parts of the world than they have the handful of Irish billionaires whose incomes have soared over the past five years. Tabloids are fond of using the words "we and "our" . That way they can get away with saying things like "Despite the crash , our average incomes have actually GROWN here in Ireland since the onset of the recession . We should be grateful" - or some nonsense along those lines. "We may have to stand up to the Germans says Enda " "French kids think we are cool " "Enda thinks that we should show respect for Queen Elizabeth like the responsible nation that we have become , " The lads of U2 do us proud again" etc.

I’m not sure what you mean by “Left thought does not like the idea of attributing any self responsibility on the masses” . Without the word ”self” , it could only mean that the masses should feel responsible for their own impoverishment – collective guilt. If you mean that those who constitute the masses should become conscious of the role the masses can and must play at this most critical juncture in human history , I agree with that. But for that to happen, the masses must become class conscious and understand that “we” are not all in the same boat together.

by Sean Crudden Tue Jul 16, 2013 23:31

Well, gentlemen, the point in my article was to compare the ideology of the educator with the ideology of the psychiatrist. Actually to contrast the two. Obviously indymedia.ie is a politically charged area. That sentence about where we have led ourselves was simply a throwaway remark and beside the point. The argument about who is responsible for what is as important as it is difficult to reach conclusions about. But I think William Finnerty has diagnosed the real difficulty in modern politics. He and I have one vote just the same as T or Joe Mc or Alan Shatter but we have not a pup's chance of scoring a political point. Just as I never scored a point in 19 years as a member of The Progressive Democrats. So have we any freedom? Are we simply serfs? Who are the despots? I do not want to know in general: I would like to have their names and addresses!

by JoeMc Wed Jul 17, 2013 11:37

I haven't got any names and addresses - we'd probably both get handed over for enhanced interrogation if I did divulge such information online anyway .Isn’t that just the problem though? Everybody so nice to your face , but somebody out there must have a property portfolio that includes your house with the distressed mortgage in it – it’s enough to drive anybody crazy !

I remember reading something by Jonathan Swift , who founded Ireland’s first lunatic asylum . I can’t find the reference now, perhaps you know it, Sean ? He said his reason for founding St. Patrick's Hospital in Dublin was that ,before the land confiscations of the previous century began, there had been only a handful of people who would have been regarded as truly insane in the whole of Ireland. By the start of the eighteenth century, mad desperate people could be seen by day and night wandering the streets of every town and city in the country.

by W. Finnerty Wed Jul 17, 2013 12:28

Reply to Sean Crudden at Tue Jul 16, 2013 23:31 ...

Defining "despotism" as "a form of government in which power is concentrated in the hands of an individual or a small group", I would say that -- as far as my own particular situation is concerned -- the Republic of Ireland, UK, and EU lawyers, law-firms, and law societies, who continue to collectively fail to provide me with legal representation in connection with the set of legal and medical issues I outlined in my letter to consultant psychiatrist Dr Anne Jeffers on May 28th 2013, are the most worrying, and the most damaging, of the several despotic groups I have directly encountered and experienced personally since I returned to the Republic of Ireland (to retire) in 1998.

In other words, my "In First Place" goes to the members of legal professions who collectively continue to refuse to provide me with legal representation, for the purpose of helping me to resolve the growing set of EXTREMELY SERIOUS legal problems I have been struggling with (on my own) for the past several years.

At the present time, my "In Second Place" -- Position #2 in the "Dangerous Despots League" (as I think of it) -- would go to the group of three senior Republic of Ireland medical doctors who, in so far as I am aware, appear to have ALL decided to COMPLETELY IGNORE the ENTIRE CONTENTS of the set of three registered letters I sent to Dr Anne Jeffers, to Dr Anthony McCarthy (President of the College of Psychiatry), and to Dr James Reilly TD (Minister for Health) on May 28th 2013.

Scanned copies of three very closely related registered letters in question, together with the scanned copies of the associated Post Office receipts and delivery notes, can be found via the following Human Rights Ireland www location:
http://www.humanrightsireland.com/DrAnneJeffers/28May20...Three

I feel I should make it clear that, to date, I have not received any "acknowledgement of receipt" of any kind from any of the three medical doctors for any of the three registered letters I sent to them on May 28th 2013; and, that consequently, I have no means of knowing -- for sure -- if any of them (as individuals) are even aware of these letters I sent to them on May 28th last, or not?

It is the case however, that the Post Office Internet tracking service has provided me with very clear evidence that all three registered letters in question were successfully delivered on May 29th 2013 to the three different postal addresses I sent them to (on May 28th 2013): as can be seen from the scanned copies of the Post Office delivery notes available via the www address provided above.

Related E-mail (To Chief Justice Susan Denham):
"The Big Worry"
http://www.humanrightsireland.com/ChiefJusticeSusanDenh...l.htm

Related Link
"Chief Justice Susan Denham, government corruption, crime, cover ups, impunity, my BIG WORRY, William Finnerty ..."
http://tinyurl.com/prblnbq

by W. Finnerty Fri Jul 19, 2013 19:47

'At the present time, my "In Second Place" -- Position #2 in the "Dangerous Despots League" (as I think of it) -- would go to the group of three senior Republic of Ireland medical doctors who, in so far as I am aware, appear to have ALL decided to COMPLETELY IGNORE the ENTIRE CONTENTS of the set of three registered letters I sent to Consultant Psychiatrist Dr Anne Jeffers, to Dr Anthony McCarthy (President of the College of Psychiatry), and to Dr James Reilly TD (Minister for Health) on May 28th 2013.'

The above excerpt is from an e-mail sent this afternoon to (among others) the NSA (United States), and the GCHQ (United Kingdom).

The full text of this afternoon's e-mail can be viewed at:
http://www.humanrightsireland.com/CelticParty/19July201...l.htm

Related Link:
"Dr Anne Jeffers, government corruption, crime, cover-ups, impunity ..."
http://tinyurl.com/ohfwlu5

by Sean Crudden - impero Sat Jul 08, 2017 12:24

I probably need my head examined. But then it has been examined too many times already?

I spent yesterday looking through the annual report of The Mental Health Commission which incorporates the report of the Inspector of Mental Health Services. The principal authors are Patricia Gilheaney CEO of The Mental Health Commission and Susan Finnerty MCRN, Inspector of Mental Health Services. Now it is a mistake to expect too much of the MHC or the inspector's report. The work is done under statute and the ladies are merely carrying out their statutory function. But their work is carefully done, well thought out, well presented, strong on arithmetic which is the way to love. But, in my humble opinion they are like a good student who has worked hard and answered well but somehow managed to leave out a few of the compulsory questions in the exam. But, as I have already remarked, they have neatly fulfilled their statutory duties.

Somehow in all the tidiness I have the impression that the girls are tussling with a monster which they do not fully understand and cannot fully control. A slight air of desperation? The references to the legislation which abound give the impression of a charter for bullying weak and distressed people as far as I can see. Just because the inspector and the CEO tick all the boxes that does not validate the system nor free everyone concerned from the obligation of thinking about what they are doing?

Well, I am not going to waste any more time thinking about it on a beautiful summer afternoon. And I have no bright ideas.

I think the report can be found at http://www.mhcirl.ie/File/2016_AR_Incl_OIMS.pdf if anyone else has the inclination to read it.