Libertas a pan European Project : Read OP Intro Carefully - Mod

Cookiemonster said

Quote :

Frightened Albanian wrote:

Quote :

I have repeatedly dealt with the points raised by Arnold. They are on a level with the Libertas supporters on various boards. Point out anything that I have missed that is new pls

Sadly the other thread on this issue has, once again in true Stalinesque fashion, disappeared.

Which thread has disappeared Cookiemonster?

cactus flower wrote:

The half-arsed attempts to smear Ganley by his right wing rivals are pathetic. There is no political critique for two reasons - one is that Ganley has clutched his politics tightly to his chest and fought the anti Lisbon campaign on the weakness of his oponents, rather than on his own views. The other is that their own politics aren't that far from Ganley's.

What I find far more disturbing is the apparent willingness of the left to compromise core strategic political differences and pull punches on Ganley for some imagined tactical gain.

Ganley's politics judged on his own statements and the political character of the people across Europe who have aligned themselves with Libertas are most closely aligned here to Coir and the Hibernian, with a US right wing libertarian economic stance. Although some left groups kept a distance during the Lisbon campaign, there is no sign of them exerting consistent effort to expose Ganley for what he is politically. I would be very happy to be corrected on that if I'm wrong.

Some of us want Lisbon sunk, and are prepared to ally ourselves on an ad-hoc basis on this one issue. Ganley is undoubtedly right-wing, but so what? We should attack him now while Lisbon 2 is in the offing? And what would that achieve apart from making Dick Roche look even more smug and self-satisfied? Perhaps we can wait until Lisbon is over, then get the machine-guns out...

Remember the Hitler Stalin pact? And who got the most traction out of the No vote so far, Libertas or the Left?

How many people in Ireland even know there is a left opposition to Lisbon, and what it stands for?

It would be good to hear more about a socialist alternative to the EU.

cactus flower wrote:

Remember the Hitler Stalin pact? And who got the most traction out of the No vote so far, Libertas or the Left?

How many people in Ireland even know there is a left opposition to Lisbon, and what it stands for?

It would be good to hear more about a socialist alternative to the EU.

You're not serious? The Hitler/Stalin pact? I'm not quite sure how to respond...

I want Lisbon sunk, I do not care remotely who takes the credit, but there is plenty awareness as far as I know that, for example, Mary Lou McDonald, Kathy Sinnott, Joe Higgins, etc., are against Lisbon and centralisation. I think you're obsessing on Ganley a little too much, other people aren't. And, credit where credit's due, Libertas did a fine job in carryinga certain section of the electorate, individualist and suspicious of the left, that others would not necessarily reach. I'm happy, so long as we get the Treaty put out of its misery, and am happy that, for now, Libertas are on the same page. Turning on them will achieve you nothing now, except that we both lose on the Treaty re-run, and the Government smile at your naive idealism and say 'thank you very much'...

cactus flower wrote:

Cookiemonster said

Quote :

Frightened Albanian wrote:

Quote :

I have repeatedly dealt with the points raised by Arnold. They are on a level with the Libertas supporters on various boards. Point out anything that I have missed that is new pls

Sadly the other thread on this issue has, once again in true Stalinesque fashion, disappeared.

Which thread has disappeared Cookiemonster?

Nothing Stalinesque at all, I'm afraid. It went into the holding pen this day last week when things were getting out of control and we started with the new rules of engagement. We've had a busy week here dealing with other stuff and getting ready for the move to the Promised Land and it's just fallen off the agenda.

But thanks for the reminder. We'll have a look at it when we get a chance and put it back on display.

Quote :

While Cowen and Roche fumbled their way towards defeat, Ganley focused on what was wrong with the European Union. He mounted an unwavering campaign. He led the 'No' vote groups in a detached way, making no alliances, dismissing ideas that were central to other 'No' voters.

You can pretty much tell whether the article is objective just from that paragraph. It contains a number of untruths:

1. Ganley didn't "focus on what was wrong with the EU" - instead, Libertas put forward virtually every claim ever used by the opposition to EU treaties, from abortion through tax to loss of a Commissioner.

2. Very few of the No groups would accept that they were "led" by Ganley...

3. ...except perhaps those that he did have alliances with, like Coir.

4. He certainly didn't "dismiss ideas that were central to other 'No' voters" - Libertas personnel even provided We Are Change Ireland (anti-NWO nutters) and Coir with video material.

toxic avenger wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Remember the Hitler Stalin pact? And who got the most traction out of the No vote so far, Libertas or the Left?

How many people in Ireland even know there is a left opposition to Lisbon, and what it stands for?

It would be good to hear more about a socialist alternative to the EU.

You're not serious? The Hitler/Stalin pact? I'm not quite sure how to respond...

I want Lisbon sunk, I do not care remotely who takes the credit, but there is plenty awareness as far as I know that, for example, Mary Lou McDonald, Kathy Sinnott, Joe Higgins, etc., are against Lisbon and centralisation. I think you're obsessing on Ganley a little too much, other people aren't. And, credit where credit's due, Libertas did a fine job in carryinga certain section of the electorate, individualist and suspicious of the left, that others would not necessarily reach. I'm happy, so long as we get the Treaty put out of its misery, and am happy that, for now, Libertas are on the same page. Turning on them will achieve you nothing now, except that we both lose on the Treaty re-run, and the Government smile at your naive idealism and say 'thank you very much'...

If I was only preoccupied with Ganley that might be a point, but I'm not. Following what Ganley stands for in Europe and identifying the US opposition to Lisbon has helped to clarify for me where Lisbon comes in terms of the underlying hostility between the US - EU and has helped to clarify for me and strengthen my opposition to the Lisbon Treaty and the EU.

We have different standpoints. Apparently you want a Lisbon defeat at any cost and dont mind who you ally yourself with to get that. Im opposed to Lisbon and the EU because I'm opposed the the building up of big mutually hostile capitalist powers and in favour of an international alliance between working people.

We can all throw the word naive around. You think I have naive idealism and I think you have naive opportunism

cactus flower wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Remember the Hitler Stalin pact? And who got the most traction out of the No vote so far, Libertas or the Left?

How many people in Ireland even know there is a left opposition to Lisbon, and what it stands for?

It would be good to hear more about a socialist alternative to the EU.

You're not serious? The Hitler/Stalin pact? I'm not quite sure how to respond...

I want Lisbon sunk, I do not care remotely who takes the credit, but there is plenty awareness as far as I know that, for example, Mary Lou McDonald, Kathy Sinnott, Joe Higgins, etc., are against Lisbon and centralisation. I think you're obsessing on Ganley a little too much, other people aren't. And, credit where credit's due, Libertas did a fine job in carryinga certain section of the electorate, individualist and suspicious of the left, that others would not necessarily reach. I'm happy, so long as we get the Treaty put out of its misery, and am happy that, for now, Libertas are on the same page. Turning on them will achieve you nothing now, except that we both lose on the Treaty re-run, and the Government smile at your naive idealism and say 'thank you very much'...

If I was only preoccupied with Ganley that might be a point, but I'm not. Following what Ganley stands for in Europe and identifying the US opposition to Lisbon has helped to clarify for me where Lisbon comes in terms of the underlying hostility between the US - EU and has helped to clarify for me and strengthen my opposition to the Lisbon Treaty and the EU.

We have different standpoints. Apparently you want a Lisbon defeat at any cost and dont mind who you ally yourself with to get that. Im opposed to Lisbon and the EU because I'm opposed the the building up of big mutually hostile capitalist powers and in favour of an international alliance between working people.

We can all throw the word naive around. You think I have naive idealism and I think you have naive opportunism

Touché...

Not at any cost. I don't see a cost in having Libertas campaigning against Lisbon, only a gain. There are plenty of people with actual power to aim guns at, there is no danger any time soon of Libertas being in a position to start crucifying union leaders on trees, so I see no issue. Ganley brought people with him that might not otherwise have been brought over, and I'm happy about that. But no-one thinks he's responsible for the no vote itself. He's right-wing, that's his right, it's called democracy. Ad-hoc co-operation (and it's not even that really, all I am saying is that there is no purpose in attacking his politics when it will only do greater damage to the immediate goal) is perfectly sensible, not some purist's sell-out. On the other stuff here, if and when there is some actual evidence of wrongdoing by Ganley above and beyond the usual strokes and wheeler-dealing of most big-business types, then I'll have a pop. But while there's little except vague innuendo and unfocused griping, music but no lyrics, I'll keep my counsel and concentrate on the task at hand, sinking Lisbon...

You seem to see Libertas as an Irish entity only. Libertas is a Pan European Party. In Poland, Libertas already includes individuals associated with very nasty street violence against its "enemies".

This view of Libertas from Germany is interesting:
http://www.solon-line.de/the-irish-referendum.html

it is a bit over-reliant on information culled from Ganley press releases and interviews - the writer's Russian journalist friend has got most of his information from these sources, not locally. I don't share the standpoint of the writer, but I think his view in informed, rather than uninformed, speculation. I just read this for the first time, and my view of the increasingly hostile and competitive relations between the EU and US was arrived at independently from this writer's.

It can wait. We need Lisbon sunk. There'll be plenty time for sniping later, for now it serves no purpose except self-defeat.

We're not going to convince each other Toxic Avenger, and it won't be for want of having tried.

cactus flower wrote:

If I was only preoccupied with Ganley that might be a point, but I'm not. Following what Ganley stands for in Europe and identifying the US opposition to Lisbon has helped to clarify for me where Lisbon comes in terms of the underlying hostility between the US - EU and has helped to clarify for me and strengthen my opposition to the Lisbon Treaty and the EU.

We have different standpoints. Apparently you want a Lisbon defeat at any cost and dont mind who you ally yourself with to get that. Im opposed to Lisbon and the EU because I'm opposed the the building up of big mutually hostile capitalist powers and in favour of an international alliance between working people.

We can all throw the word naive around. You think I have naive idealism and I think you have naive opportunism

Wow Castus that is naive. You oppose the Lisbon Treaty because you want a weak Europe which will avoid a confrontation with the USA. I'd hate to have you watching my back in a tricky situation. How exactly will a weak Europe help us to negotiate with Russia over oil/gas? How will a weak Europe stop human rights abuses in China and Gaza? The world is changing from a unipolar world and in the future the EU will be only one block among many i.e. China, India, US etc. It will need to be strong, for example to stand up for democracy against the many threats (with the US). It needs to be strong to stand up for its citizens and their way of life. The Lisbon Treaty will help make the EU stronger politically. The EU already has a larger population and GDP then the USA, you have missed the boat if you think the EU is weak compared to the US.

The current recession and banking crisis showed us that the unrestrained capitalist model is in need of a rethink, personally I think the European socialist model is the answer. A stronger Europe will protect this way of life.

I can see why Cookie did not want to tell us who Lt Col Robin Matthews, chef de cabinet oof Libertas, is/was. peopleKorps has him as a former British Army spin doctor in charge of spinning the Brits actions in Helmund Afganistan . See Libertas Nein Danke

How many army guys are on Ganley's payroll ?

Frightened Albanian wrote:

I can see why Cookie did not want to tell us who Lt Col Robin Matthews, chef de cabinet oof Libertas, is/was. peopleKorps has him as a former British Army spin doctor in charge of spinning the Brits actions in Helmund Afganistan . See Libertas Nein Danke

How manyt army guys are on Ganley's payroll

Does "peoplekorps" actually do anything more than put a negitive spin on second hand information, follow links and copy and paste newspaper articles?

It's also shocking that I posted links to https://www.youtube.com/user/LibertasTV on my blog here: http://www.politics.ie/blogs/cookiemonster/86-some-websites-interest-libertas-watchers-out-there.html which contains a clip of Ganley introducing Libertas staff member to the group of interns in the Brussels office and that Robin's former position is mentioned in it and then for you and "peoplekorps" to pop moments later with breaking news. "Peoplekorps" is an idiot and an amateur and the reason I won't tell you anything is because you'd probably get it wrong.

And it's Helmand, not helmund.

Coolie,

It is interesting news from peoplekorps. I mean why does Ganley surround himself with all these military types? For someone who warned that the Lisbon Treaty would lead to a militarisation of Europe its a bit rich.

cookiemonster wrote:

Frightened Albanian wrote:

I can see why Cookie did not want to tell us who Lt Col Robin Matthews, chef de cabinet oof Libertas, is/was. peopleKorps has him as a former British Army spin doctor in charge of spinning the Brits actions in Helmund Afganistan . See Libertas Nein Danke

How manyt army guys are on Ganley's payroll

Does "peoplekorps" actually do anything more than put a negitive spin on second hand information, follow links and copy and paste newspaper articles?

It's also shocking that I posted links to https://www.youtube.com/user/LibertasTV on my blog here: http://www.politics.ie/blogs/cookiemonster/86-some-websites-interest-libertas-watchers-out-there.html which contains a clip of Ganley introducing Libertas staff member to the group of interns in the Brussels office and that Robin's former position is mentioned in it and then for you and "peoplekorps" to pop moments later with breaking news. "Peoplekorps" is an idiot and an amateur and the reason I won't tell you anything is because you'd probably get it wrong.

And it's Helmand, not helmund.

Are you suggesting that People korps reads your blog? How many hits on the Libertas TV channel?
how many armey guys does one ùman need to employ? Plus Gnaley has his siper cop Kevin O'Connell , his US generals , his former office 128 Mount St. hopuses companies employing Stellas Rimington and a billion dolllar war on terror investment fund run by James Woolsey Jnr. former head of the CIA

Art wrote:

Coolie,

Cookie.

Quote :

It is interesting news from peoplekorps. I mean why does Ganley surround himself with all these military types?

Well apart from the fact that he works with military types so he would have extansive access to military types and thus it wouldn't be unusual to draw from the pool of knowledge and ability to which one has access. But there are, as far as I am aware, only two "military types" involved in Libertas. One was actually a police man and the second is Robin Matthews.

Quote :

For someone who warned that the Lisbon Treaty would lead to a militarisation of Europe its a bit rich.

He did?

Frightened Albanian wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Frightened Albanian wrote:

I can see why Cookie did not want to tell us who Lt Col Robin Matthews, chef de cabinet oof Libertas, is/was. peopleKorps has him as a former British Army spin doctor in charge of spinning the Brits actions in Helmund Afganistan . See Libertas Nein Danke

How manyt army guys are on Ganley's payroll

Does "peoplekorps" actually do anything more than put a negitive spin on second hand information, follow links and copy and paste newspaper articles?

It's also shocking that I posted links to https://www.youtube.com/user/LibertasTV on my blog here: http://www.politics.ie/blogs/cookiemonster/86-some-websites-interest-libertas-watchers-out-there.html which contains a clip of Ganley introducing Libertas staff member to the group of interns in the Brussels office and that Robin's former position is mentioned in it and then for you and "peoplekorps" to pop moments later with breaking news. "Peoplekorps" is an idiot and an amateur and the reason I won't tell you anything is because you'd probably get it wrong.

And it's Helmand, not helmund.

Are you suggesting that People korps reads your blog?

Well you do. You made reference to it here not so long ago. Why wouldn't "peoplekorps"... ?

Quote :

how many armey guys does one ùman need to employ? Plus Gnaley has his siper cop Kevin O'Connell

Former commander in the London Met and deputy director of Europol.

Quote :

his US generals

Work for Rivada, not Libertas.

Quote :

his former office 128 Mount St. hopuses companies employing Stellas Rimington and a billion dolllar war on terror investment fund run by James Woolsey Jnr. former head of the CIA

I work in a building that houses a marketing company, does that company work for me now?

cookiemonster wrote:

extansive access to military types

Extensive not extansive.


Yes, during the treaty debates, he talked about conscription and the threat to Irelands neutrality.

Art wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

extansive access to military types

Extensive not extansive.


Yes, during the treaty debates, he talked about conscription and the threat to Irelands neutrality.

Where? When? What did he say?

Art wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

If I was only preoccupied with Ganley that might be a point, but I'm not. Following what Ganley stands for in Europe and identifying the US opposition to Lisbon has helped to clarify for me where Lisbon comes in terms of the underlying hostility between the US - EU and has helped to clarify for me and strengthen my opposition to the Lisbon Treaty and the EU.

We have different standpoints. Apparently you want a Lisbon defeat at any cost and dont mind who you ally yourself with to get that. Im opposed to Lisbon and the EU because I'm opposed the the building up of big mutually hostile capitalist powers and in favour of an international alliance between working people.

We can all throw the word naive around. You think I have naive idealism and I think you have naive opportunism

Quote :

Wow Castus that is naive. You oppose the Lisbon Treaty because you want a weak Europe which will avoid a confrontation with the USA. I'd hate to have you watching my back in a tricky situation. How exactly will a weak Europe help us to negotiate with Russia over oil/gas? How will a weak Europe stop human rights abuses in China and Gaza? The world is changing from a unipolar world and in the future the EU will be only one block among many i.e. China, India, US etc. It will need to be strong, for example to stand up for democracy against the many threats (with the US). It needs to be strong to stand up for its citizens and their way of life. The Lisbon Treaty will help make the EU stronger politically. The EU already has a larger population and GDP then the USA, you have missed the boat if you think the EU is weak compared to the US.

The current recession and banking crisis showed us that the unrestrained capitalist model is in need of a rethink, personally I think the European socialist model is the answer. A stronger Europe will protect this way of life.

I didn't set out my stall in full, so I can't complain that you haven't got what I am saying. But am I understanding you rightly that you are a socialist, and you think the USA is standing up for democracy internationally?

Art wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

extansive access to military types

Extensive not extansive.


Yes, during the treaty debates, he talked about conscription and the threat to Ireland's neutrality.

Yes Art while he himself talks of conscription to subdue Islam and works with the Us generals, US/Iraq military, hires cope, generals and admirals ..................private army private party private policies?

So Libertas is going to have different policies depending on the direction the wind is blowing in each of the different countries.

This was indicated by the rag bag of extreme right wingers (including one with a criminal record and another who is a member of the modern equivalent of the Freikorps) assembed as the "signatories" of Libertas. I would wonder if the agglomeration of conflicting policies and programmes could possibly be described as a political party.

If Libertas is not a conventional programme and policy-based party, what exactly is it?

With Europe increasingly economically destabilised and politically fragile, the appearance of a "strong man" party with military/state forces involvement was almost inevitable.

Frightened Albanian wrote:

Art wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

extansive access to military types

Extensive not extansive.


Yes, during the treaty debates, he talked about conscription and the threat to Irelands neutrality.

Yes Art while he himself talks of conscription to subdue Islam and works with tehn

Well that's nonsense. You again refer to a paper written by Ganley in August 2006 called The Cure at Troy:
Why the West Must Kick its Oil Habit and How.

The passage you are refering to is this one:
"The fact is that if Iraq and Iran were to be tamed and security risks eliminated, full mobilisation for war would have to be carried out, complete with drafts, rationing and all of what Churchill referred to as the "blood, toil, tears and sweat" that it takes to secure overwhelming victory. The Islamic radicals look at the western world and discern that we are too “relative”, unwilling to sacrifice, decadent, lacking real belief in a cause, devoid of faith, and what they consider too weak to go the distance. They believe that through faith, commitment whatever the cost, sacrifice and the direct help of God, they will be victorious. "

But what you in your blinding bias miss is that this isn't bring proposed, he goes on to say:
"
So given that the admirably peace-loving, civilized and educated peoples of the Western World have overwhelmingly shown that they do not wish to join the struggle in which radical Islam would have us engage, what can we do to offset the risk that they won't have the decency to leave us alone because we don't want to argue the point their way?

One thing we must do is bold, and will take almost unimaginable political courage and leadership. We must sever ourselves from Middle Eastern oil and gas, and as much as possible from all other sources of oil and gas. At least this will choke off the supply of our money to regimes, existing and shortly to come, who are not accountable to their own citizenry, do not need to tax their productivity (because they get our money) and thumb their noses at our values and requests. We may end up discovering that the recipients of our energy euro and dollars become outright enemies of everything we stand for. It was Lenin who said of Western capitalism “The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them”. The rope is the money we send for energy they did not create, erasing their need to raise public funds by taxing the economic ingenuity and productivity of their citizens, thus denied the symbiotic relationship between tax producer and tax spender, a most critical component of accountable responsible government."

He's not proposing we go to war exactly because it would involve "blood, toil, tears and sweat". He's proposing instead that we cut our dependence on Middle Eastern oil instead.

cookiemonster wrote:

Art wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

extansive access to military types

Extensive not extansive.


Yes, during the treaty debates, he talked about conscription and the threat to Irelands neutrality.

Where? When? What did he say?

Quote :

He refused to disassociate himself from the wild claims made by No
campaigners to the effect that the Lisbon Treaty would impose on
Ireland abortion, conscription
to a European army, the death penalty and higher corporation tax.
(Presumably what he meant when he said that in the referendum campaign
"every angle was looked at"). Interestingly, in the same room I
glimpsed an article by an American academic Andrew Moravcik, if
anything a slightly Eurosceptical commentator on European affairs,
whose verdict of Ganley's campaign is: "Libertas and like-minded groups specialise in spreading untruths by internet faster than they can be refuted".

above from Richard Corbett. I like the last line from Andrew Moravcik" "Libertas and like-minded groups specialise in spreading untruths by internet faster than they can be refuted" Good job blogs like Libertas Nein Danke, maman Poulet and Cedar Lounge spread the truth even faster and get higher google positions than say Cookie monsters blog