Showing posts with label Civil Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Civil Rights. Show all posts

Monday, 11 May 2015

GROVELLING BARSTURDS





Oliver Twist Manifesto

Get off your knees you grovelling bastards
This is Oliver twist pissing over Britannia
200 years of Tin Pan Alley
I learned good from a king thief mentor
Newgate, Broadstreet, Langdales Distillery
Papist threats and no popery
It's a beautiful night again
So paint the wall white again
Brutality for the kids
Oliver Twist

There was this gang who I used to run with
Ragamuffins, urchin scum, spivs
Looking good comes in handy
When you're dipping in the pockets of a dandy
And there's treason in the air, it's just a leap of faith
There's murder in the air at Rillington Place
A Christie lives in Soho
This is the Oliver Twist Manifesto
Totality for the kids
Oliver Twist

_

Neoliberalism? Neocons? These are the fraudulent names, $hame Fein operate under, while still claiming the Republican tag, as they administer the merger of state and corporate power, from a still sectarian Stormont in Occupied Ireland.. Mussolini called it "Fascism." It is now impossible to know in either parts of Ireland, where the corporations end or the government begins, with privatization and if people believe voting for Provisional $inn Fein will change that, the proof that they are in reality, old wine in new bottles, can be seen in their Stormont Administration. They have lost every shred of republican ideology and enforced Nazism, with street gangs and mafia law of the Baggot/Kray Twin variety, in collaboration, with British, political policing of the RUC/psni. The German Nazi party lived the high life and so do $inn Fein, with their padded, expense accounts. Their opulent lifestyle, is supported by British menial labour, that results in deprivation, in most of their scum state. Twenty years after they grovelled to the Bad Friday Agreement, on the backs of dead Freedom Fighters, it is time we stopped using obscure terms, like Neocon, Neoliberal, for these collaborators and their Blueshirt cousins in the south, and use the commonly understood name of Nazis.


The proof of their Mafia Law of street gangs, can be found in the graveyards of Belfast, Derry and South Armagh. The proof of their political policing and internment of Community Activists in Maghaberry, and their censorship of alternative voices in their manipulation and dirty tricks of social media and murdered victims of their mafia. Once again we have another Stormont ragime, sowing another bitter harvest. Their mantra of claiming to be forced to adminster Tory cuts, will simply not wash. Their predecessors the SDLP, had the politcal principles to boycott the monstrosity of Stormont, on these issues, along with political internment. You will find no principles, among the fat cats of unprincipled $hame Fein, who simply pad their bank accounts and blame dissident tactical voting, for their decline and loss of seats. If these dissident voices are as a scarce, as they claimed a few months ago, how come the SDLP, now have almost the same number or that they failed in North Belfast and Fermanagh/South Tyrone, where they campaigned, on a sectarian majority headcount and sectarian politics, that violate every non-sectraian traditional Irish Republican Principle. In so doing so, they have demonstrated in plain view, their opportunist, unprincipled, populist, self-serving, grovelling nature, in their lust for power at all costs, with a sociopathic zeal, that puts Hitler in the shade.


Almost fifty yeara ago, the Civil Rights Movement, exercised their right to march on Irish Occupied streets, along with exercising their right to Free Speech. Even those two Civil rights have now been removed from the people by the $inn Fein Administration. The people marched for equality and against Internment. Almost fifty years later, those demands have not been met. They were shot off the streets of Derry and Ballymurphy and as result, Freedom Fighters fought for the freedom of Irish citizens, who still remain British commoners, at her Majesty's service, courtesy of $inn Fein collaboration with the Orange Order. The ideals of freedom loving people, have been betrayed by collaborators, fascists with their mafia goons of enforccement. People of no property, will be forced to march again, to restore their birthright, Power to the People. The $inn Fein Stormont Junta excuses, of blaming the Tories or the Dissidents, will simply not wash anymore. They have utterly failed, to take the responsibilities of elected office, and in so doing enabled the rape of Irish children and the material rape of their communities. They are now, once again failing, with their blame games in the face of draconian cuts of basic services of any civilized society. 


The dire conditions of deprivation, almost thirty years after election, in their constiuencies of West Belfast, Derry and Newry, are testament, to their utter failure in elected office. Neither have the grovelling bastards, inpressed the Unionist tradition, as the recent election demonstrates. Their justifcation of persuasion, for Bad Friday, has no credibilty, whatsoever with Unioniosts, who watch their mix of grovelling brown nosing, coupled with sectarian headcounts, in utter disgust . Whether one calls it the Stocholm Syndrome, Gombeenism or Slave Mentality, they exhibit all the qualities of inter-generational paedophillia or poacher turned game-keeper. They are neither Republican or Socialist b

+y any measure. They are in reality Nazi, who blindly follow their Fuerher. Irish people will soon be confronted with this monster. We must call out it's activites for what they actually are, before it is too late, and get back on the street for our Civil Rights and Birth Rights!






The Inhuman Failure of ‘Austerity’

By David William Pear

May 09, 2015 "
Information Clearing House" - "Consortium News" -  Close your eyes and imagine an affluent society with subsonic trains crisscrossing the continent. One that produces unlimited clean energy. Provides basic healthcare for everyone. Values education for its own sake. Cultivates the arts and research to discover beauty and the unknown. An affluent society that responds with compassion to natural disaster. Conserves natural resources and protects the environment. And enjoys more leisure time. Cares about eliminating poverty and illiteracy. That ends racism and prejudice.Does the affluent society seem like a dream? Is it an impossible goal? The neoliberals think it is. They imagine a world of austerity and a new Gilded Age.
The neoliberals are prisoners of the Eighteenth Century. They have not advanced since the neo-feudal teachings of Adam Smith (1723-1790). Smith is the godfather of economics and wrote the “bible” of capitalism, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Smith was among the first to give much thought about economics.
In Eighteenth Century Great Britain, half the population lived in poverty. They survived, if they did, with disease, famine, illiteracy, lack of sanitation and in slums. It was normal then. Things had always been that way. They thought the poor, starving and ignorant mass of people would always be among them.  They thought their society was according to the law of nature.
Smith was a charitable man. He fretted about poverty, and gave a great deal of thought about wages. With a large pool of the unemployed, the new industrial class only had to pay subsistence wages.
Smith tried to tell the industrialists that people were like cattle. He said if one gave their cows more grass, then they would produce more milk. The industrialists said that if they gave their workers higher wages, then it would come out of profits, and the workers would just produce more children with mouths to feed, leading to greater starvation. The neoliberals still think this way.
Every progressive social project the neoliberals call it socialism, as if that is an obscene word. The only government projects they like are those that benefit the private sector, corporations and the wealthy.
Almost every modern democracy has done better than the US at providing good government for its people. All the evidence proves it. The US consistently ranks far below more progressive countries on the United Nations Human Development Index that measures health, education and equality of income.
On the Social Progress Index, which measures “Basic Human Needs, Foundations of Wellness, and Opportunity” (see interactive map); the US is ranked sixteenth, and well behind other developed democratic nations. Those countries doing better have not degenerated into totalitarianism, as the neoliberals predict.
The neoliberals see Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin behind every government social program. In the 1940s the neoliberal’s idol, Friedrich von Hayek (1899-1992) wrote a thesis called The Road to Serfdom. It is a simple book in its Eighteenth Century theories about government and freedom. There is a comic book version, courtesy of General Motors. Hayek won the Nobel Prize for it.
John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) and Hayek were colleagues at the London School of Economics. They had a long-running debate for years over the role of government. Keynes realized that government was important, that it has an active role in the economy. He said the government could do “good” and manage the economy well. Hayek said it was the road to serfdom.
Keynes was an economic advisor for the British government during World War I. He also advised the British during the Treaty of Versailles to negotiate Germany’s surrender. Keynes resigned from his position at Versailles in disgust, saying the harsh austerity the Allies were demanding of Germany and Austria would cause massive poverty and starvation. He said it was inhumane and would result in the rise of fascism and war. He proved to be right. He was not awarded the Nobel Prize.
In the Twenty-first Century, the European Union is imposing harsh austerity on its weaker members. The neoliberals are dismantling Europe’s progressive social programs. We are seeing the rise of fascism again too. So which is more likely to cause fascism and war: Austerity for the people, or progressive government social programs? Hayek said he did not mind a dictatorship, as long as it is neoliberal. The neoliberals like right-wing dictators.
During the Great Depression (1929-1939), President Franklin Delano Roosevelt turned to Keynes for advice about the Great Depression. Keynes wrote a letter to Roosevelt advising him on the need for government social programs to stimulate the economy. Keynes further warned FDR that lowering interest rates and increasing the money supply alone would only bailout speculators, but would not sustain economic recovery.
By contrast, President Barack Obama took the neoliberal advice in the Great Recession and bailed out the speculators. Keynes would have predicted that the result would be anemic economic recovery. He would have been right.
Keynes gave worthy advice that would do the American people well in the Twenty-first Century. The neoliberals keep sabotaging good advice from past sages. Their sabotage is well-funded by corporations, foundations, foreign governments and the wealthy.
John Kenneth Galbraith (1908-2006) was a genius with Twenty-first Century ideas. Galbraith served as an economic advisor to both FDR and John F. Kennedy.  His most famous book isThe Affluent Society (1958), a popular book during the 1960s.
During the Stagflation of the 1970s, the neoliberals allied with the religious-right and racists to purge Keynes’s and Galbraith’s teachings. In the 1980s, the Reagan-Thatcher revolution established neoliberals, corporate hegemony and right-wing extremists in the halls of power.
The first experiment of the neoliberals was in Chile during the 1970s. It led to the rise of Pinochet, fascism and crimes against humanity. Hayek said in a 1978 letter to the Times of London that he personally approved of Pinochet, preferring a dictator to a democratic government without neoliberalism.
Hayek made one excuse after another for Pinochet. He was not even faithful to his own principles, and said Pinochet’s firing squads would transition to democracy. Those on the wrong end of Pinochet’s firing squads would not live to see that miracle. The neoliberals never take responsibility, admit they are wrong, or say they are sorry. (See example, here.)
Galbraith’s discarded ideas had some excellent questions and answers to ponder in the Twenty-first Century. What is our obsession with economic growth and the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), when an affluent society already produces all the private goods and services needed, Galbraith asked? And, shouldn’t we be more concerned about what is produced instead of how much? He said there is a “problem with social balance … private affluence and public squalor … as well as related environmental, aesthetic, and cultural concerns.” He was a man for the Twenty-first Century.
Neoliberals are not against fascist and corporate planning of the economy. Fascists use the firing squad as their economic planning tool. Corporations use monopoly power, public relations departments and political graft. Corporations are hierarchical organizations that meet in secret to decide what to produce and the price people will pay. They spend billions of dollars on advertising to change consumer preferences and move their products off the shelves. Their propaganda has created a privatized culture of consumerism, materialism and gluttony.
The corporations are dictating government programs too. Their oligarchies have taken over governments globally at all levels. They plan the government and the economy for their own profit and greed. Corporate oligarchies and neoliberals attack every social program for the public. They impose austerity on the public sector and the people. The impoverished public sector is in dire need of investment.
Education could use a tsunami of new investment. The lack of investment for education, especially in poor neighborhoods, is glaring. The neoliberals blame “bad teachers.” They want to privatize public schools and hire proctors that will work for the minimum wage, so their hedge funds can make billions of dollars in profits that should be going to education.
Higher education is failing too. Students are condemned to indentured servitude to payoff student loans. Young people have been indoctrinated that the value of education is to learn how to work for corporations and the military.
College graduates discover that there are no jobs for their qualifications. Neoliberals stuck in the Eighteenth Century say the answer is that not everybody needs an education to be a widget or carry a gun. They want other people’s students to enroll in online schools pushed by their hedge funds, while their kids go to Harvard, Yale and MIT.
An affluent society needs educated people. There is a cadre of potential teachers, healthcare workers, nutritionists, scientists, sociologists, historians, artists, engineers and administrators now working at meaningless minimum wage jobs. There is an abundance of opportunity for college graduates in an affluent society.
New community centers could staff professionals to enrich the lives of seniors, teens and children. With people living longer, retired seniors could improve their lives and social activity by taking courses and enjoying the arts. Teens could have tutoring, learn to play chess, take music lessons, cooking classes, creative writing, languages, and have supervised sports. The possibilities for public investments and to improve the quality of life, and provide meaningful jobs are endless. Neoliberals want everybody to sit alone at home and watch TV.
Malnourished and neglected children are unacceptable in an affluent society. The problem is not a lack of resources. It is because of unequal distribution. There is a shameful lack of prenatal care. As a result, infant mortality in the US is higher than every developed nation. It is 30 percent higher than even Cuba, which the neoliberals constantly chastise about its human rights.
New parents could get healthcare, infant care and education in an affluent society. Instead, Eighteenth Century neoliberals want to kill Obamacare, Medicare and Medicaid; and they want to privatize the Veterans Administration. Their greed is insatiable.
Obama promised single-payer healthcare. The public got excited and wanted it. The Eighteenth Century neoliberals killed it in the womb. Long-term health care and homecare goes uncovered by any public insurance. Neoliberals let the old and disabled go without and die, as if those people are just useless eaters. Instead an affluent society would treat the old and disabled humanely; and single-payer healthcare would create more careers and professional jobs.
Twice a day every workday the highways are in gridlock with automobiles idling, burning fossil fuel and polluting the air. Clean, fast and comfortable light-rail and motor coaches would be quicker, more comfortable and use less energy. Building and operating a Twenty-first Century mass transportation industry would make commuting time productive and leisurely; and create more skilled jobs.
An affluent society should not neglect the unemployed. The public sector has the responsibility of full-employment and providing for those unemployed. Employees did not volunteer to be the risk-takers of capitalism. They should not be condemned to their fate because they were unlucky and chose the wrong industry or employer years ago.
Society must also face the reality that some people are permanently unable to work because of social, emotional and health reasons. The unemployed need treatment, counseling, education and care; which would also create more jobs.
These are just a few ideas, some from Galbraith’s The Affluent Society. As Galbraith said in 1958, the private sector is a king; the public sector is a pauper. They can both be royalty.
The neoliberals and their alter-ego, the neocons, do not have any good ideas for the Twenty-first Century. They have caused financial disasters and endless wars, and they tell us not to expect better.
Part of the public sector that is not a pauper but should be is the military. The military-industrial complex is wasting vast resources making machines of death. Society is spending trillions of dollars to send armies to invade other countries. We spend trillions of dollars in order to protect us from imaginary enemies and those that our wars have created. It does not make us any safer. The jobs that it creates do not add any value.
The Eighteen Century neoliberals and the neoconservatives say that government economic planning will destroy our freedom, while they plan the economy for war and financial speculation. The neocons say the American people must give up the Bill of Rights in exchange for safety. The neoliberals say that austerity will bring prosperity. Instead we are less free and more poor. They are leading us down the road to fascism and serfdom.
Let’s open our eyes and stop listening to the neoliberals.

Friday, 16 January 2015

2016 IRISH CITIZEN ARMY DIRECT DEMOCRACY



I am not by nature a violent man, in fact I abhor it to the point of carrying insects out of my home, rather than kill them. Having said that, there is something lying around strictly for self-defensive purposes, should someone enter the boundaries of our home, in today's lawless corporate society. I have witnessed more than my fair share of violence in my lifetime and I certainly do not condone rape of any kind but I am also full of contradictions between my head and my heart.The following experience is a good example of this.

I was staying in a four-star hotel at the time in Bangkok, and unlike most hotels, on this particular night, there was no protection on the windows, against mosquitos entering my bedroom. Now when I am awakened by something like that, I am not a cosmopolitan man, so I phoned reception and asked them to send up something, to get rid of the mosquitos, that were plaguing me, but they had nothing in their arsenal. I was enraged with the bastards who were bloodsucking my arse, testicles and any flesh they could find all phukin night, while I tried to sleep, for some important business, I needed  to do next day.

Anyway, after I returned to my bedroom from business next day, there was an attractive chief housekeeper, standing at the foot of the bed, who asked me what my problem was. After I explained to her explicitly, in a rather emotional way and asked her to please get an aerosol or something, she stood at the foot of my bed, as bould as brass, sneering at me, with a glint in her eye. She said, "this is a buddhist culture and mosquitos have to live too".Well I was incensed and I just wanted to slam her on the bed and give her the hardest phuck, she ever had in her life. By the grace of the star dust and experience I did not. I am not respsonsible for what comes into my head, only what I do with it. So please forgive me sisters and brothers but there's a dark dog lurking in these savage veins,  especially when aroused by some creature drawing blood, from this thin skin or someone provoking my sensitive veneer of civility.

Violence is not smart, particularly reactionary violence and as Mairead Farrell said,  "our head is our best weapon". She too however was martyred by political violence, which is part of the many contradictions of Irish political reality.The big question however, is what does a wee country like Ireland do, when you have had mosquitos torturing you for eight hundred years or a dirty war of British counter gangs, lurking on your doorstep, under the false flag of sectarianism or political counter gangs, like the one who murdered Charlie Hebdo? I have scripted in a petition from Care2 for the Irish Holocaust to be taken to the ICC for adjudication but It has been censored since day one? 

How do we achieve justice intelligently, without unnecessary violence, with such a perfidious enemy? Young, impetuous  revolutionaries are not going to listen to the counsel of experience or excess, unless they are presented with a better way. The reality is that our so called present Democracy, is not a facilitator of genuine change or social justice.Technology has advanced considerably since the guerilla days of Tom Barry. It brings with it, a considerable upside and downside to the traditional tactics of revolution, indeed if not, it makes it next to impossible, without overwhelming citizen support and solidarity. While the internet holds considerable potential, surveillance technology, leaves little privacy, if any, to ordinary citizens. This must be factored into any resistance leadership choices and decisions. Youth are impatient by nature and are not going to hang around, while we are pensive about it.

I am not a born-again virgin, as anyone who knows me well, will testify. I have known poverty of the worst kind, which often includes poverty of the Spirit of Freedom, as Bobby Sands called it. It is the worst poverty of all, and many have it stolen by our present, education system of censorship and ignorance. Case in point being, that almost all students of third level education in Ireland, are not aware, that the greatest crime against humanity on earth, i.e the Irish Holocaust, was committed by the British Government and cost more than 6 million lives, not the one million famine, they are brainwashed with. Now I have been in prison, but the worst prison of all, from my own experience, is extreme self-centeredness, something the Irish education system cultivates. I have also tasted my own personal freedom, which is conditional on your freedom. Yes, the truth really did set me free, but it is also conditional on passing it on. So my reasons for writing are not entirely altruistic. I know from experience, that freedom starts with the truth and as a result, I detest masks of any kind, whether it be a fake or condescending smile, a patronizing one, talking out of the side of the mouth, censorship of any kind, astroturf societies, poser  balaclavas and hypocritical establishment concern for Charlie Hebdo.

The Charlie Hebdo affair, clearly demonstrates, that any citizen army, wearing masks, in the age of the terrorist narrative, leaves itself wide open, for serious abuse and discredit of the Cause, for which we claim justice. From my own experience, and reading Craig Robert's analysis yesterday, I would guess, there was considerable British involvement in the matter and that volunteers, on orders from what was formerly British Aden, now known as Yemen, were waiting for the car used in the attack, at a predetermined venue, while the real murders made their excape, as the two brothers, paid the price with their lives, case closed. I could be wrong, i have no evidence, other than very similar experiences in Ireland, directed by British intelligence, which is still on going. The two young innocent boys in the picture, at the top of this page, are in fact victims of quite similar activity, with critical recorded transcripts, edited for the trial, in the same manner, as the unedited video released of the Charlie Hebdo attack.

We simply need to find a more intelligent way, in this time and cyberspace. Those who fail to grasp this, are failing their citizens, with unnecessary bloodshed and decades of incarceration of volunteers, with the highest ideals, coupled with bravery. Their release needs to be negotiated, and a new, more intelligent form of resistance to imperialism and corporatism, needs to be found sooner rather than later. So to any potential militant, I call on them, to consider this, and either lead, follow or get out of the way, intelligently. The island is full of headless chickens, flapping around aimlessly and it needs unity, direction with solidarity, for the sake of it's long tortured people. I learned in the process of being forced to get honest with myself first, that ego and foolish pride, pre-empt downfall and we simply cannot afford this any longer. This is not to be confused with the humility and pride, that comes with serving and making sacrifices like those made in 1916 and the Hunger Strike, for our communal identity and liberation. Too much ego is a terrible thing as I know from personal experience. I don't have all the anwers, no more than I have a monopoly on the truth. This can only be arrived at, in the dialectic of materialism, in an unfettered, uncensored, discourse.

The tricolour was taken from the Revolution in Paris by Irish Protestants, to become an emblem of the the Irish Republic. Alongside it in Irish Republican tradition, the Starry Plough and flags of the four Provinces have always flown. It appears, that right now, little unity can be found within or without that tradition, behind the tricolour, but surely all of the Irish working class, can find common purpose and Unity for now, behind the Starry Plough. Until we are materially free, we cannot realize our aspiration for the visionary unity of the 1916 leadership, because of British divide and rule tactics in the the dsicourse 

All traditions which survive the test of time, pay good heed to it's elders. Only they have the true wisdom, that can only be forged in the cauldron of experience and excess. Heaven knows, for a small island, we have experienced more than our fair share of violence, only to be sold out, time and time again, that has taken us backward not forward. Only the people of no property, without vested interest other than it's class consciousness, can guarantee and protect the gains and progress of revolution. No one else can be trusted, human nature is greedy and selfish, without, transparent, guarantees of protection. The political violence, since the massed ranks of the Civil Rights protests were massacred on January 30, 1972, 42 years ago, has not progressed Ireland one iota. Working people have been sold out and it will continue that way, until Irish people, empower themselves and regulate themselves, on a day to day basis. The armalite did not win equality. Anything that traspired in that direction, was a consequence of the Civil Rights campaign, which would have happened anyway.

We have plenty of people, with  a proven track record of integrity in the north, who have not sold out, like Bernadette McAliskey, Eamon McCann, Martin Corey, Marian Price, Francie Mackie, that can be trusted, to counsel a younger generation of people, serving a united leadership of working people, as opposed to the present self serving one, that cannot be trusted, which along with the Right2Water movement in the south, can lead and liberate. We already have had more than enough cannon fodder of Irish men and women dying for the sellouts, the captains and the kings of exploitation. We are living in an internet age, where direct working class democracy is possible. I am not so naive as to believe it can be entirely achieved in cyberspace. No one has a monopoly on the Truth. The Solidarity and Unity of the people of no property, behind ethical leadership of Principles, not Personalities, is a necessity. We have to work for it as persistently, intelligently and as transparently, as did our comrades of the past on the battle field, to overcome censorship, masks, disinformation and tyranny.

Those who do not learn from the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it, the voice of experience tells us. We have been sold out time and again by those whom we have delegated with our own empowerment. This is irresponsible, it does not fit with the Protestant ethic of taking responsibilty for ourselves and our children's future. You don't have to be particularly bright, at reading the political tea leaves of the island, to see that it's a horrific future, with bank debt and sectarianism, little wonder we have the fourth highest rate of suicide in the world among our male teens. Direct, Transparent, Uncensored, Democracy is the way of the future. We have to make it happen now as an alternative to political violence. We must occupy it. The only credible, realistic way to occupy and honour 1916, is to unite behind the Starry Plough, until our Republic is realized. Like the epitaph of Robert Emmet, the 1916 Republic can only be honoured properly, by uniting and achieving our place among the Nation's of the World with nonour, with the Starry Plough on our mast. Again I call on all progressive leadership on the island, to consider this, and either lead, follow or get out of the way, under the flag of the Starry Plough, with the tools of direct democracy. Please if you are an activist, bring this to their attention, as it is censored and make it happen.



The Secret History of Guns

The Ku Klux Klan, Ronald Reagan, and, for most of its history, the NRA all worked to control guns. The Founding Fathers? They required gun ownership—and regulated it. And no group has more fiercely advocated the right to bear loaded weapons in public than the Black Panthers—the true pioneers of the modern pro-gun movement. In the battle over gun rights in America, both sides have distorted history and the law, and there’s no resolution in sight.ADAM WINKLER

Joseph Durning/Durning 3D

THE EIGHTH-GRADE STUDENTS gathering on the west lawn of the state capitol in Sacramento were planning to lunch on fried chicken with California’s new governor, Ronald Reagan, and then tour the granite building constructed a century earlier to resemble the nation’s Capitol. But the festivities were interrupted by the arrival of 30 young black men and women carrying .357 Magnums, 12-gauge shotguns, and .45-caliber pistols.



The 24 men and six women climbed the capitol steps, and one man, Bobby Seale, began to read from a prepared statement. “The American people in general and the black people in particular,” he announced, must
take careful note of the racist California legislature aimed at keeping the black people disarmed and powerless Black people have begged, prayed, petitioned, demonstrated, and everything else to get the racist power structure of America to right the wrongs which have historically been perpetuated against black people The time has come for black people to arm themselves against this terror before it is too late.

Seale then turned to the others. “All right, brothers, come on. We’re going inside.” He opened the door, and the radicals walked straight into the state’s most important government building, loaded guns in hand. No metal detectors stood in their way.

THE TEXT OF the Second Amendment is maddeningly ambiguous. It merely says, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Yet to each side in the gun debate, those words are absolutely clear.It was May 2, 1967, and the Black Panthers’ invasion of the California statehouse launched the modern gun-rights movement.

Gun-rights supporters believe the amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms and outlaws most gun control. Hard-line gun-rights advocates portray even modest gun laws as infringements on that right and oppose widely popular proposals—such as background checks for all gun purchasers—on the ground that any gun-control measure, no matter how seemingly reasonable, puts us on the slippery slope toward total civilian disarmament.

This attitude was displayed on the side of the National Rifle Association’s former headquarters: THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The first clause of the Second Amendment, the part about “a well regulated Militia,” was conveniently omitted. To the gun lobby, the Second Amendment is all rights and no regulation.

Although decades of electoral defeats have moderated the gun-control movement’s stated goals, advocates still deny that individual Americans have any constitutional right to own guns. The Second Amendment, in their view, protects only state militias. Too politically weak to force disarmament on the nation, gun-control hard-liners support any new law that has a chance to be enacted, however unlikely that law is to reduce gun violence. For them, the Second Amendment is all regulation and no rights.

While the two sides disagree on the meaning of the Second Amendment, they share a similar view of the right to bear arms: both see such a right as fundamentally inconsistent with gun control, and believe we must choose one or the other. Gun rights and gun control, however, have lived together since the birth of the country. Americans have always had the right to keep and bear arms as a matter of state constitutional law. Today, 43 of the 50 state constitutions clearly protect an individual’s right to own guns, apart from militia service.

Yet we’ve also always had gun control. The Founding Fathers instituted gun laws so intrusive that, were they running for office today, the NRA would not endorse them. While they did not care to completely disarm the citizenry, the founding generation denied gun ownership to many people: not only slaves and free blacks, but law-abiding white men who refused to swear loyalty to the Revolution.

For those men who were allowed to own guns, the Founders had their own version of the “individual mandate” that has proved so controversial in President Obama’s health-care-reform law: they required the purchase of guns. A 1792 federal law mandated every eligible man to purchase a military-style gun and ammunition for his service in the citizen militia. Such men had to report for frequent musters—where their guns would be inspected and, yes, registered on public rolls.

OPPOSITION TO GUN CONTROL was what drove the black militants to visit the California capitol with loaded weapons in hand. The Black Panther Party had been formed six months earlier, in Oakland, by Huey Newton and Bobby Seale. Like many young African Americans, Newton and Seale were frustrated with the failed promise of the civil-rights movement. Brown v. Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were legal landmarks, but they had yet to deliver equal opportunity. In Newton and Seale’s view, the only tangible outcome of the civil-rights movement had been more violence and oppression, much of it committed by the very entity meant to protect and serve the public: the police.

Inspired by the teachings of Malcolm X, Newton and Seale decided to fight back. Before he was assassinated in 1965, Malcolm X had preached against Martin Luther King Jr.’s brand of nonviolent resistance. Because the government was “either unable or unwilling to protect the lives and property” of blacks, he said, they had to defend themselves “by whatever means necessary.” Malcolm X illustrated the idea for Ebony magazine by posing for photographs in suit and tie, peering out a window with an M-1 carbine semiautomatic in hand. Malcolm X and the Panthers described their right to use guns in self-defense in constitutional terms. “Article number two of the constitutional amendments,” Malcolm X argued, “provides you and me the right to own a rifle or a shotgun.”

Guns became central to the Panthers’ identity, as they taught their early recruits that “the gun is the only thing that will free us—gain us our liberation.” They bought some of their first guns with earnings from selling copies of Mao Zedong’s Little Red Book to students at the University of California at Berkeley. In time, the Panther arsenal included machine guns; an assortment of rifles, handguns, explosives, and grenade launchers; and “boxes and boxes of ammunition,” recalled Elaine Brown, one of the party’s first female members, in her 1992 memoir. Some of this matériel came from the federal government: one member claimed he had connections at Camp Pendleton, in Southern California, who would sell the Panthers anything for the right price. One Panther bragged that, if they wanted, they could have bought an M48 tank and driven it right up the freeway.

Along with providing classes on black nationalism and socialism, Newton made sure recruits learned how to clean, handle, and shoot guns. Their instructors were sympathetic black veterans, recently home from Vietnam. For their “righteous revolutionary struggle,” the Panthers were trained, as well as armed, however indirectly, by the U.S. government.

Civil-rights activists, even those committed to nonviolent resistance, had long appreciated the value of guns for self-protection. Martin Luther King Jr. applied for a permit to carry a concealed firearm in 1956, after his house was bombed. His application was denied, but from then on, armed supporters guarded his home. One adviser, Glenn Smiley, described the King home as “an arsenal.” William Worthy, a black reporter who covered the civil-rights movement, almost sat on a loaded gun in a living-room armchair during a visit to King’s parsonage.

The Panthers, however, took it to an extreme, carrying their guns in public, displaying them for everyone—especially the police—to see. Newton had discovered, during classes at San Francisco Law School, that California law allowed people to carry guns in public so long as they were visible, and not pointed at anyone in a threatening way.

In February of 1967, Oakland police officers stopped a car carrying Newton, Seale, and several other Panthers with rifles and handguns. When one officer asked to see one of the guns, Newton refused. “I don’t have to give you anything but my identification, name, and address,” he insisted. This, too, he had learned in law school.

“Who in the hell do you think you are?” an officer responded.

“Who in the hell do you think you are?,” Newton replied indignantly. He told the officer that he and his friends had a legal right to have their firearms.

Newton got out of the car, still holding his rifle.

“What are you going to do with that gun?” asked one of the stunned policemen.

“What are you going to do with your gun?,” Newton replied.

By this time, the scene had drawn a crowd of onlookers. An officer told the bystanders to move on, but Newton shouted at them to stay. California law, he yelled, gave civilians a right to observe a police officer making an arrest, so long as they didn’t interfere. Newton played it up for the crowd. In a loud voice, he told the police officers, “If you try to shoot at me or if you try to take this gun, I’m going to shoot back at you, swine.” Although normally a black man with Newton’s attitude would quickly find himself handcuffed in the back of a police car, enough people had gathered on the street to discourage the officers from doing anything rash. Because they hadn’t committed any crime, the Panthers were allowed to go on their way.

The people who’d witnessed the scene were dumbstruck. Not even Bobby Seale could believe it. Right then, he said, he knew that Newton was the “baddest motherfucker in the world.” Newton’s message was clear: “The gun is where it’s at and about and in.” After the February incident, the Panthers began a regular practice of policing the police. Thanks to an army of new recruits inspired to join up when they heard about Newton’s bravado, groups of armed Panthers would drive around following police cars. When the police stopped a black person, the Panthers would stand off to the side and shout out legal advice.

Don Mulford, a conservative Republican state assemblyman from Alameda County, which includes Oakland, was determined to end the Panthers’ police patrols. To disarm the Panthers, he proposed a law that would prohibit the carrying of a loaded weapon in any California city. When Newton found out about this, he told Seale, “You know what we’re going to do? We’re going to the Capitol.” Seale was incredulous. “The Capitol?” Newton explained: “Mulford’s there, and they’re trying to pass a law against our guns, and we’re going to the Capitol steps.” Newton’s plan was to take a select group of Panthers “loaded down to the gills,” to send a message to California lawmakers about the group’s opposition to any new gun control.


THE PANTHERS’ METHODS provoked an immediate backlash. The day of their statehouse protest, lawmakers said the incident would speed enactment of Mulford’s gun-control proposal. Mulford himself pledged to make his bill even tougher, and he added a provision barring anyone but law enforcement from bringing a loaded firearm into the state capitol.

Republicans in California eagerly supported increased gun control. Governor Reagan told reporters that afternoon that he saw “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.” He called guns a “ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.” In a later press conference, Reagan said he didn’t “know of any sportsman who leaves his home with a gun to go out into the field to hunt or for target shooting who carries that gun loaded.” The Mulford Act, he said, “would work no hardship on the honest citizen.”

The fear inspired by black people with guns also led the United States Congress to consider new gun restrictions, after the summer of 1967 brought what the historian Harvard Sitkoff called the “most intense and destructive wave of racial violence the nation had ever witnessed.” Devastating riots engulfed Detroit and Newark. Police and National Guardsmen who tried to help restore order were greeted with sniper fire.

A 1968 federal report blamed the unrest at least partly on the easy availability of guns. Because rioters used guns to keep law enforcement at bay, the report’s authors asserted that a recent spike in firearms sales and permit applications was “directly related to the actuality and prospect of civil disorders.” They drew “the firm conclusion that effective firearms controls are an essential contribution to domestic peace and tranquility.”

Political will in Congress reached the critical point around this time. In April of 1968, James Earl Ray, a virulent racist, used a Remington Gamemaster deer rifle to kill Martin Luther King Jr. in Memphis, Tennessee. King’s assassination—and the sniper fire faced by police trying to quell the resulting riots—gave gun-control advocates a vivid argument. Two months later, a man wielding a .22-caliber Iver Johnson Cadet revolver shot Robert F. Kennedy in Los Angeles. The very next day, Congress passed the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, the first federal gun-control law in 30 years. Months later, the Gun Control Act of 1968 amended and enlarged it.

Together, these laws greatly expanded the federal licensing system for gun dealers and clarified which people—including anyone previously convicted of a felony, the mentally ill, illegal-drug users, and minors—were not allowed to own firearms. More controversially, the laws restricted importation of “Saturday Night Specials”—the small, cheap, poor-quality handguns so named by Detroit police for their association with urban crime, which spiked on weekends. Because these inexpensive pistols were popular in minority communities, one critic said the new federal gun legislation “was passed not to control guns but to control blacks.”

INDISPUTABLY, FOR MUCH of American history, gun-control measures, like many other laws, were used to oppress African Americans. The South had long prohibited blacks, both slave and free, from owning guns. In the North, however, at the end of the Civil War, the Union army allowed soldiers of any color to take home their rifles. Even blacks who hadn’t served could buy guns in the North, amid the glut of firearms produced for the war. President Lincoln had promised a “new birth of freedom,” but many blacks knew that white Southerners were not going to go along easily with such a vision. As one freedman in Louisiana recalled, “I would say to every colored soldier, ‘Bring your gun home.’”

After losing the Civil War, Southern states quickly adopted the Black Codes, laws designed to reestablish white supremacy by dictating what the freedmen could and couldn’t do. One common provision barred blacks from possessing firearms. To enforce the gun ban, white men riding in posses began terrorizing black communities. In January 1866, Harper’s Weekly reported that in Mississippi, such groups had “seized every gun and pistol found in the hands of the (so called) freedmen” in parts of the state. The most infamous of these disarmament posses, of course, was the Ku Klux Klan.

IN RESPONSE TO the Black Codes and the mounting atrocities against blacks in the former Confederacy, the North sought to reaffirm the freedmen’s constitutional rights, including their right to possess guns. General Daniel E. Sickles, the commanding Union officer enforcing Reconstruction in South Carolina, ordered in January 1866 that “the constitutional rights of all loyal and well-disposed inhabitants to bear arms will not be infringed.” When South Carolinians ignored Sickles’s order and others like it, Congress passed the Freedmen’s Bureau Act of July 1866, which assured ex-slaves the “full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty … including the constitutional right to bear arms.”

That same year, Congress passed the nation’s first Civil Rights Act, which defined the freedmen as United States citizens and made it a federal offense to deprive them of their rights on the basis of race. Senator James Nye, a supporter of both laws, told his colleagues that the freedmen now had an “equal right to protection, and to keep and bear arms for self-defense.” President Andrew Johnson vetoed both laws. Congress overrode the vetoes and eventually made Johnson the first president to be impeached.

One prosecutor in the impeachment trial, Representative John Bingham of Ohio, thought that the only way to protect the freedmen’s rights was to amend the Constitution. Southern attempts to deny blacks equal rights, he said, were turning the Constitution—“a sublime and beautiful scripture—into a horrid charter of wrong.” In December of 1865, Bingham had proposed what would become the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Among its provisions was a guarantee that all citizens would be secure in their fundamental rights:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The key phrase, in Bingham’s view, was privileges or immunities of citizens—and those “privileges or immunities,” he said, were “chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution.” Jacob Howard of Michigan, the principal sponsor of Bingham’s amendment in the Senate, reminded his colleagues that these amendments guaranteed “the freedom of speech and of the press,” “the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures,” and “the right to keep and bear arms.”

Whether or not the Founding Fathers thought the Second Amendment was primarily about state militias, the men behind the Fourteenth Amendment—America’s most sacred and significant civil-rights law—clearly believed that the right of individuals to have guns for self-defense was an essential element of citizenship. As the Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar has observed, “Between 1775 and 1866 the poster boy of arms morphed from the Concord minuteman to the Carolina freedman.”

The Fourteenth Amendment illustrates a common dynamic in America’s gun culture: extremism stirs a strong reaction. The aggressive Southern effort to disarm the freedmen prompted a constitutional amendment to better protect their rights. A hundred years later, the Black Panthers’ brazen insistence on the right to bear arms led whites, including conservative Republicans, to support new gun control. Then the pendulum swung back. The gun-control laws of the late 1960s, designed to restrict the use of guns by urban black leftist radicals, fueled the rise of the present-day gun-rights movement—one that, in an ironic reversal, is predominantly white, rural, and politically conservative.


TODAY, THE NRA is the unquestioned leader in the fight against gun control. Yet the organization didn’t always oppose gun regulation. Founded in 1871 by George Wingate and William Church—the latter a former reporter for a newspaper now known for hostility to gun rights, The New York Times—the group first set out to improve American soldiers’ marksmanship. Wingate and Church had fought for the North in the Civil War and been shocked by the poor shooting skills of city-bred Union soldiers.

In the 1920s and ’30s, the NRA was at the forefront of legislative efforts to enact gun control. The organization’s president at the time was Karl T. Frederick, a Princeton- and Harvard-educated lawyer known as “the best shot in America”—a title he earned by winning three gold medals in pistol-shooting at the 1920 Summer Olympic Games. As a special consultant to the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Frederick helped draft the Uniform Firearms Act, a model of state-level gun-control legislation. (Since the turn of the century, lawyers and public officials had increasingly sought to standardize the patchwork of state laws. The new measure imposed more order—and, in most cases, far more restrictions.)

Frederick’s model law had three basic elements. The first required that no one carry a concealed handgun in public without a permit from the local police. A permit would be granted only to a “suitable” person with a “proper reason for carrying” a firearm. Second, the law required gun dealers to report to law enforcement every sale of a handgun, in essence creating a registry of small arms. Finally, the law imposed a two-day waiting period on handgun sales.

The NRA today condemns every one of these provisions as a burdensome and ineffective infringement on the right to bear arms. Frederick, however, said in 1934 that he did “not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.” The NRA’s executive vice president at the time, Milton A. Reckord, told a congressional committee that his organization was “absolutely favorable to reasonable legislation.” According to Frederick, the NRA “sponsored” the Uniform Firearms Act and promoted it nationwide. Highlighting the political strength of the NRA even back then, a 1932Virginia Law Review article reported that laws requiring a license to carry a concealed weapon were already “in effect in practically every jurisdiction.”

When Congress was considering the first significant federal gun law of the 20th century—the National Firearms Act of 1934, which imposed a steep tax and registration requirements on “gangster guns” like machine guns and sawed-off shotguns—the NRA endorsed the law. Karl Frederick and the NRA did not blindly support gun control; indeed, they successfully pushed to have similar prohibitive taxes on handguns stripped from the final bill, arguing that people needed such weapons to protect their homes. Yet the organization stood firmly behind what Frederick called “reasonable, sensible, and fair legislation.”

One thing conspicuously missing from Frederick’s comments about gun control was the Second Amendment. When asked during his testimony on the National Firearms Act whether the proposed law violated “any constitutional provision,” he responded, “I have not given it any study from that point of view.” In other words, the president of the NRA hadn’t even considered whether the most far-reaching federal gun-control legislation in history conflicted with the Second Amendment. Preserving the ability of law-abiding people to have guns, Frederick would write elsewhere, “lies in an enlightened public sentiment and in intelligent legislative action. It is not to be found in the Constitution.”

In the 1960s, the NRA once again supported the push for new federal gun laws. After the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 by Lee Harvey Oswald, who had bought his gun through a mail-order ad in the NRA’s American Rifleman magazine, Franklin Orth, then the NRA’s executive vice president, testified in favor of banning mail-order rifle sales. “We do not think that any sane American, who calls himself an American, can object to placing into this bill the instrument which killed the president of the United States.” Orth and the NRA didn’t favor stricter proposals, like national gun registration, but when the final version of the Gun Control Act was adopted in 1968, Orth stood behind the legislation. While certain features of the law, he said, “appear unduly restrictive and unjustified in their application to law-abiding citizens, the measure as a whole appears to be one that the sportsmen of America can live with.”

A GROWING GROUP OF rank-and-file NRA members disagreed. In an era of rising crime rates, fewer people were buying guns for hunting, and more were buying them for protection. The NRA leadership didn’t fully grasp the importance of this shift. In 1976, Maxwell Rich, the executive vice president, announced that the NRA would sell its building in Washington, D.C., and relocate the headquarters to Colorado Springs, retreating from political lobbying and expanding its outdoor and environmental activities.

Rich’s plan sparked outrage among the new breed of staunch, hard-line gun-rights advocates. The dissidents were led by a bald, blue-eyed bulldog of a man named Harlon Carter, who ran the NRA’s recently formed lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action. In May 1977, Carter and his allies staged a coup at the annual membership meeting. Elected the new executive vice president, Carter would transform the NRA into a lobbying powerhouse committed to a more aggressive view of what the Second Amendment promises to citizens.

The new NRA was not only responding to the wave of gun-control laws enacted to disarm black radicals; it also shared some of the Panthers’ views about firearms. Both groups valued guns primarily as a means of self-defense. Both thought people had a right to carry guns in public places, where a person was easily victimized, and not just in the privacy of the home. They also shared a profound mistrust of law enforcement. (For years, the NRA has demonized government agents, like those in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the federal agency that enforces gun laws, as “jack-booted government thugs.” Wayne LaPierre, the current executive vice president, warned members in 1995 that anyone who wears a badge has “the government’s go-ahead to harass, intimidate, even murder law-abiding citizens.”) For both the Panthers in 1967 and the new NRA after 1977, law-enforcement officers were too often representatives of an uncaring government bent on disarming ordinary citizens.

A sign of the NRA’s new determination to influence electoral politics was the 1980 decision to endorse, for the first time in the organization’s 100 years, a presidential candidate. Their chosen candidate was none other than Ronald Reagan, who more than a decade earlier had endorsed Don Mulford’s law to disarm the Black Panthers—a law that had helped give Reagan’s California one of the strictest gun-control regimes in the nation. Reagan’s views had changed considerably since then, and the NRA evidently had forgiven his previous support of vigorous gun control.

IN 2008, IN A LANDMARK ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that the government cannot ever completely disarm the citizenry. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court clearly held, for the first time, that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to possess a gun. In an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court declared unconstitutional several provisions of the District’s unusually strict gun-control law, including its ban on handguns and its prohibition of the use of long guns for self-defense. Indeed, under D.C.’s law, you could own a shotgun, but you could not use it to defend yourself against a rapist climbing through your bedroom window.

Gun-rights groups trumpeted the ruling as the crowning achievement of the modern gun-rights movement and predicted certain victory in their war to end gun control. Their opponents criticized the Court’s opinion as right-wing judicial activism that would call into question most forms of gun control and lead inevitably to more victims of gun violence.

So far, at least, neither side’s predictions have come true. The courts have been inundated with lawsuits challenging nearly every type of gun regulation; in the three years since the Supreme Court’s decision, lower courts have issued more than 200 rulings on the constitutionality of gun control. In a disappointment to the gun-rights community, nearly all laws have been upheld.

The lower courts consistently point to one paragraph in particular from theHeller decision. Nothing in the opinion, Scalia wrote, should
be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

This paragraph from the pen of Justice Scalia, the foremost proponent of constitutional originalism, was astounding. True, the Founders imposed gun control, but they had no laws resembling Scalia’s list of Second Amendment exceptions. They had no laws banning guns in sensitive places, or laws prohibiting the mentally ill from possessing guns, or laws requiring commercial gun dealers to be licensed. Such restrictions are products of the 20th century. Justice Scalia, in other words, embraced a living Constitution. In this, Heller is a fine reflection of the ironies and contradictions—and the selective use of the past—that run throughout America’s long history with guns.

Wednesday, 7 January 2015

CARE2 ENLIGHTEN IRISH HOLOCAUST CENSORED IGNORANCE




I have learned from experiemce, that when approaching the truth, ir is better to start with myself and my own experiences. I have described in previous articles, traumatic experience from home and my life, relevant to this subject. My parents passed on to me their experience, from Ireland's eternal war with itself and the British Government. It has left a bitter, painful, legacy, that I have tried to come to terms with, in a healthy progressive direction. As a result I believe that it is critical that Ireland has a proper, transparent forum of international standing, to come to terms with it's inherited history, going back to the Irish Holocaust, which was historically, Ireland's most traumatic event and has shaped our modern culture considerably, with all it's ills and graces.

The beat way I can try to explain some of this, is with my pet dog, called Tibet, who is of the Shih Tzu breed and was given to me, as a very young pup, as a present. Like the pet dog of my childhood, which was more of a fox than a dog and one of my joyful childhood memories. Spontanaeity and loyalty, being their most notable characteristic. Relying primarily, on their keen sense of smell and hearing, Tibet my present pet is more aware, earnest and loyal than most humans I have known in my lifetime. Teddy my childood pet, was by far my best firend. Tibet who was given to me as a pup too young to have learned much from it's mother, and has rarely been around other dogs, so it constantly amazes me just where he learned, so much of his behaviour and I can only conclude, it is in his DNA. 


Even at very long distances, at the faintes sound of fireworks, Tibet will run for cover immediately and hide until it is long gone. I am convinced it is connected, with ancestral memories of gunfire, while he fears any expanse of water, to the point, that he has broken his dog leash on the beach, many times to get away from the sea. Like myself he is generally a happy dog but he also, still has his issues. 

When I was young, my mother used to tell me stories, about wounded Irish rebels, that her father used to take across the Shannon river from north Tipperary by boat because, being on the run, they could not get medical help there. Some were gruesome tales, particulrly those shot in the stomach. Unlike these stories, the Irish Holocaust, has long been a taboo subject in Ireland along with it's civil war, where the Irish Government and the Roman Catholic clergy, co-operated in it's cover-up, which was part of the airbrushed, school curriculum, that was part of the great lie. 

Despite the official denial, I frequently had very vivid nightmares, of horses and carts coming around the village and taking cartloads of dead bodies away. When I would awake from the nightmares, I would hear voices calling and see vivid shadows of people, darting around in the light of daybreak. Now if you talk like this in Ireland, they will put you away in some intitution or other and throw way the key, but we did talk about it among ourselves as children. Many years later it indeed was a revelation to learn, some of the real history of Ireland, which confirmed indetail, my vid dreams of the past. 

The lingering pain and longing of these memories, would often hauntt me, in the wide open spaces of the west of Ireland, bereft of it's people, lost to Holocaust and subsequent ongoing emmigration. A lot of our music and  what is left of our culture refelects this. While the old Celtic Church stood with the people, unfortunately, like most of our Irish politicians, the Roman Catholic Church, took the Queen's shilling, to kee the people ignorant, as do our historians of academia, still do today. Indeed it has now permeated, to most of the leadership of resistance, who control the minds of the brave, with a combintio of censorship and a revisionist, non-factual, narrative, caredully controlled to enforce the old order and empower leverage, rather than the voiceless people, of no property.

The reason, all of this is important, is because later on in mu own life, I found myself, caught up in the many contradictory extremes of Irish life. After Bloody Sunday in Derry, where the British army massacred unarmed Civil Rights demonstrators, along with many more around the north, I had a gut reactionary, motivation, to involve myself, which is not a progressive basis, like the dialectic of materialism or the historical lessons of conflict, that would create progress. Having said that, too much analysis, can also be paralysis, so there is probably a balance there somewhere, which only an uncensored dialectic of everyone can deliver.  

Either way, this issue needs to be resolved in an inteligent way, based on facts extablished by the International Criminal Court, from an international, independent, objectibe basis of justice, so we can all move on to a genuine reconciliation and  forgiveness, without exploitative, outside interference or indeed censorious, self serving, manipulate expoitation, which can only exist in such an environment. 

History does repeat itself and until, the lessons are learned. We already have had 800 years of this particular, rithless brand in Ireland. All  people who care about Ireland and humanity are needed, to make this happen, not the same repetitive, control elites, replacing an old set of control eltes, with the tools of censorship and brute force, because frankly, the whole island is in a mess, with all the usual characteristics, of dying civilizations and pillaged indigenous peoples, such as rampant alcoholism, child abuse, domestic violence, drug abuse, abject poverty, physically, mentally and spiritually, to the point of self destruction and insanity. 

The island is virtually bankrupt in all of these areas  In this environment of emotional incest and island censorship, currently in the grip of corrupt corporate politicians, media, policing, judiciary and material nihilism. It needs help from the free spirits who were forced to leave, along with enlightened, empowerment, from an international of communal solidarity.We simply can't accomplisih all of it on my own. 

We need your help, to carry this message and build a new Ireland of tolerance and equality, on a foundation of truth, justice and forgiveness. We need your, to recruit your friends, to sign the petition below and beat the widespread censorship of the facts of genocide, Holocaust all detailed in the links and videos, below. I offer a sincere thank you, to those who already signed yesterday and I ask you to carry on this good work and try to organize people in this Cause. It is the Cause of the people of no property, who survived, crimes against humanity, it is also the Cause of Ireland. TheTruth can set us Free in an non violent way and we all have a moral responsibilty to engage it, before we would consider engaging in violent conflict, that is destroying so many young llives So, please play your parrt, in whatever small or big way you can?


HHPETITION FOR ICC IRISH HOLOCAUST INVESTIGATION

  • author: Brian Clarke
  • target: International Criminal Court
  • signatures: 48
48
1,000
we've got 48 signatures, help us get to 1,000

EVIDENCE LINK : http://www.irishholocaust.org/

Irish Blog requests the International Criminal Court, to immediately initiate an investigation into the Irish Holocaust and the British genocide of six milliom people in Ireland. We believe the the ICC Prosecutor has a reasonable basis to believe, that a crime against humanity, within Irelamd and the Court's juristiction exists and that both war crimes and a genocide has been committed against Irish people. We believe that an investigation, would be consistent, with the principles of International justice. We furnish the following preliminary evidence, as a basis for an immediate investigation.

Irish Blog seeks the support, of all Irish people and political parties, to empower the prosecution of this investigation. We urge all Irish people and political parties, to examine carefully the following preliminary investigation in the link below and mentor the request, that both Irish and British Governments make available, all relevant material, within their juristictions, to help the International Criminal Court arrive at a fair, just, settlement with appropriate restitution to any victim or their next of kin, primarily to prevent a re-occurrence of these crimes against humanity and that all parties recognize, the gravity and consequence of genocide and holocaust. Irish Blog also requests, a ceasefire, by all military and paramilitary forces in Ireland, until this matter, is thoroughly investigated and adjudicated,

you have the power to create change.

START SHARING AND WATCH YOUR IMPACT GROW


WE SIGNED: PETITION FOR ICC IRISH HOLOCAUST INVESTIGATION

Name not displayed, CA
Jan 06, 18:19
# 53
Dennis Kaplan, OH
Jan 06, 18:07
# 52
dagmar karin dag, Argentina
Jan 06, 17:43
# 51
P. Amith, WA
Jan 06, 17:37
# 50
Mary Lochhead, United Kingdom
Jan 06, 16:51
# 49
Tina Christiansen, Denmark
Jan 06, 15:30
# 48
Gillian Edwards, United Kingdom
Jan 06, 15:06
# 47
Jo Sullivan, NY
Jan 06, 13:57
# 46
Heidi Wood, CO
Jan 06, 13:16
# 45
I am Irish (mom and dad)
Michal Mydlarski, Poland
Jan 06, 11:31
# 44
Serdar Murat, Austria
Jan 06, 10:24
# 43
Sue Harrington, CA
Jan 06, 10:03
# 42
Name not displayed, AL
Jan 06, 09:24
# 41
OCCUPY THE EMPIRE OF THE CITY!!!
Brion O'Dunlaing, MO
Jan 06, 08:52
# 40
Name not displayed, CA
Jan 06, 07:55
# 39
David Dice, PA
Jan 06, 08:02
# 38
Nicole Maschke, OH
Jan 06, 07:49
# 37
For my mother's parents. For my brothers and sister in Ireland. For all those brave and courageous men, women and children, who stood their ground. Defended their homes and said proudly who they were, and that their lives mattered. While I cannot be there to stand by your side on this. Know that my soul is there with you. The waters are no barrier between us. For I am there. I am proud and honored to stand by your side. May the wind be always at your back. Godspeed.
pedro simoes, Portugal
Jan 06, 06:14
# 31
Sharon Leduc, MA
Jan 06, 06:24
# 30
H. McGarry, NY
Jan 06, 06:12
# 29
John Brewer, OH
Jan 06, 05:58
# 28
Winn Adams, WA
Jan 06, 06:14
# 27
Charles Woodliff, GA
Jan 06, 06:07
# 26
Azaima Anderson, NM
Jan 06, 05:49
# 25
Terry King, CA
Jan 06, 05:48
# 24
steve finger, NC
Jan 06, 05:31
# 23
K Halboth, WI
Jan 06, 05:27
# 22
ankie brunschot, Netherlands
Jan 06, 05:05
# 21
Victoria McFarlane, United Kingdom
Jan 06, 04:56
# 20
Arild Warud, Portugal
Jan 06, 04:44
# 19
AniMae Chi, SA
Jan 06, 05:14
# 18
michaelann bewsee, MA
Jan 06, 05:08
# 17
Kristin Love, WA
Jan 06, 04:52
# 16
Christine U, Romania
Jan 06, 03:50
# 15
Glennis Whitney, QL
Jan 06, 03:32
# 14
Srecko Arnus, Slovenia
Jan 06, 03:17
# 13
Not only Irish people also in whole so called British empire in past, This empire together with France and Antanta forces when was first world war gave our people and land to Italians. Same happened when end second world war. For me is this genocide. So called big country even now each day doing this around the world and dont forget on crimes who maked in more than 2000 years Vatikan and catholic church.
Andreas Giovani, Cyprus
Jan 06, 03:02
# 12
Dimitris Dallis, Greece
Jan 06, 02:45
# 11
Richard Rosenheim, NY
Jan 06, 02:39
# 10
K Halboth, WI
Jan 06, 02:20
# 9
It's ABOUT Time! The TERRIBLE and Fully Preventable GENOCIDE against the IRISH people by the British should be fully accounted for and the perpetrators brought to justice! The Irish Holocaust is still deeply entrenched in the minds and hearts of those of Irish ancestry; especially those that reside in the United States where many of our Irish ancestors arrived in Slave boats starving and impoverished. We Will Never Forget!
Name not displayed, CA
Jan 06, 01:34
# 8
Luke Scott, VI
Jan 06, 01:19
# 7
Alan Smith, United Kingdom
Jan 06, 01:18
# 6
Maria Teresa Schollhorn, Argentina
Jan 06, 01:18
# 5
Beate Meier, Germany
Jan 06, 01:07
# 4
Rajeeva Ranjan, India
Jan 06, 01:00
# 3
Ivett Ward, CA
Jan 06, 00:53
# 2
Brian Clarke, Thailand
Jan 06, 00:34
# 1
CALL FOR ICC IRISH HOLOCAUST INVESTIGATION