Fenian Notes

ANYONE who lives in the United States has to be alerted to the fact that US direction is changing and this transformation departs from the traditional values embraced by those with a firm desire to rescue those values from history’s trashbin.

Credible opinion polls proffer some consistent evidence of the willingness of Americans to surrender freedoms for order and stability.

The trend is disturbing because it diverts America from its own widely publicised propaganda towards that of states long criticised by the very same US leaders caught in this vacuum. What is the true portrait of America?

Today, less than half the American people support the right of freedom of expression when stating political viewpoints in public. Forty-five percent of Americans believe in full freedom of expression as embodied in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution. This right was one of the prime reasons America rebelled against Britain 224 years ago. Would that rebellion take place today?

It is definite food for thought as Americans are gradually but progressively becoming more like the British in an empirical thinking mode. All things considered, the American Revolution might have succumbed to a "peace process" if it happened 200 years hence.

Would a Senator Ted Kennedy standing on Bunker’s Hill with his year 2000 peaceful ways have told his fellow Bostonians of circa 1775 to sit down with the British and achieve a peace amenable to both sides to the conflict. If he were not a total hypocrite, he would have been involved in such advocacy.

The "peace" process criteria make the American Revolutionists wrong in their "violent" pursuits. Kennedy cannot condone "violence" today, so surely he would not want the same British blood spilled under similar circumstances. After all, blood, bones and flesh are the same.

Kennedy and his latter-day pro-British loyalists should revise the US Revolution to reflect his revisionist intellectualism that pervades conflict resolution. If "violence" is bad for the Irish, it certainly is the same for Americans, isn’t it?

The American psyche has been transformed in an evolutionary process which has served to erode rights in favour of security. This does not present any appropriate venue for dissent and loyal opposition to the system.

Astonishing as it may seem, 30% of the American people do not believe in the first amendment to the US Constitution which has priority oversight on freedom of speech and assembly which are vital to any democratic system. These were freedoms that founding American patriots believed were worth a revolution.

Forty-five per cent of Americans say that people have a right to express their political views in public; less than a majority. This does not augur well for the future of US-style democracy. American is evolving, but into what?

The Constitution of the United States is the fundamental basic law of the land from which all law is judged, but only one half of Americans would vote for the document if it were put into a referendum.

Twenty-seven per cent of the US are not sure about the document and 22% are against the founding document, completely and unequivocally.

There are those elements in the US who view the Constitution almost in a religious context with their fervour predicated on God-inspired writings.

The truth is the document was self-inspired by the founders to justify slavery within the general language and ideal that all men are created equal.

The Constitution is imperfect and flawed, but the guarantees of the Bill of Rights for the most part are not flawed. Still 56% of Americans believe the Constitution is still the best way to run the country.

There is movement within American society to reflect changes in the USA over the past 200 years to especially spotlight major societal changes that bring society within a more equitable level.

Certainly, African-Americans, other minorities, women and those who have made gains would want revisions to give them more permanent guarantees. Younger people, adults want visceral change while older people and men fear an erosion by change.

Fear is always a determining factor when change is suggested regardless of which side one is on. America is clearly evolving away from and contrary to its founding, which supposedly was about individual freedom.

While Americans may fear outside threats from international terrorism, they themselves are creating an internally-inspired fear like the Red Scare of the 1950s, which is compounded by a self-righteous attitude deprecating towards opponents who are viewed as not deserving of rights.

Americans in fear want the government to restrict activity of an "offensive political nature", not their own of course, just those whose views are undeserving of a hearing before the public.

These same people, when polled, could not cite any of the First Amendment-guaranteed freedoms. These judges pronounce judgement, over what they do not know.

When people cannot name freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and the right to petition the government for redress of grievance, one must ponder whether the First Amendment will die of neglect.

These same people would have the government control, restrict or ban material that some find offensive. Fifty-one per cent of Americans in one poll believe the press in the US has too much freedom.

A sizeable portion of Americans favour stringent measures against small groups outside of the mainstream. Including religious groups that the majority of Americans consider to be extreme or fringe.

One-third of those polled believe a group should not be able to hold a rally if its cause is "offensive" to some in the community.

It does not take a genius to see how the US government and the courts act on this trend towards restrictions on constitutionally-protected activity. For years now various administrations have used the general term of world terrorism as a diluted justification to keep unwanted ideas and opinions out of the US.

This subtle form of mind control allows the government to dictate acceptable opinion which must be in concert with acceptable US opinion.

The American people are allowing, and in some instances encouraging, an erosion of rights and freedom. The media, especially the press in the US, is viewed as having too much freedom to do what it wants.

Twenty per cent of Americans now believe the government should approve beforehand what newspapers publish, a pre-censorship of sorts. Over one-third of the people are willing to allow the government to control, restrict or ban material some find offensive.

The Constitution does not qualify speech into offensive and inoffensive because that would dilute and deny free speech. The Bill of Rights freedoms have not changed, they are merely being ignored.

There is a clear British influence on the US and the laboratory for rights denial has been the Six Counties. We see evolving tyrannical democracy, an unworkable misnomer but a practical fiction.

We in the Irish American community must resist the trend towards the erosion of rights, this is an issue, however, for all Americans.

But the truth is if people are not involved in a struggle for justice, they do not fully grasp what is happening. When you are a conformist, you are not rocking the boat, so your world is not disrupted.

If something is offensive to some in the community, should the offended be permitted to appeal to the government to terminate the trend and abrogate free speech?

The Constitution says no, but the trend to tyranny is affirmative. The British have painted a picture of true Republicans which individuals in power in the US have willingly bought into.

This trend is going to weaken the moral fibre of the US in the eyes of struggling peoples. And when these folks do not see the US as a support, where then do they turn for moral and physical backing? They turn to any source of support as any group of freedom-fighters serious about their struggle would be expected to.

To groups involved in a freedom struggle, it is all about freedom and justice, but to the US superpower, it is all about control, philosophy and following US direction to a US-imposed solution such as that in Ireland.

With Americans permitting the erosion of their own rights, why should they care about others? An imposed solution to a conflict internationally is consistent with the surrender of rights domestically out of fear and permitting the government to use draconian means of controlling dissent that is offensive.

The fact that the government is being permitted to act on activity "some find offensive" is so broad as to be all encompassing.

Today, the activity of true Republicans is being demonised because it does not conform to the dictates of the British "peace" process as supported by the Free State and the United States.

US philosophy regarding the ideal of freedom today is not the storybook version. Instead, it is a narrow dictate under the control and interpretation of the present group in power.

Now, I personally find most things British offensive and there is a significant number of people who agree with me, but do you think the government is going to act upon this?

Hardly, my philosophy would be found offensive and I become the target of abuse by the government. There is no fairness in present circumstances.

It is unfortunate that former Irish Republicans, now Free Staters, play into the hands of Anglo-American political tyranny concerning Ireland. The government is free to do what it wants when it has the backing of those who have been politically bought off. Clinton is gearing up for his victory lap in Ireland to be proclaimed a hero for his support for peace. Well, he is the anti-hero for his lack of support for justice.

If he truly wanted to be a hero, he could have used his well-known charm to convince the British that it was in their best interests to make an honourable withdrawal from Ireland.

Then, why should Clinton stick out his neck when he wasn’t asked by Irish Americans who gained access to him. Instead of demanding support for a British withdrawal from candidate Clinton, the Irish American community were swept up by the aura of Clinton that they gave way to him and his pro-British agenda.

When Clinton became President, he did not forget the Irish, but gave them access to him. The price of access and socialising was Irish unity and freedom. They accepted peace at any price, Partition and handouts from their new masters.

It all fits into the new US agenda of peace and security at the price of eroding rights and a full measure of choice.

We know now that America demands that allies and would-be allies settle disputes by US dictates. Consistent with that agenda, the US has assisted the British in attaining victory in Ireland by going guarantor of the status quo that 30 years struggle has failed to change.

The true Republican Movement is the only source of change that can insure justice and no outside source should be involved unless it offers support to the goals of the Movement.

The trend towards a subtle tyranny in the US is more than matched in the "UK" and the Free State.
-- Peadar Mac Fhínín