The Only Hope of Ireland
by Alexander Berkman

[Originally published in The Blast! vol.1, no.13, page 2; May 15, 1916]

Most Irishmen, in and out of Ireland, seem unanimous in condemning the brutality
of the British government toward the leaders of the unsuccessful revolt.

There is no need to recite here the atrocious measures of repression practiced
by England toward her subject races. The arrogant and irresponsible tyranny
of the British government in this relation is a matter of history. The point of
interest just now is, what did the Irish people, or at least the Sinn Feiners, 
expect England to do in the given circumstances?

I am not interested in the weak-kneed editors of Irish-American papers
who bemoan, with all due decorum, Great Britain's "lack of generosity"
in dealing with the captured Sinn Feiners, or who hide their cowardice
by arguments about the "mistake" the British government has committed by
its harsh methods.

It is disgusting to hear such rot. As a matter of fact, it is entirely in keeping
with the character and traditions of the British government to show no
quarter to rebels. Those familiar with the colonial history of Great Britain
know that the English government and its representatives have systematically
practised the most heinous brutality and repression to stifle the least
sign of discontent, in Ireland, in India, Egypt, South Africa--wherever
British rapacity found a source of aggrandizement. Burning villages,
destroying whole districts, shooting rebels by the wholesale, aye, even 
resorting to the most inhuman torture of suspects, as in the Southwestern
Punjab and other parts of India--these have always been the methods
of the British government.

"The measures taken by us," said Sir Michael O'Dwyer, Governor of
the province of Punjab, in his Budget speech in the Punjab Legislative
Council, April 22, 1915, "have proven that the arm of the Sirkar (British
government) is long enough to reach and strong enough to strike those
who defy the law." The nature of this "long and strong arm" is clearly
characterized by Lord James Bryce: "The English govern India on absolute
principles. There is in British India no room for popular initiative or
popular interference with the acts of the rulers, from the Viceroy down
to the district official. Society in India is not an ordinary civil
society. It is a military society, military first and foremost. The
traveler feels himself, except perhaps in Bombay, surrounded by an
atmosphere of gunpowder all the time he stays in India."

The Irish rebels and their sympathizers know all this. But what they
don't know, or refuse to admit, is that these methods of suppressing
discontent are not merely colonial policy. They have also been practiced
by the English government at home, against its native sons, the English
workers. Just now the iron hand of conscription is driving thousands of
Great Britain's toilers into involuntary military servitude. Long terms
of imprisonment are meted out to everyone having conscientious scruples
against murder, to every anti-militarist protestant, and many have been
driven to suicide rather than turn murderers of their fellowmen. The
Irish people, like everyone else, ought to know that the claim of the
English government of "protecting weaker nations and fighting for
democracy" is the most disgusting hypocrisy ever dished up to a
muttonhead public. Nor is the British government in this respect any 
better or worse than the governments of Kaiser, Czar or President. 
Government is but the shadow the ruling class of a country casts upon
the political life of a given nation. And the priests of Mammon are
always the ruling class, whatever the temporary label of the exploiters
of the people.

We don't fool anyone by paroting that it was "a mistake" on the part of the
British government to use the sternest methods against the Sinn Fein leaders.
It was *not* a mistake.  To the English government, to *any* government, the
only safe rebel is a dead rebel.  The ruthless shooting down of the
insurrection leaders, the barbourous execution of James Connolly, who was
severely wounded in the Dublin fighting and had to be propped with pillows that
the soldiers could take good aim at him -- all this may serve to embitter the
Irish people.  But unless that bitterness express itself in action, in
reprisals -- individual or collective -- against the British government, the
latter will have no cause to regret its severity.  It is dangerous to let
rebels live,  If the Irish at home have no more spirit than the Irish in
America, the English government has nothing to fear.  The Irish-Americans
are easily the most powerful influence in American political life.  What have
these Irish-Americans done to stop the atrocities of Great Britain?  They have
held mass meetings here and there to "protest" against the continuing
executions of Sinn Feiners.  They have sufficient political power in the
country to cause President Wilson to call a halt to British atrocities, to
force the English government to treat the Sinn Feiners as prisoners of war,
which they are.  But the Irish-American priests of Church and State would not
dream of such drastic measures: politicians don't do that.

    More effective yet it would have been if some member or members of the
numerous Irish societies had captured a few representatives of the British
government in this country as hostages for the Irish rebels awaiting execution.
A British Consul ornamenting a lamppost in San Francisco or New York would
quickly secure the respectful attention of the British lion.  The British
Ambassador, in the hands of Washington Irishmen, would more effectively
petition his Majesty, King Edward, for the lives of the Irish rebel leaders than
all the resolutions passed at mass meetings.

    After all, it is the Redmonds and the Carsons who are chiefly responsible
for the failure of the rebellion in Ireland.  They were the first to condemn
the "rash step" of a people for centuries enslaved and oppressed to the verge
of utter poverty and degradation.  Thus they in the very beginning alienated the
support that the uprising might have received in and out of Ireland.  It was
this treacherous and cowardly attitude of the Irish home rule politicians that
encouraged the English government to use the most drastic measures in
suppressing the revolt.

    May outraged Ireland soon learn that its official leaders are like unto all
labor politicians: the lackeys of the rulers, and the very first to cry
Crucify!

      The hope of Ireland lies not in home rule, nor its leaders.  It is not
circumscribed by the boundaries of the Emerald Isle.  The precious blood shed
in the unsuccessful revolution will not have been in vain if the tears of their
great tragedy will clarify the vision o fthe sons ad daughters of Erin and make
them see beyond the empty shell of national aspirations toward the rising sun
of the international brotherhood of the exploited in all countries and climes
combined in a solidaric struggle for emancipation from every form of slavery,
political *and* economic
                  ALEXANDER BERKMAN


REVOLUTION
Friedrich Nietzsche

There the gallows, rope and hooks
     And the hangman's beard is red;
People 'round and poisoned looks,
     Nothing new and nothing dread!

Know it well - from fifty sources
     Laughing in you face I cry:
Would you hang me? Save your forces!
     Why hang me who cannot die!

Beggars ye! who hate the tougher
     Man who holds the envied lot;
True I suffer, true I suffer
     As to you - ye rot, ye rot!

I am breath, dew, all resources,
     After fifty hangings, Why!
Would you hang me? Save your forces!
     Would you kill me who cannot die!
