A free press is what makes a democracy free and distinguishes it from autocratic states. When the press complies with propaganda on any issue, a vital freedom is compromised and the people are betrayed. This process is known as ‘the manufacture of consent’. The refusal by the press in Ireland to challenge the Casement propaganda is a special case of omertà.

§

Estimates vary but it is accepted that homosexuals constitute a minority of any population, perhaps only 2 or 3%. Generally they are an articulate and motivated minority and many in the Anglophone world are aware of the long controversy over the obscene diaries attributed to Roger Casement. And many of them have read the diaries and understand they are forgeries. They understand this from common-sense considerations and from their own life experience as homosexuals. Above all, they do not recognize themselves in the diaries’ portrait of Casement, as the psychopathic pederast addicted to underage prostitutes. Nor do they find it credible that any intelligent homosexual would keep a diary record of his illegal behaviour over several years and then leave it in a place where it might later be found.  But although they know the diaries are not the work of Casement, they also know that Casement was a moral hero for many years not only in Britain where he was acclaimed and honoured but also in Africa, north and South America and in Europe. His heroism as a global pioneer of human rights makes him admirable to people everywhere but for homosexuals those confirmed historical facts alone are not quite sufficient. It is the fact that Casement is believed to have been homosexual that resonates irresistibly with the homosexual minority today. They have adopted Casement as one of their own, as an iconic martyr for the cause of homosexual liberty which they regard as an exemplary dimension of human rights. That there is no evidence for the attribution of homosexuality is now irrelevant to them. That the diaries did not exist in 1916 is now a ‘fake truth’. For homosexuals Casement is now the hero who fuses homosexuality with human rights and that bonding affords him unique value to the minority as evidence of their moral virtue. It has even been claimed that his presumed homosexuality was the essential moral source of his courage and compassion. The claim is so clumsy as to make it unworthy of comment. However, there is no motive for homosexuals to unmask the diaries’ Casement. Negating the attribution because false would be a betrayal, self-inflicted damage. Such is the politico-cultural hegemony achieved by the minority that today very few in the majority either would dare to publicly question the diaries’ depiction of Casement.  That hegemony owes much of its power to a simple defensive barrier created in recent decades by minority activists and that barrier has provided the conditions which makes today’s omertà inevitable.

At this point it is necessary to expose the Casement depicted in the diaries which many believe to be authentic although very few have bothered to read them. Viewing this portrait clearly should compel admirers to decide if this is the man they admire, if he is worthy of their admiration. The diaries depict a Casement who is clearly a sexual predator addicted to underage prostitutes. The sexual relations are mostly of this pederast type. This Casement is obsessed with male genitals which he sees everywhere; his fascination is mainly with assessing and recording penis size. This Casement is prey to an unceasing carnal appetite for youths, often adolescents with whom he performs sodomy as frequently as circumstances allow, usually outdoors both during the day and in the evening.  His appetite is often insatiable and on one occasion in 1911 his diary records six episodes of sodomy on a single day. This Casement is incapable of self control, ordinary discretion, is without caution or awareness and on several occasions it is unclear if his desire is aroused by an adolescent or a child.  It is difficult to attribute to this predatory pederast any moral values since his priapic behaviour is consistent with the final stages of a grave neurological disorder.  The 1911 typescript convinced two eminent psychiatrists in 1916 that his borderline insanity marked him “undoubtedly as a mentally abnormal individual …” whose advanced illness was driven by indiscriminate and uncontrollable homosexual desire, clearly the promiscuous victim of an insatiable craving. Today he would be a registered sex offender, quite unemployable, probably convicted of statutory rape and probably hospitalized. This is the diaries’ depiction of Casement as a psychopath who is nonetheless widely admired today as a moral hero. Is this a paradox? Is it credible that this is indeed the Casement so many admire – including President Connolly?

The barrier referred to earlier is the adoption of a word from the wider discourse about homosexual rights and its use as a potential accusation in the context of the disputed status of the diaries where it functions as a deterrent or silent threat. The word is ‘homophobia’.  Anyone challenging the purported authenticity of the diaries risks being accused of hostility to homosexuals. The term homophobia entered public vocabulary only in 1981 when The Times reported a Church of England decision regarding homosexuality.  Generally it signifies an aversion to either homosexuality or to homosexual persons or to both. Many researchers agree that the term homophobia is somewhat problematic and to illustrate this they refer inter alia to ‘internalized homophobia’ which is said to be an aversion caused by suppressed same-sex orientation. This lack of precision in meaning has led to its contemporary use as an all-purpose label for any attitude short of full approval for homosexual behaviour. Simple coexistence in a spirit of harmonious difference is no longer enough.

Any reservation however hesitant is seen by homosexuals as symptomatic of a disorder called homophobia which is said to require therapy.  Whereas it is an axiomatic principle of human civilization that all human behaviour without exception is subject to moral and legal regulation, the minority’s invention of and application of homophobia seems to imply that homosexual life is an exception.  Thus priority is awarded to mere rhetorical advantage to simulate moral advantage. The historic stigma has been ingeniously inverted to become a virtue, a sign of secular sanctity.

This risk of accusation following any challenge to authenticity has been confirmed as real by several informed commentators including the late Martin Mansergh, Angus Mitchell and Jeffrey Dudgeon. However, the absurdity of such an accusation ought to be self-evident since determining the status of these diaries as false or genuine is logically confined to factual evidence which excludes speculation about attitudes and behaviour.  Absurd it may be but fear of the accusation has been an effective deterrent for several decades not only among the general public but especially in the media.

It is a fact that the stigma against homosexuality has existed in all cultures since ancient times and this fact has yet to find a credible explanation. That the stigma is so deep rooted geographically and historically suggests that homosexuality is felt by many to be a threat however vague. It has been proposed that this is because it is by definition biologically sterile and in theory poses a threat to species survival. Certainly this feeling of threat, if real, is irrational since homosexuality is confined to a small minority. Likewise the assertion that homosexual desire is against nature ignores the fact that such desire is perfectly natural for homosexuals. What can be determined with complete certainty is that the criminalization of homosexual acts was a total folly destined to fail since it could neither eliminate, deter, dissuade nor control such acts. It served only to prolong suffering, distress and lack of comprehension.

As an all-purpose label the term homophobia has exercised a talismanic power by imposing silent conformity on media opinion about the status of the diaries and that conformity has been transmitted directly to the general public. Evidence of this lies in the following facts; every book on Casement since MacColl’s 1956 biography has been reviewed in Ireland by major newspapers and the broadcast media with works by Inglis, Reid, Sawyer, Mitchell, Dudgeon, McCormack, Weale, Ó Síocháin, Llosa, Duberman, Garden, Philipps, Carroll – nineteen books in all. Many of these received multiple reviews and all were positive. Only Mitchell acknowledged doubts about the diaries.  In 70 years there has been only one exception to this consistent promotion of the diaries as authentic – Anatomy of a lie published in 2019 and totally ignored by the newspapers and broadcast media. Was this by chance or was it because the powerful evidence and arguments demonstrating the diaries’ forgery had to be ignored and suppressed? Chance can be excluded since the book was indeed suppressed months after publication. But shortly after it quietly reappeared in 2023, two new Casement books were being heavily promoted in the press, both of them totally silent about Anatomy of a lie and both depicting Casement as the deranged pederast author of the diaries. Again chance can be excluded.  Ireland’s free press is fully and freely compliant with official sentiment about Casement conditioned by seven decades of consolidated propaganda which has resulted in a symbiotic process of self-generated omertà.  Thus is consent manufactured in a state rated in the top ten for press freedom. In this particular context press omertà is a code of silence observed to comply with an interpretation of official sentiment. This omertà conceals facts about the diaries and preserves the propaganda.

Homosexuals have a right to a peaceful life without discrimination or animosity and much of this has been achieved thanks to their own efforts. But do they need circus-like parades publicizing difference while denying there is any difference? Are they sure that the psychopathic Casement of the diaries represents their values and deserves their admiration?