Can the Irish Become Better People?

We have witnessed a shocking display from the Dublin government, as it has openly sought (probably successfully as it stands at the moment of writing) to nullify Britain’s decision to leave the European Union (EU), as if a small nation that would not have joined the EU without its larger neighbour should dictate that neighbour’s policy. I believe this holds long-term risks for Ireland, as Ireland reveals its hand, and shows itself not to be a neutral country at all, but an enemy state of England. This is not always appreciated in England, but it is the case, and the Irish are taught to hate England in their education system, often by means of a selectively distorted reading of history. Many—not all, but many—Irish people are raised with the firm belief that Britain has reason to apologise to them, and that they have been personally wronged by historical events. It is the anti-English animus that lay behind Ireland’s joining the euro in the first place, and a non-Irish prime minister, Varadkar, who could hardly be described as a member of cine Ghaedhealach, has played to this resentment throughout the Brexit process. What are the historical facts of the matter?

The geopolitical imperative of British domination
Well, Ireland was dominated by England throughout history, and being an adjacent country, remains, willy-nilly, in the British sphere of influence. Should Ireland join a military alliance arraigned against Britain and offer to host military bases from which to attack the UK, it would invite—and deserve—occupation by Britain. This reflects the realities faced by all small countries. The Ukraine refuses to be a neutral country and wants to join an anti-Russian alliance—and claims to be surprised that it courts military conflict with Russia as a result. Syria claims to object to Israeli bombing raids, despite the fact these are undertaken precisely because Syria is hosting Iranian military bases when Iran is a military foe of Israel. In Irish history, the country sought to ally itself with the Continent against England, and claimed adherence to an episcopacy based in Rome that advocated that Roman Catholics murder the English monarch. I would not suggest that Catholicism has the same geopolitical significance today or that the historical and somewhat tired dispute between Catholicism and Protestantism should be invested with meaning it need not have in an age where none of their adherents believe in the old way anymore. But in the 16th and 17th centuries, adhering to the Roman church hierarchy meant aligning Ireland with France. This was a geopolitical step, and one that England, as any great power, had the right and duty to respond to. The Irish overplayed their hand, and the Flight of the Earls was the consequence.

Losing the land

I cannot support a policy of confiscating all land from Gaelic nobles and handing it out as “freehold” property either to Anglo-Irish landed gentry, and to people based in England who never visited their Irish estates at all. Such an outcome, which played a huge role in the Irish Famine, was not originally intended, as shown in the Surrender and Regrant policy followed at one point that aimed to integrate the existing Gaelic chieftains into the Crown’s own property- and title-holding system. But each cycle of uprisings and conflict led to a deeper and deeper involvement in the affairs of each locality in Ireland. Some Gaelic chieftains did in fact keep their land, but this was generally the case only with landowners who made a great attempt not to come to the attention of the British authorities. Any chieftain who launched an uprising was clearly in line for the loss of all of his land, and this is what happened in the majority of Gaelic Ireland.

The situation is much like that in unstable countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia, where the Americans initially intervened, currently in Iraq and Afghanistan and previously in Somalia, to foster stability, and each bout of instability then led to a more repressive policy. In the end, the Americans found themselves bombing weddings and funerals and doing other things they didn’t initially intend to do. You could argue that the Americans shouldn’t be there anyway, but the local people have agency, and bear their own responsibility for the way things have panned out. Japan under the US occupation and Hong Kong under British rule made successes of themselves, so what is wrong with the Afghans or indeed the Irish? It is difficult to avoid the conclusion (one known to all Irishmen, even if they pretend not to know) that the Irish have been their own worst enemies throughout history.

A famine or a genocide?

This brings us to the Irish Potato Famine of the 1840s and 1850s. The British Census Commissioners determined in 1851—in figures now believed to be an undercount as many people had died or emigrated and were not available to be questioned—that 21,770 had died of starvation over the previous decade and 400,720 from diseases including fever, diphtheria, dysentery, cholera, smallpox and influenza. It is now accepted that the real figure was at least 1m. If Irish children are taught 1m died of starvation, however, then they are being taught a lie. The vast majority of deaths were from disease. Ireland’s own expert on the Famine, Cormac Ó Gráda, has examined this in detail and argues (see Table 7 therein) that 10% of the excess deaths in the Famine period were from starvation or scurvy, which gives an upper limit of 100,000 deaths from starvation and scurvy (scurvy, resulting from a reduction in vitamin C intake, would ultimately reflect lower caloric intake). Although diseases including typhus, typhoid, dysentery, etc, can flourish in a weakened population, and so are ultimately Famine-related too, Ó Gráda argues that the cause of diseases such as these (or of disease in general) was not understood at the time. The squalor and filth of living conditions in Irish cabins played a large role in the death toll. If Irish children are being taught that 1m people died of starvation, they are being fed a malicious lie by their teachers. Subtracting deaths from scurvy, direct deaths from starvation were not more than around 50,000.

This is not a justification for famine or starvation, but a call for a modern country to stop teaching lies in the school system. The British civil servant in charge of Famine relief, Charles Trevelyan, has received much of the blame for Famine deaths. He wrote:

The greatest evil we have to face is not the physical evil of the famine, but the moral evil of the selfish, perverse and turbulent character of the Irish people.

This has led to propagation by Sinn Féin and others of the view that the Famine was used by Britain to kill off the Irish people. Yet in 1846, Trevelyan wrote:

Our measures must proceed with as little disturbance as possible of the ordinary course of private trade, which must ever be the chief resource for the subsistence of the people, but, coûte que coûte, the people must not, under any circumstances, be allowed to starve.

Trevelyan was a Malthusian who believed that the Irish population had risen unsustainably. From 4m in 1800, the population had risen to 8.5m by 1845. While having no resources to provide for the children they bore, the Irish were breeding with abandon. Having fewer children was clearly something that never occurred to an impoverished tenant. Trevelyan was an adherent to the incorrect view that “nature corrects a population excess”, but there is no evidence whatsoever that he sought to allow people to starve in order to help nature accomplish such a Malthusian task.

Trevelyan did order intervention to provide soup and employment in civil works in Ireland, and, although inadequate, it must be borne in mind that no country in the world was a welfare state at the time, and not much was done in England itself to help those in dire circumstances. It is, in fact, surprising anything at all was done to help the Irish. The 1840s was the period when five-year-old children were working 18-hour days in factories in England and saw their limbs deformed from the work they had to do. Once again, only malice motivates the claim that Britain would have done more if the Famine were in England. No, it wouldn’t have. Britain/England was not a democracy at the time.

Trevelyan was also determined to maintain property rights and the laisser faire economy as far as possible. The army was used to stop the seizure of ships laden with food departing from Irish ports. It is of course true that Ireland did not need English charity or any public welfare at all: Ireland produced enough food for itself, and the tenants simply needed the right to eat the food they produced. Losing their land was catastrophic for the Irish—and a less turbulent history would not have seen them lose their land—and so most of the food was exported to England even at the height of the Potato Famine.

As England was not socialist at the time, it is idle to read history backwards and imagine that any other policy could have been implemented. Even if the Irish landowners had maintained their land, it is far from a certain thing that they would not have taken the majority of the produce from their tenants, or that a potato famine would not have led to the same number of deaths as occurred under British rule. It is uncomfortable for Irish people to confront truths like this—as the false version of history has become part of Ireland’s national identity and brooks no factual refutation.

Losing the language

The Irish tell themselves a fairy tale about their linguistic/literary history, whereby ancient Ireland was “a land of saints and scholars”. There were Christian saints and monks who faithfully copied old manuscripts, but as a description of Gaelic culture it is lousy. The Irish language was written in the pre-modern era by a mere handful of people. There were almost no books in Irish before the mid-19th century, apart from the Bible, translated into Irish by Irishmen under the direction of an English bishop, William Bedell, but railed against by the Roman Catholic church. Ireland was not a land of saints and scholars, but rather a land of squalor, ignorance and cultural backwardness. That Ireland in the pre-British conquest period was not a haven of culture was acknowledged throughout Europe. As the Spanish viscount, Ramón de Perellós, related of his visit to the Ó Néill chieftain in Ireland in September 1397:

And the great lords wear a coat with no lining down to their knees, cut very low at the neckline like women, and they wear great hoods which go down to their waist, the point being as narrow as one’s finger and they wear neither leggings nor shoes nor britches but wear their spurs on their bare heels.

The king was in that state on Christmas day and all his clergy and knights and bishops and abbots and other great lords. The common people go as they may, badly dressed—but most of them wear a cape of frieze; and both men and women shamelessly show all their privates. Poor people go naked but they all wear those capes, good or bad, including ladies. The queen and her daughter and her sister were clothed and bound in green but they were unshod; the queen’s handmaids—there was a good score of them—were dressed as I told you above and showed their privy parts with as little shame as here they show their faces.

And with the king there were about three thousand horses and also many poor folk to whom I saw the king give great alms of beef.

And moreover they are the most handsome men and fairest women that I have seen in the whole world. And moreover they never sowed any corn nor do they have any wine but all their food is meat and the great lords drink milk for their nobility and the others meat broth and water; but they have enough butter for all their livestock is oxen and cows and fine horses. [Link]

Ireland was incredibly backward. There was no settled agriculture. The people were naked much of the time, or naked but for a cape over their shoulders. And yet the kings or chieftains, surrounded by male and female attendants often partly or fully naked, liked to employ court poets to laud them. England may itself have been or become such a country if it hadn’t been for the Norman invasion, which forced the villein system on the English countryside, and with it proper agricultural investment and economic growth. Ireland was famous throughout Europe for the primitivity of its culture.

The bardic schools—which were not “schools” for public attendance, but schools for an incredibly small number of poets—did not survive the demise of the Gaelic landowners. It is often claimed that “England did not allow the Irish to get an education”, and there was a brief period when Roman Catholics could not attend university (at a time when university attendance was less than 1% of the population, there being no public school system), but in 1795 the Catholic college, now a university, in Maynooth was set up by a Royal grant, as part of a British attempt to win over the allegiance of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Maynooth predates the advent of a public school system in Britain or Ireland, indicating that British opposition is not the reason why there was no literacy in Irish or books in Irish. Had there been a demand for books in Irish in the 18th century among the well-to-do, there would have been books in Irish. Yet the Irish church hierarchy played a role in repressing literacy in Irish. William Magee pointed out the trade-off between support for the Roman Catholic church and the loss of the Irish language:

Few Irishmen will admit that Ireland would have been made a more interesting and agreeable country by an evangelical movement which would have introduced Bedell’s Bible into every cottage; but it was probably at the cost of her ancient language, as well as of some other things, that Ireland kept her religious tradition unbroken. (Magee, William Kirkpatrick. Bards and saints, Dublin: Maunsel & Co, 1906, p22.)

There are anecdotes relating how the Catholic priests in nineteenth-century Ireland railed against An Bíobla Gallda, “the Foreign Bible” (i.e., a perverse reference to the Bible in Irish, not Latin). Cyril Ó Céirin recounts the opposition of the Roman Catholic hierarchy to the Irish language:

The period witnessed a wholesale effort to win the Irish peasantry over to the Established Church—through the medium of Irish. The attempt failed but struck a devastating blow at the language, for the Roman Catholic clergy panicked and urged their flocks to abandon the language in case it turned out to be the means for their destruction. The teaching and reading of Irish in those areas where proselytism was vigorous was forbidden, collections of manuscripts were made and burnt publicly and preachers fulminated against the language from the pulpit. (Ó Céirin, Cyril. “Maynooth and the Irish language”, an appendix in O’Leary, Peter, My story, translated from Irish by Cyril Ó Céirin, Cork: Mercier Press, 1970, pp177-178.)

The fact that the cities were English-speaking is the real thing that did for the Irish language. It should be admitted that most Irish cities were founded by the Vikings; none were founded by the Gaels. Attempts to made Waterford and Dublin Irish-speaking are funny, in fact: a knowledge of history would argue rather for teaching in Icelandic in those cities in order to bring back a spoken language related to Old Norse. However, the final collapse of the Irish language was rather more sudden than would have appeared likely in 1840, partly because of the Famine, but also because of a wider loss of Irish national self-confidence. Daniel O’Connell, the agitator for Catholic Emancipation and Repeal of the Union known as “the Liberator”, was a native speaker of Irish, but a famous quotation attributed to him shows that many native speakers doubted the advantages of speaking Irish:

I am sufficiently utilitarian not to regret its gradual abandonment. A diversity of tongues is no benefit; it was first imposed upon mankind as a curse, at the building of Babel. It would be of great advantage to mankind if all the inhabitants of the Earth spoke the same language. Therefore though the Irish language is connected with many recollections that twine around the hearts of Irishmen, yet the superior utility of the English tongue, as the medium of all modern communication, is so great that I can witness without a sigh the gradual disuse of Irish. (Daunt, William Joseph O’Neill. Personal recollections of the late Daniel O’Connell, M.P., Volume 1, London: Chapman and Hall, 1848, pp14-15.)

What is regularly left out in Irish nationalist accounts is that the Irish people themselves decided to stop speaking Irish. There are many anecdotal accounts of Irish native speakers concealing their linguistic background or refusing to speak their native tongue, preferring a poorly learned, grammatically butchered variant of English. Irish had become a low-status language, a fact that was connected to the backwardness of Gaelic culture. Where were the Irish Isaac Newtons and George Stephensons? The language circulated, if at all, in manuscripts that few could read.

Rural “hedge” schools grew up in the 18th century, as officially established Catholic schools were forbidden under Penal Laws (such a prohibition was in force for a relatively short time, between 1723 and 1782, but exaggerated in Irish accounts to explain centuries of history). Yet it must be remembered that this was well before the advent of publicly funded mass education, and the unofficial hedge schools, set up by local rural people, tended to teach English, without any government encouragement, simply because to do so offered economic advancement to the pupils. The hedge schools were not staffed by English people sent over to knock the Irish language out of the people. After 1831, the hedge schools were replaced by the national school system, a state education system run largely by the Catholic church, and it is reported that, as in Wales, children were beaten in many of the national schools for speaking Irish, apparently with the approval of their parents, who wished their children to learn English. The Irish people themselves did this. With no published literature in Irish, the Catholic church railing against the language and parents determined to raise their children in English it is unsurprising that Irish fell away. The role of Irish parents in enforcing this transition to English is clear from the account of Robert Lynd:

In many places, teacher, priest and parent combined with the authorities in stamping out all knowledge of the native language from the minds of the children. The children were forbidden to speak any Irish in the schools, and they carried little tally-sticks hung round their necks so that, every time they lapsed into Irish in their homes, their parents might cut a notch in these and the teacher might award as many strokes of the cane as he found notches in the tally-stick on the next morning.

It is difficult to forgive a generation of parents, priests, politicians and teachers who thus flogged the children of the country out of the knowledge of their natural speech. Many parents, it is clear, looking at the course of events in the world, came to the conclusion that English was the language of success and Irish the language of decay and starvation. If they punished their children for being Irish, they thought they were punishing bread-and-butter into their stomachs, if not the bread of life into their souls. Curious to relate, this idea is not dead among Irish-speaking parents even today. Those who know English, though they speak Irish to each other and to grown-up neighbours, very often drop into English when they address their children. (Lynd, Robert. Home Life in Ireland, Chicago: A. C. McClurg & Co, 1912, pp92-93.)

The government regulations under which national schools were set up did not mention the Irish language. The Irish language was not expressly forbidden in the schools, but literacy was naturally understood to mean literacy in English as there were so few books in Irish. The Irish language was not placed on the curriculum in the national schools until 1878. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that there was no call for Irish-language education in the 1830s and 1840s, although later in the century, during the Gaelic Revival, there arose a call for the language to be saved. It is a lie, and a pretty malevolent one, for Irish people to claim that England stamped the Irish language out in Ireland. On the contrary, the Irish did.

The balance sheet vis-à-vis England today
All these issues are discussed in Irish schools in a manner designed to foster hatred towards England. Many details of the history are distorted, and context is always airbrushed out of the narrative. It is undeniable that England ended up doing many things in Ireland it didn’t initially intend to do because of the Irish fondness for uprisings, which eventually led them to lose more and more of their land and fall under a deeper form of English control. This is why Trevelyan described them as a “selfish, perverse and turbulent” people, a description that all Irish people today with a modicum of self-awareness will know is accurate. The latest stance in the Brexit negotiations reveals the same character flaws in the Irish people. The Irish remain deeply troubled people psychologically.

The Irish refuse to recognise that they have ever done anything wrong in history. The 1916 uprising—when England was in the middle of the First World War!!—is an example. I went to university with an Irishman from Roscrea, Co. Tipperary, who told me that he viewed this as nothing but a stab in the back to England while England was at war. Just think, in 1914 England was offering Ireland Home Rule, a Home Rule for the whole of the country that could have led to a very high degree of autonomy and eventually independence for a united Ireland. The army mutiny and the opposition of the Unionists complicated things, but as the First World War broke out immediately, it was too late to know how it would have played out. The fact is that Ireland was going, one way or the other, to get a large degree of autonomy following the war. There is a lot of evidence that Britain was viewed in Ireland as acting too heavyhandedly in response to the Easter Uprising. The women of Dublin famously (but not in a very ladylike fashion) spat on the Irish Volunteers leading the uprising. Urban public opinion was initially on England’s side and it might have been better not to have acted in a way that alienated even the Dublin middle class. But England was in the middle of a war and naturally could not tolerate an uprising in the United Kingdom itself. Interestingly, the descendants of those very Irish women who spat on the Irish Volunteers in 1916 are being taught in school a narrative that their own Irish grandmothers could have told them was factually false in many respects.

The fact that sectarian killings in the south were recorded, including the killing of poor Protestant farm workers in Co. Cork, is one of the most disreputable “achievements” of Irish nationalism. Maybe Irish nationalists can justify the killings? Or state why the Unionists of Ulster should have welcomed staying in a United Ireland with people who wanted to kill them for sectarian reasons? Interesting, the Irish broadcaster RTÉ hasn’t visited the areas where the Protestant farm workers were killed to conduct an investigation to find out the identities of the killers. The very descendants of the killers are walking around Co. Cork to this day remaining tightlipped over their own family history of sectarian killing, while claiming, to anyone who wants to hear, that it is England that did everything wrong. And in the 1970s, the “Troubles” in Northern Ireland received state encouragement from the Republic of Ireland authorities. It has emerged that Irish prime minister Jack Lynch set up the Provisional IRA. In the latest Brexit talks, the Irish leaders under Varadkar have strongly hinted that they will fund a resumption of terrorism in Northern Ireland if they don’t get their way in the negotiations.

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Ireland’s well-fanned historical grievances all date back more than 100 years and generally relate to events centuries ago. In the modern period, the balance sheet is highly negative for Ireland, in that it is Ireland that has repeatedly harmed England and not the other way round. What has Ireland gained from England? Here is a little list:

  • Democracy (an Anglo-Saxon concept)
  • The rule of law (an Anglo-Saxon concept)
  • The English language (without which Ireland wouldn’t be a recipient of foreign investment)
  • Electricity (the electric motor being invented by Michael Faraday in 1821)
  • Railways (the locomotive being invented by George Stephenson in 1814, building on earlier work by Richard Trevithick)
  • Cars (in 1824 Samuel Brown invented a combustion engine that he successfully used to power a vehicle, although the later concept was largely German and French-developed)
  • Aeroplanes (invented by Wilbur and Orville Wright in 1903)
  • Telephones (invented by Alexander Graham Bell in 1876, building on earlier work by Antonio Meucci)
  • Computers (invented by Charles Babbage in 1837)
  • The Internet (with HTTP and the World Wide Web invented by Tim Berners-Lee in 1989)
  • Television (invented by John Logie Baird in 1926)
  • European subsidies (Ireland has always been an EU recipient and the UK a contributor; this was a mechanism for the UK to pay for the economic upgrading of Ireland since 1972)

And the Irish contribution to England:

  • Guinness (invented by Arthur Guinness in 1821)

The ledger is far from equal. Without England, the Irish would be burning turf for fuel and going to the toilet in tigh an asail next to the donkeys. Yet Irish people persist in feeling they are the aggrieved party. An article by Ronan McCrea (professor of constitutional and European law at University College London and thus someone taking everything he can get from the British taxpayer) published in the Financial Times makes some surprising points about Irish attitudes towards Britain:

The reaction on both sides underlined how little insight people in Ireland and the UK have into each other’s attitudes. For many Brexiters the Irish government’s approach has been seen as almost disloyal, driven by a nationalist, Sinn Féin-like desire to “stick it to the Brits”. Remainers, for their part, have tended to view Ireland through an equally UK-centric lens, with a recent article speaking of Ireland as “the adult in this dysfunctional family”.

For most Irish people, the purpose of independence—and later an attraction of EU membership—was as a means to get away from a deeply unhappy experience of the UK “family”. This can explain to some degree Irish reactions to seemingly warm gestures, such as British people cheering on the Irish football team. Through Irish eyes, that is a bit like a woman running the marathon noticing her ex-husband cheering for her in the crowd. The support is, in theory, nice, but the implicit assertion of a continuing bond is unwelcome.

Most Irish people do not understand the degree to which some British people feel some betrayal at Ireland’s Brexit stance This mutual misunderstanding means that most Irish people do not understand the degree to which some British people feel some betrayal at Ireland’s Brexit stance. Britons seem unable to imagine that Ireland has relationships and interests beyond its ties to the UK. They therefore conclude that Irish Brexit policy must be driven by anti-British nationalist sentiment.

The British seem to think that over decades they have established a positive relationship with Ireland. Curiously enough, it is, as McCrea points out, the positive attitude of nearly all Englishmen (including the approximately 25% with Irish ancestry) to the Irish that needles them the most. Britain has for decades been a great ally of Ireland, and yet the desire for a friendship WITH WHAT IS A NEIGHBOURING COUNTRY is what annoys the Irish. This is because the Irish nurse hatred towards us. Yet they also feel inferior for having the negative feeling of hatred, and the more the English show themselves to be pleasant, the greater the contrast is played up, to Ireland’s disadvantage. In truth, this is the same resentment that all small nations feel. The Ukrainians will spend much more time thinking about Russia than the Russians will about them. The resentment is always from the smaller nation. Even the Canadians and the Americans have the same dynamic between them. Ask yourself what sort of relationship Britain should seek with its geographically closest neighbour. Why is it wrong for England to seek a positive relationship? A woman can ask her ex-husband to simply not visit or show up in her life at all, but England is next door, and cannot go anywhere. As annoying as it may be to the Irish, they do have to live with England, and to that extent the Irish annoyance that England seeks a positive friendly relationship shows that the fault in the relationship is entirely on the Irish side.

The Irish have no genuine reason for resentment towards England, and no genuine basis for a victim narrative. Irish national identity is purely negative and destructive. It is all about not being English, with no genuine celebration of Irish identity and culture. As Trevelyan said, the selfish, perverse and turbulent character of the Irish remains. National culture is like an individual’s character, and the Irish nation has, over centuries, suffered greatly from its own character flaws. They are of course always seeking someone to blame—and end up blaming the country that is the author of their modern prosperity.

Ireland has to make clear what ITS OWN strategy is for maintaining a good relationship with England. Ireland has agency too. Claims that Ireland will simply cut off the power to Northern Ireland after Brexit show the Irish psychological problem—I would argue that all power stations in the Republic of Ireland should be destroyed by the Royal Air Force if that happens. Unfortunately, Ireland has never understood that the key way to gain friendship is to be a friend, and the Irish have never been neighbours that have been easy to get along with. I have argued before that if Britain becomes non-white, the Unionists should consider their options in a white Ireland (an argument largely redundant now that Varadkar wants to “brown” Ireland by bringing in 1m migrants by 2040). But ask yourself how a country that maintains this spiteful national culture would be able to integrate the Unionists if a majority in Northern Ireland voted for reunification. The Irish are unable to compromise, and refuse to recognise their own flaws. They don’t accept there is more than one view on history and would become aggressive in every conversation with the Unionists. The Brexit negotiations show that the Republic of Ireland has made less progress than thought and is simply not ready for Irish unity. The Southern Irish are determined bigots to this day in a way that Northern Protestants have largely abandoned. It is sad to say so, but the Irish are their own problem.

It is also worth noting how badly the English have misunderstood the Irish, believing they had a good relationship with people who genuinely hate them. We need to move our foreign policy onto a more realistic basis, and stop assuming that all nations are as easygoing as the English. Multiculturalism has befuddled the English brain in this respect, leaving us unable to see that some countries are genuinely much less pleasant than England.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

60 Responses to Can the Irish Become Better People?

  1. Liz Leary says:

    You ignored the Penal Laws and the destruction of monasteries; English Royalty were not going to allow Ireland to be used as a military base by the papists; also would you care to comment on Protestant-Islamo persecution of papists on the seas and in the New World?

    • dj1969 says:

      I didn’t ignore anything. I mentioned the Penal Laws that briefly existed. They were introduced because of the “turbulence” of Ireland. The Papacy supported Spain and France against England. The Catholic thing was very political. The reason for this post is Varadkar’s decision (and bearing in mind he is Indian and shouldn’t be in Ireland) to destroy relations with England. That has to have consequences for Ireland over the coming decades and I hope an English government comes to power that seeks to do so something. E.g. the right of Irish people to live and work in Britain without any work permits stems, not from EU law, but from Ireland’s former status in the UK. It is time to shut that off and make the Irish apply for work permits like everyone else. Time to stop scrounging!

      • Liz Leary says:

        The Penal Laws existed for over 200 years. The structure of apartheid and the police state were invented in Elizabethan England, enforced firstly against English papists and expanded as political control in Ireland.

  2. Liz Leary says:

    The persecution of papists is carried out by a state that stole Catholic property in Catholic countries; their money and land and prestige is loot; they perpetrated their criminality against Catholics in the Anglo-sphere. You are attributing many wonderful things to England and that is all true; but the UK had 1000 years of Catholic culture prior to the Reformation and the aroma of the One True Faith has lasted centuries, as had done so in Ireland. That’s all gone now.

    • dj1969 says:

      Liz, there were different laws at different times on education, marriage, inheritance, representation in parliament, and they all had different start and end dates. The education laws I referred to were for a few decades in the 18th century. All such laws were designed to repress a revolutionary population. The Catholics then were like the Muslims today, ie in having a large pro-terrorist minority. The law forbidding the Muslims in France from wearing a veil – is it a Penal Law? The law that prevented Muslims from running state financed Muslims schools in the UK under Margaret Thatcher (now they have Muslim state schools) – was that a Penal Law? The Israeli law that doesn’t recognise marriages to non-Jews – is that a Penal law? etc.

      In the end, you are proving my point, that the Irish are carefully coached in grievance and a purely negative identity that teachers them, “such and such a law was brought in in in 1720 and so you are entitled to hate whole population groups today”. The Caighdeán Oifigiúil crowd are examples too: they couldn’t give a stuff about the real language in the Gaeltacht, as the Irish language for them is just a vehicle for a destructive and hateful form of nationalism, a kind of anti-Englishness, and it makes no difference to them if the words they are using are not really Irish words at all.

      I encourage you to push back against hatred in Ireland.

  3. Liz Leary says:

    If you want the lectures I listen to I would be glad to post them.

  4. dj1969 says:

    Of course, I agree that white nations are all under attack in the present day and historic grievances should be set aside for the common good. I would like Ireland to remain Irish. And for Project Ireland 2040 to be cancelled. If you look at London, do you really want Cork to turn out like that? The only hope for European nations, in the context of a slide into greater nationalism, is that we won’t squabble with each other, but work together to defend a white Europe!!

  5. dj1969 says:

    Liz, I like right-wing youtube videos! And I sometimes listen to an Irishman called Critiqued. His discussion with guests at the following link is brilliant. He describes immigration of Africans and Asians into Ireland as the New Plantations:

    • Liz Leary says:

      Is breá liom an duine seo cinnte. Tá mo tír de dhíth orm. Splanc beag díobh anseo.

      • dj1969 says:

        A Liz, cuireann sé áthas orm go bhfuil fhios agat cé hé Critiqued, agus tá súil agam go mbeidh níos mó daoine in Éirinn ag tosnú ar throid ar son a dtíre, agus i gcoinnibh an inimirce. Beidh an scéal go holc agaibh nuair a bheid na cathracha lán d’Africeánachaibh agus eagla ar na píleírí cur isteach orthu, agus iad á leogaint dóibh éigean do dhéanamh ar na mnáibh gan dlí gan smacht. Tá an rud so againn cheana féin, agus leogaid na fir stáit atá againn ná feicid siad pioc.

  6. Liz Leary says:

    Tá gach rud agat. Ní bhím á fhesicit ar rud ar bith ach amháin John Waters agus EMJ. Seo duit mo ghrá eile- Bain sult as.

    • Liz Leary says:

      Tá Bílobla le fótheideal i mBéarla de dhlíth orm. Ní hé sin ar an idirlíne ach amhain i CD Rom. Tá sé ar dhíol in Veristas Corcaíocht. Níl aon maith ann mar tá an ríomhaire mór seo ar son mé féin agus mo chlainne.

  7. Dilean MacSearraigh says:

    What a travesty of a reading of Irish history. Unfortunately this is what colonialism does, create the self hatred that leads to this Stockholm syndrome attitude to Irish and English history. This is inventive, but utterly wrong on so many levels the mind boggles. Dreadfully misleading and just plain wrong about Gaelic Ireland. I hope its a parody!

    • dj1969 says:

      I’m not sure where the self-hatred comes in: I’m English, with some Irish ancestors. Nothing I have written here is wrong. British colonialism was a positive force in Ireland, and has produced Ireland’s current-day modern economy. Any negative events were just a cycle of action and reaction initiated by the Irish.

      • Dilean MacSearraigh says:

        Thats a ludicrous simplification. And yes, you are wrong. British colonialism had a dreadful effect on Ireland, retarding its development by centuries. Causing material and psychological damage on an unimaginable scale. Obliterating the heritage and people, making it the only country in western Europe to have lost population in the last century. The baleful history of British involvement in Ireland continues to the present day, and British colonialism has basically nothing to do with any little modern success Ireland might have. To stand wilfully against the evidence of history is one thing, maybe revisionist, maybe courting controversy, whatever, but to blame the Irish people for resisting the illegal, brutal and devastating military invasion and planned destruction of their culture and country is quite disgraceful.

      • dj1969 says:

        Dillon, you’ve been approved twice. I think that means you will be auto-approved in the future. Colonialism was an opportunity for economic advancement for the Irish — see Japan under the Americans and Hong Kong under the British. The Irish made the least possible of the advantage, and by constant uprisings ended up losing all the land too. Ireland’s current economic success was paid for by the British taxpayer. You may think that it is “EU money” that did it, but the EU doesn’t have any money of its own that it didn’t raise from the member states, and the UK has always been a net contributor. We paid for your roads and much else. In the end, all you’re doing is building an identity politics around claimed victimhood, which is p-a-t-h-e-t-i-c. Can you be a better person?

  8. Dilean MacSearraigh says:

    Nope, no claimed victimhood here. Ill tell you who the victims in this history were, the English were enslaved to an absolutist theocratic police state based on a military industrial complex run by a tiny unelected elite. Crushed mercilessly by Norman overlords and a viciously unjust law system, they had no choice but to follow the orders of their oppressors, same as any slaves. There was no “opportunity for advancement” under colonialism. We were to be enslaved just like the English. Well, we objected.

    To understand what you hilariously term “uprisings” you have to understand why the Irish fought, what they were fighting against, and why, which you are clearly hazy about. Believe me, the reason we were scheduled for destruction by the Imperial project is precisely because we were not victims, but lived in a society with more freedom, choice and justice than any average English person could have imagined.

    The English on the other hand, had succumbed long ago, and remain to this day the most oppressed people in western Europe. No amount of superior posturing can hide this fact. Youre not the first to try it on with this colonialist apologetic tripe, you will not be the last, but we d be some fools in this country if we were to fall for it, wouldnt we? Now you go along there and think carefully about how to be a better person yourself!

    • dj1969 says:

      You objected – just like the Somalis and Afghans object to political stability under US occupation. Working out well for Afghanistan? That’s why you lost the land – and could not eat the produce of your own land during the Famine. You had agency. You were your own worst enemies in history – and the behaviour of the disgusting Dublin elite right now during Brexit shows you have learnt nothing from history.

      It is a lie to say Ireland before 1600 was a society of freedom, choice and justice. It was utterly lawless, with naked roaming bands of brigands roaming the countryside (as numerous travellers to Ireland report – read ). Time for Ireland to drop the victim narrative and admit it is a distortion of history.

  9. Liz Leary says:

    Dia duit David, ar maith leat fotheideal Béarla a dhéanamh sa suíomh seo? Rath Dé leat

  10. dj1969 says:

    Liz, the subtitles in Irish for that site are all in poor Irish. And as there are no Irish people who are stronger speakers of Irish than English, I don’t see the reason for subtitles.

    • Liz Leary says:

      Tuigim leat ach tá mé as mo mheabhair ag lorg cultúir i nGaeilge, a bheith suimúil. Faic ach GAA atá ann; Tá gach rud i nGaeilge ana-leadránach. Dá mbeadh mé líofa dhéanfainn é.

  11. dj1969 says:

    Liz, is dócha go bhfuil an ceart agat, agus gan aon rud le fáil i nGaelainn do bheadh cuíosach suimiúil. Tá ar mhuíntir na Gaelthachta an adhb seo do réiteach, más féidir leó é …

    • Liz Leary says:

      Tá mé ar tí dul amach as an Ghaeilge; mura bhfuil cultúir suimúil ann don gach éinne is am dul amú ag foghlaim é, ach amháin tá páiste agat ar scoil cosúil liom.

      • P O Floinn says:

        Dave, dealraIonn an scéal nár labhair tú le h-aoinne gur maraiodh gaolta leo go fealltach ag dubhchrónaigh agus ag saighdiúiri Sasanacha le linn cogadh na saoirse 1919 – 1920. Maireann sin i gcuimhne na ndaoine.

      • dj1969 says:

        P Floínn, anyone who was killed in the war of independence by British soldiers deserved it. It’s time the Irish abandoned the victim narrative and admitted it was based on a tissue of lies. People fighting for independence, so to speak, were people using violence for political ends, taking advantage of the weakness of Britain after the end of the First World War. The British Isles had been ruled essentially by Britain for 900 years, and Britain was offering home rule. A serious great power cannot allow a small part of its territory to become a hostile independent state offering its territory for military bases against their former rulers. The Ukraine is playing the same game against Russia, and is likely to suffer, and deservedly so, in the end for this. The Treaty allowing Treaty ports more or less amounted to a workable compromise. But I think Britain did not go in hard enough on Ireland in 1919-20, partly because they were focused on India, Egypt and other areas too. Far more Irishmen should have died, in fact. I’m abandoning all political correctness on this subject. The Irish are British – and Ireland will one day be part of the UK again – and I think the behaviour of the Indian, whose only qualification to be your prime minister is that he likes anal sex, makes it inevitable that Ireland will lose its independence in the next 20-30 years. I would love to see a nationalistic government in London create an all-white Britain and end Ireland’s plans to become a mainly Pakistani country via Project Ireland 2040.

      • patricknelson750 says:

        “The Irish are British – and Ireland will one day be part of the UK again”

        Maybe Brittas the Bald will one day become part of Ireland again.

      • dj1969 says:

        Well, I don’t know who Brittas the Bald was… But I suppose you know the word Britain is just a form of the word Cruithne – for the Picts, who started off in Northern Ireland, before moving to Scotland.

      • patricknelson750 says:

        Maybe you should read more of your own country’s great old books and a little less internet then. : )

  12. dj1969 says:

    Let me add that I’m a strong supporter of the American AltRight (Richard Spencer, et al) and therefore a white nationalist. I think the individual European nations are all in decline, and that white people need to abandon their historical disputes and make common cause. So narrow British nationalism is likely to be less viable than a white identity that includes all of Europe (including Russia), North America and Australasia. In that sense, the Irish should abandon historical disputes with England and take the last-ditch chance to save Ireland as a European society in tandem with nationalists in England and elsewhere in Europe and North America. Irish unification was one solution for Ireland while Ireland remained largely white -as it still is – as there is no point in Belfast being ruled by Pakis from London – but Project Ireland 2040 changes the calculus significantly. If you don’t want to see Irish girls raped en masse by Pakistanis, Somalis and Afghans with the laughing collusion of the Gárda Síochána – which is the equivalent of what we now have in England – then the race issue must become the most signficant. Is Ireland at all to survive? A pan-white identity is key to that.

    • P O Floinn says:

      Dave, Bheadh sé nios fearr gan dul lasmuigh de chúrsai teangan. Ach cuimhnionn daoine ar chursai 25 Meán Fomhair 1920 inar tarrangaiodh beirt fhear Mack agus Hanrahan ó Chill Rois go h-Inis, agus iad ceangailte agus iad ar an dtalamh an sé mhile is scór i ndiaidh trucail mileata ag saighdiúiri Sasanacha go dti an bearaic Inis, Is de thoradh imeachtai diablai mar sin go bhfuil an oiread sin de dhimheas á chaitheamh ag alán de mhuintir na tire seo ar údarás na sacsan.

      • dj1969 says:

        The names were Michael MacNamara and Willie Shanahan (not Hanrahan). They were executed for taking part in a military ambush at Burrane. They were dragged, says Clare Library site and see also, several yards, not 26 miles (typical Irish exaggeration for victimhood purposes – why lie? I wouldn’t care if they were dragged 26 miles either, though.). There was a war on – and they were participants. I will raise a glass on Monday December 17th, in commemoration of the anniversary of their capture. Look! The terrorists got short shrift – so what? There was a Bloody Sunday in Northern Ireland, but the problem is there should have been one every Sunday until attempts to destabilise the North stopped. I do not agree with turning the Irish language into an adjunct of Fenianism. I see Irish as an interesting part of the history of the British Isles – part of British Isles heritage.

    • patricknelson750 says:

      My pans are black, don’t you mean bone china white?

      Also is that pan white thing including the many Afghans who look just like dark Irish or Welshmen?

      • dj1969 says:

        No, the Afghans are not white. The AltRight leaders have repeatedly explained the concept is ethnic, not racial as such. The Afghans may be distantly related in some way, as the Iranians and others are – but they belong to a rival civilisation, Islam, and have adopted an ethnic culture hostile to ours.

      • patricknelson750 says:

        I’m sure that they aren’t all, but I know for a fact that many of the “AltRight” people are the same sort of people who used to put up “no blacks, no Irish, no pets” in their vacancy signs.

        The same sort of people who caused a lot of trouble for Irish people in America and the same sort of people who let the Potato Famine Genocide rumble on because they classed the Irish as an inferior race fit for extermination.

        I wouldn’t place too much faith in these people.

      • dj1969 says:

        Such signs as “no blacks, no Irish” are largely apocryphal. I’ve read articles claiming that such signs were certainly never seen in the US, although the victim-seeking claim is that they were. In the UK, I don’t know for sure. But the Irish who came to the US were until a certain fairly recent date comprised almost entirely of drunken builders and travellers. There was a reason for such signs. UK politician Edwina Curry once stated on the radio her shock when she visited Ireland and saw men in suits — it was the first time she had seen a middle-class Irishman and not a drunken builder. These are just facts. And, no, there was no genocide in the Irish Famine – that is just a slur, and a mendacious one at that. Britain did far more than ever before to relieve the Famine. Compare, for example, the Finnish famine of the 1860s – . 8.5% of the population died, and one-fifth in some areas, and yet the Finnish finance minister (Finland was an autonomous duchy in the Russian empire, but response to the famine was entirely in Finnish hands) didn’t want to help more, because borrowing more money could raise interest rates on the Finnish markka!!!! This is very similar to the Irish famine, but the Finnish government did even less to help – and Finnish national identity is not built around a victimhood narrative relating to the Finnish famine.

      • patricknelson750 says:

        Those signs were real as is the continuing common English working class use of the phrase “That’s Irish” to mean that something is stupid.

        ‘These are just facts. And, no, there was no genocide in the Irish Famine – that is just a slur, and a mendacious one at that. Britain did far more than ever before to relieve the Famine’

        No it isn’t DJ1969, you take land off the people, essentially only let the grow potatoes as tenant farmers and keep this situation up during a time of potato blight and those people are going to die or leave.

        The English saw themselves as Teutonic Aryans and the bulk of the Irish as Phoenician Africans and they succeeded in culling their herd of Irish tenant “slaves” – especially in the West coast where the people were least Anglicized and in English eyes least Teutonic.

        If 1,622,739 people dying or having to leave their homeland in ten years isn’t genocide I don’t know what is?

        Especially as the British pressurized foreign governments like that of the Ottoman Sultan to limit their aid shipments. See

      • dj1969 says:

        More was done than was normal at the time to save the lives of the people. Most countries didn’t do anything at all in those circumstances. Had Ireland been independent, nothing would have been done to save the lives of the rural people. See the Finnish example. You’re transplanting modern welfare notions to the 1840s. Britain did not intend initially to take all the land, but as the constant uprisings never ended, they led to more and more of the Gaelic chieftains losing their land. It was like Iraq or Somalia, where constant instability led to deeper and deeper involvement. Had the Irish been like the Japanese under US occupation, they would have made a success of British rule from day one. Don’t you realise that building your identity around a victim narrative makes you personally inferior? Like an African American trotting out slavery as an omni-excuse all the time.

  13. P O Floinn says:

    Dave, Ar mhaith leat é dá raghadh duine strainséartha isteach in do thearmann féin agus seilbh a ghlacadh ar gach a bhaineann leat? Ni gá freagra a thabhairt air sin.

    • dj1969 says:

      I don’t even really know what that refers to – does it refer to the Unionist people arriving in Ireland centuries ago? Right of conquest was legally recognised in the olden days, and England protected itself against France occupying Ireland and using it as a base to attack England from. The Irish were no different to bandits – and travellers stories of how completely nude Irishmen roamed the countryside with nothing but swords in their hands shows this was like living next to Somalia. You’re not telling the historical truth about Ireland. Nude savages!

  14. patricknelson750 says:

    “I cannot support a policy of confiscating all land from Gaelic nobles and handing it out as “freehold” property either to Anglo-Irish landed gentry, and to people based in England who never visited their Irish estates at all.”

    Never mind the English, as a half Costello I am more concerned about the Dillons carpet bagging Castlemore and the Barony of Costello in Elizabethan times : ( I will henceforth never frequent Dillons newsagent if it still exists. So there.

  15. TO'R says:

    Tiresome anti-Irish tract to read even as someone who agrees on the wider demographic question facing the Irish nation through mass immigration today.

    (liked the quip about the Irish only inventing Guinness very inventive totally not revealing of Hibernophobic prejudices etc )

    Have qualms about the apparent “victim narrative” of progressive Irish nationalists you outlined despite being one but your rose tinted view of English cultural and political incursion into Ireland is beggar’s belief.

    English rule was the precursor of modern liberalism and sought to subdue the Irish nation just the same. For English rule to be fully ingrained the Irish were to be culturally crushed and politically integrated into the British Union with the price paid in economic backwardness and the emigration of our children.

    The Irish then as in now are well within their rights to resist this and have no need to offer explanations to apologists of Trevelyan and co. would suggest a reading of Irish history outside of Ruth Dudley Edwards columns.

  16. dj1969 says:

    T O’R: no rose-tinted view here. But the Irish had agency and brought their history on themselves. If you have any self-awareness (as expected of a person in the post-Enlightenment era), you will realise the Irish are destructive and played a full role in the way history worked out for them. Ireland was economically backward – but had no achievements before the flight of the Earls either. The Irish outside the Pale walked around literally naked in the 15th century. That is your own independent cultural achievement. Get real: every single modern technological invention you have taken from the English. Show some gratitude and grow up!

    • TO'R says:

      We were complicit in our history to the extent we failed to properly resist the conquest.

      Your diatribes act as perfect validation as to why the English connection was noxious as well as the willful blindness of English Tories towards Ireland.

      Your ethnic dislike of us is driven by a little petulant rage that we didn’t submit and become a petty little province like Cornwall or Sussex.

      Pericles resisted Athens becoming an appendage of the polyglot Persian Empire for same primal reasons Irish patriots from Eoghan Ó Néill to Pádraic Pearse fought against integration into the anti-national British Empire.

      The British Empire was the tombstone of nations that gobbled up the English nation and was the forerunner for modern globalism.

      The majority of the Irish nation were without basic rights from the Treaty of Limerick to O’Connell’s Catholic Emancipation never mind the demographic body blow of the Famine. This was calculated bent on destroying the Irish nation and leaving us a nation of anglophile buffoons.

      The Irish influence on British politics has been egregious as well rather ironically. Any attempts to fasten Ireland to the British Union just results in mass disruption to British politics.

      This repetitive narrative about the Irish being a race of savages has been trundling along since Topographia Hibernica it took the likes of Samuel Ferguson himself a unionist as well as members of the Gaelic revival to begin to dispel it,

      We can happily take the technological genius of Britannia same way we do with Germans, Russians ,Asians etc without subsuming ourselves within it as per any normal nation.

      Regards the Irish ‘growing up’ I would agree but in the tradition of General Collins (you remember the savage Irishman who outmatched British intelligence with meager resources using pure cunning)

      ‘”We shall no longer have anyone but ourselves to blame if we fail to use the freedom we have won to achieve full freedom. We are now on the natural and inevitable road to complete the work of Davis and Rooney, to restore our native tongue, to get back our history, to take up again and complete the education of our countrymen in the North-East in the national ideal, to renew our strength and refresh ourselves in our own Irish civilisation, to become again the Irish men and Irish women of the distinctive Irish nation, to make real the freedom of which Davis sang, for which Rooney worked, for which Tom Clarke and Sean McDermott and their comrades fought and died.”

      Irish history is an ancient history where resistance to the foreigner is a constant motif. English incursion was and is just another chapter.

      • dj1969 says:

        No, you did resist the conquest. The conquest was caused by the fact you offered yourself to France and Spain as a security threat to England, much as the Ukraine is trying to join NATO and poke Russia in the eye. You got more than you bargained for.

        No, noxious is a perfect word for the Irish. The Irish are downright nasty as a people and as individual people!

        Look. Irish independence is psychologically damaging to the Irish, and the Irish are the main victims of it. They always say the Scots made something of themselves only be becoming British: small nations can only ever be resentful mutterers in the shadow of the glory of their neighbours. Irish independence has led to an increase, not a decrease, in Irish resentfulness, a psychologically damaging trait you suffer from. Get help!!!

        You say the famine was “calculated” to destroy the Irish – but it was a potato blight! And the English moved heaven and earth to save the Irish. Compare the Finnish government’s reaction to the famine of 1866-68 in that country, where the government refused to do anything in case borrowing money for famine relief led to higher interest rates!!!

        I’ll say a prayer for you!

      • TO'R says:

        English incursion into Ireland commenced in 1169 under Henry II you are skipping ahead of yourself.

        If you want to have your timeline clarified further the Laois-Offaly Plantation commenced in 1556 (with the ethnic cleansing of Irish people) A call for assistance from Catholic Spain came years later.

        It made geopolitical sense for the Irish to align with Continental powers in same way it was required for post Reformation England to dominate Ireland. Its a case of geopolitical calculus on both sides we Fenians shed no tears and expect the English to do likewise.

        Liberals and unionists alike have been attempting to revise Irish Independence almost expecting the Irish to disavow our patriotic dead like SJW beta males disavow using racist words.Again the only regret we should have is not properly defeating occupying forces in Ireland and Irish republicanism dabbling in marxism since the 1960s.

        I’m pretty amicable towards English people, have dated an English girl and enjoy English literature etc once Ireland is liberated and culturally semi autonomous hope we have a nice future relationship ahead of us as separate nations.

        The British state has inflicted as much psychological and social damage on the English as the Irish only we are fortunate to see the wood from the trees on the issues. As the Irish experienced plantations historically so too are the English from the same detached Westiminster class that traded empire for globalism.

        As Mitchel stated nature brought the blight but the British brought the Famine. The socio-economic conditions in Ireland at the time were constructed by and for British imperialism still harboring a ethnic dislike of the Irish that we can still see in your comments.

        If the British state moved heaven and earth to stop the Famine it illustrates then how defective it was as an administration. An indictment of British rule in Ireland is the demographic profile of Ireland in the 19th Century,

      • dj1969 says:

        Look, Ireland was mainly not under English control in the 16th century before the Flight of the Earls. Diarmuid Mac Murchadha invited the English in in 1169, yes — they didn’t conquer the whole of the country, and the Anglo-Norman earls were not actually English. Do you not know that a Norman ruling class was installed in England after 1066? And that they spoke French? And yet we don’t build our national identity to this day around opposition to the Norman Conquest of 1066? Pathetic!

        If you accept that both sides had their geopolitical reasons for fighting wars in the past — then why the victimhood narrative simply because you lost?

        You say Britain and Ireland can be amicable separate nations – and that is what Britain has pursued for nearly a century – and yet Varadkar’s outbursts show that the Irish simply don’t want that. They will always try to “stir the pot” however nice you are to them. FACT.

        No one dislikes the Irish for being Irish per se – and if you’ve ever worked in England then you’ll know that nearly every English person likes the Irish! It is the Irish who are building their national identity solely around hatred of the English and nothing else – no positive content, just destructive and negative.

        Have you read the Wikipedia link on the Finnish famine of 1866-68 to find out how the Finnish government refused to help their own people? If Ireland had been independent in the 1840s, not a finger would have been lifted to help the famine-stricken areas. FACT.

  17. TO'R says:

    Again the Irish do not build our culture around brit bashing contrary the fever dreams of you revisionists. Pretty open to English culture as well its the issue of the national question and the understanding the political connection between the two nations is egregious I take issue with. Irish re-unification would be the best thing in the world for Britain in the same way Brexit is a great thing for the English psyche.

    Norman conquest of Britain was more of an installation of a new Francophile ruling class than anything else. Post Reformation Britain waged a war of cultural and political annihilation against the Irish to wipe out her distinct Gaeilc Catholic culture and protect its left flank geopolitically by subsuming Ireland into it. Patriotic Irishman owe the forces of occupation culturally and politically resistance as would be expected of patriotic Englishman if they were occupied by a foreign power.

    Varadkar FYI is historically from the most anglophile elements of Irish politics historically the faction that is against commemorating the Easter Rising and is in favor of joining the British Commonwealth. His anti-Brexit stance is driven by his globalism same way remainers in Britain are driven the same way.

    Found this contradiction rather funny in your replies ngl
    “No, noxious is a perfect word for the Irish. The Irish are downright nasty as a people and as individual people!”

    “No one dislikes the Irish for being Irish per se – and if you’ve ever worked in England then you’ll know that nearly every English person likes the Irish”

    Expect a lot from the Irish but don’t expect us to be stupid.

    Again am pretty amicable towards the English culturally and personally and very in favor of Brexit. When I speak Irish to friends and family or read Irish literature of partake in Gaelic games its from an understandings its my heritage and something that has been safeguarded by my ancestors and that I will pass on to my children. Nothing anti English in that depsite the venom you conjure up in your brain.

    The claim that an Irish government would be as dysfunctional as a the British government towards the Irish Famine is naturally spurious. The colonial economy incentivised by colonialism is what triggered the Famine never mind the willful incompetence of the British state.The Famine illustrated just how morally bankrupt the political Union with Britain was a price we paid in our sons and daughters being exiled abroad.

    • dj1969 says:

      If the Irish do not build their culture around bashing the British, how can you explain Varadkar’s behaviour? Clearly, if Britain left the EU without a deal, Ireland would suffer worse than England, and yet the temptation to engage in the old Brit-bashing was just too much and couldn’t be resisted. Why don’t you realise that none of the national identities of Europe will survive the arrival of millions of Third Worlders and work with English nationalists to preserve a European Europe? Intra-white rivalries can only weaken us all — look at how the Afrikaners didn’t want to open South Africa in the 1950s to more English-speaking migration and immigration from Eastern Europe — and so lost the whole country instead.

      You admit that in Ireland Britain was “protecting its left flank geopolitically”. I agree with that term, and so you see Britain in Ireland is just the same as Russia in the Ukraine, or the US intervening in Cuba or parts of the Caribbean. No attempt was made to wipe out Irish culture — that is just a barefaced lie — and Ireland would have done better by adopting Protestantism and the Irish-language Bible translated in the 17th century by the Church of Ireland.

      Where you go wrong is claiming you were engaged in just “patriotic resistance”. Beyond a certain point, this becomes just obstructionism. Japan under US occupation? Hong Kong under the British? These could have engaged in constant uprisings, but didn’t, and they made something of themselves. Whereas Iraq under US occupation was engaged in purely destructive “resistance” – and they were the only losers. Being part of the British Empire was a massive opportunity for Ireland to be part of something greater than themselves. You clearly fail to engage with the argument that Finland allowed one in 12 Finns to die in the 1860s rather than borrow money to help them and risk higher interest rates. Clearly this is an awkward example for you. See

      Do you know of John Waters? The former Irish Times journalist. He argues that Ireland has a culture of “mimicry”, and that Ireland is currently locked into a horrible cycle of, not just mimicking globalism, but trying to do it even better than Britain and America, and thus trying to go for a more extreme version of globalism. The Irish abortion law is another example of mimicry.

      I hope when you speak Irish to your friends that you speak a real Irish dialect and not some so-called standard cooked up in Dublin. This site is all about Cork Irish and i would urge you to speak Munster Irish if you had to choose between the dialects. I have both Munster and Ulster ancestors, but chose Munster Irish to learn as this was more coterminous with the 18th century literary tradition and is the more conservative dialect and the one used by Peadar Ua Laoghaire. Of course, Ua Laoghaire was locked into anti-British hatred, but I have always accepted that he came to the issue from his own historical background.

      By the way, I do not engage in censorship on this blog, and allow any negative comments. I think after 2 or 3 comments being approved the system will auto-approve them. I forget how it works, but your next one may go straight through. The only thing I would consider editing would be the F-word.

      • TO'R says:

        Varadkar’s position on the backstop etc do not relate to general trends in Irish culture and to think so is again rather spurious. This side of the GFA Anglo-Irish dialogue has been typified by friendship on the part of Dublin and Westminster.The most die hard globalists are also the most ardent anglophiles Sutherland, Bruton etc Varadkar (a man who half his family reside in the UK btw) is not in anyway anglophobic just anti Brexit.

        The Irish government lobbied for the backstop rightly or wrongly for the justified fear of a hard border and indifferent Tory politicos leaving NI to crash and burn with the 26 alongside it. In realpolitik it can be explained perfectly even if I disagree with it myself. What Brexitters are dolefully scratching their heads about is fact the Irish aren’t acting in tandem with the UK. This feeds back into the point of a) many Brexiters yourself included despising the Irish on an ethnic level and b) never psychologically accepting fact Ireland or the 26C territory is separate to the UK.

        As mentioned before am as ardently against mass immigration into Ireland as you are to England. Though I don’t think Brexit will change this dynamic. English nationalists aren’t just English nationalists they are British nationalists which by extension claim a part of Ireland. European nationalists normally side with the Irish for this reason. Imagine Germany occupying Sussex and pondering why English nationalists never fully bury the hatchet.

        The years of the Penal laws and overt writings of British unionists from the 16th C onward eg here with Edmund Spenser author of the Faerie Queen and prominent landholder in Cork

        As an Irishmen have no desire to refresh your memory of British massacres of the Irish in Ireland so will leave it at that. Britain had a set goal of obliterating Ireland and remaking it in her image as a sycophantic province ie West Britain.

        Again the point regarding obstructionism is absurd. Ireland unlike post 45 Japan had the capacity to throw off the British occupation and to large extent did.

        Your Finnish argument means that native governments *can* preside over Famine not proof that an independent Ireland would. The conditions of the Famine were prefigured decades in advance by the imbalances caused by colonial economy.

        I know JW personally and to claim that he would agree with your anti Irish scribbles is absurd. The ‘mimicry’ argument is correct but doesn’t verify your point in the least. The reasons why I resist globalism are the same I resist British and Anglo-America cultural colonisation in Ireland in general.

        Ultimately if you are enranged and so dislike the Irish so much I’d council you to stay away from our island despite the geopolitical concerns. Carrot is better than the stick from your perspective. Ireland and the Irish elite would be happy to be allies to England against the Continent if the conditions were right but that would entail some fundamental shifts on your part.

      • dj1969 says:

        Look, I think the GFA should be scrapped as Northern Ireland has nothing to do with the Republic of Ireland. The only positive in there was that the RoI deleted its spurious claim to 32-county sovereignty. If we go down that route, Germany will be claiming parts of Poland, Mexico will be invading the US, and China will be resuming control of the Korean peninsula.

        Ireland’s approach to Brexit is inherently Anglophobic. In fact, Ireland only ever joined the euro because they saw it as “anti-English” (slipping out of English control, or something), and they ending up having huge debts foisted on them – illegally – by Brussels under the last bailout. So Ireland gets a rush of blood to the head motivated by anti-English prejudice and then does things against its national interests. Varadkar is by definition not pro-English, as the half of his family living in the UK are just Indians who have abused multiculturalism to move to the UK. I don’t think there should be any Varadkars in the UK either. Your assumption that Fine Gael is pro-English relates to a former age, probably the 1970s.

        Varadkar is not worried about a “hard” border. Enda Kenny was preparing to work with the UK on Brexit, and Varadkar was convinced by Brussels to impliedly threaten a resumption of terrorism if Britain left the EU. Actually, the bureaucrats in Brussels don’t care about Ireland! The Irish don’t see to realise that. This could yet blow up (like an IRA bomb!) in Ireland’s face.

        Look. I’ll let you into a little secret, which you would know if you’d ever worked in the UK. No one in Great Britain gives a damn about Northern Ireland. We’re certainly not trying to hold onto it, or prevent it from leaving, and most people would be glad if it voted to join the Republic. We’d save £10bn a year in subsidies, and you’ve indicated you wouldn’t mind your taxes rising to cover that in a United Ireland.

        Britain gave in in 1922 to Fenian uprisings, as it had bigger fish to fry — Britain had India and large parts of Africa. Although looking back at how quickly the Empire was wrapped up (sadly and unjustifiably), maybe we should have forgotten about India and restored order in Ireland instead. Independence was given as there were few people in England who cared either way about it. The Irish seem to think the English have always been scheming about Ireland, when most English people never give it any thought at all.

        You are right that globalism is an Anglo-American cultural import that Ireland should resist. For England, multiculturalism is largely a US import, but it has now been so fully adopted that it must be considered an Anglo-American thing now. It infuriates me to see the EU try to impose this on Poland and Hungary, as if it were such a good idea in countries like Britain in the first place.

        Don’t worry, if we don’t end up leaving the EU properly, I will never visit Ireland again. I have wasted too many years of my life on a dialect I’m interested in, when the people of the country concerned are just bitterly eaten up with hatred. You claim the Irish would be happy to be our allies against Europe, and I suppose it might take another euro-crisis or two for the penny (or the euro-cent) to drop on that. In the end, Ireland may end up having its goods being checked in Wales, then trucked across England, and then checked again in Dover, stuck in a currency that relates to a eurozone economy that is the minority of Ireland’s exports, wondering why it ever got into any of this in the first place.

        By the way, check out…/Heartfield-HeartfieldNonHistoricSGIR07.pdf on the Marxist (Frederick Engels) concept of “non-historic peoples” – small nations that get in the way of progress!

      • dj1969 says:

        This is the quote from Engels on Non-historic Peoples:

        “There is no country in Europe that does not possess in some remote corner,
        one or more ruins of peoples, left over from an earlier population, forced back
        and subjugated by the nation which later became the repository of historical
        development. These remnants of a nation, mercilessly crushed as Hegel said,
        by the course of history, this national refuse is always the fanatical
        representative of the counter-revolution and remains so until it is completely
        exterminated or de-nationalised, as its whole existence is in itself a protest
        against a great historical revolution.

        Engels was infuriated that the 1848 revolutions in Europe failed, partly because the Czechs saw a chance to go for independence from Austro-Hungary, and when they tried that, Austrian support for the revolution waned and the the revolution was crushed. Engels thought small nations acted in selfish ways that prevented broader progress. You could compare the way the Ukraine (although not a a small nation) seeks to stoke war with Russia, or the way the Quebeckers have been used by multiculturalists in Canada to impose a politically correct elite that most Canadians can’t join because they don’t speak enough French, etc. There are these examples of small nations who think only of themselves and not the broad issues of the day.

      • TO'R says:

        British army and navy are similarly a shadow of itself.Armed forces are rather pointless if in the hands of globalist powers. Look at the armed might of NATO merely wasted on ventures in Libya/Iraq etc. Regardless the presence of armed strength does very little in both our cases regarding the wider demographic issue. The grunts in the British army and security apparatus will sooner be used to quell nationalist rebellion than anything that could help Britain. A byproduct of Brexit in Ireland will be the 26 C state getting serious about defense in a way it hasn’t since the Army Mutiny in the 1920s or the Emergency.

        Brexit was an assertion of the nation state against supranatural and its flaws. The model may be under strain but the alternative you are proposing some nebulous Yockeyian Europe is a non-starter.People will rally to their nation states in relation to anti-globalism no man on the street is willing to die for ‘Evopa’ outside of cyber white nationalists whereas even now men would die for England, Ireland ,France etc . I’d agree artificial nation state’s like Belgium are finished but Ireland similar to Germany or Poland make up states born out of an organic ethnos.

        Your notion of a budding white state to fix things is preposterous.

        Europe and Christendom exist or even existed but some transcendental ‘white race’ don’t-its like the fabled international proletariat envisioned by marxists . Europeans make up a family but shepherding them into a single racial state would be a sign of European culture becoming so atrophied we can only be united by a single common denominator skin color.

        The only thing that united Europe was Christianity and in 2019 that has been shattered and is destined sadly to become a third worldist force in the 21st C.

        White nationalism is alien to the European world outside of normally small Anglo-American sections of far right. In the 21st Century we require cooperation on a European level on matters of defence,trade and migration even but to think that “Evopa” type thinking is gonna emerge to save us is fantasy.You can argue that ‘whites’ became a nation in Europe through centuries of mixing and historical circumstance but even then its a shallow identity and not applicable to Europe

        You seem to be as fixated on ‘dusty disputes’ as myself reevaluating this page again incidentally.

      • dj1969 says:

        Yes, the British army is taking on as many ethnics as possible for future use against a nationalist rebellion. We seem to have a forethinking government!!

        I’m afraid I wouldn’t lift a finger to defend the British government, knowing they only harass and imprison nationalists. If the Russians conquered Britain and promised to end multiculturalism, I’d accept the arrangement with a sense of relief.

        You seem to be arguing for constant squabbles among European people. Don’t you realise 5m Afghans arrive in Ireland and suddenly the “new Irish population” won’t give a damn about your Famine and battles and history? In fact, you inadvertently show that small nations will always try to impede the progress of their larger neighbours, as Engels pointed out.

        Look, I think a European alliance or commonwealth could be a collage of nations, with each preserving their culture and entitled to control intra-white immigration if they wished to. But to think in a world where China and India will be the great powers and where our elites are trying to smother the national states that the old national identities are infinitely preservable will be shown to be false.

        It is indeed difficult to see how the future will pan out. We are not really ready for it. Just think: an Islamic Republic in France? We can bomb Syria, but we can’t bomb Paris. So we are wandering into this without a thought. And, of course, when the US is mainly Mexican, and Europe is mainly black and Muslim, there will be no NATO.

  18. TO'R says:

    I’m against the GFA for same reason I wanted O’Connel to fail and Redmond to be outflanked by the IRB in 1916. Ireland is ours and it is the law of history that we most dominate our island to dominate our future culturally and demographically. Bismark knew that Germany needed to be united to be a self respecting nation same goes with Ireland.

    The 6 counties are Irish by the laws of Providence and will be vindicated and English rule extirpated. The forgoing of the constitutional claim on the 6 was the landmark in the globalist intrusion into Ireland fyi

    As someone who I assume defends Britain and her empire am cackling at the notion of you bemoaning irredentism.

    The Irish elite’s approach to Brexit is globalist in nature same with her acceptance of the euro. The euro was championed in same way the pound was in decades before it was reasoned that Britain was and still is a declining market and it was best to pivot elsewhere. It wasn’t anglophobic as that would assume corporate interests in Ireland are anti English when evidently they aren’t There are pluses and minuses to this argument but again your perceptions about Irish politics are woeful utterly woeful.

    By the logic of Britishness Varadkar is British. Its an inherently civic identity remember? Multiculturalism came as a byproduct of having a multi ethnic empire. Same way the Roman Empire killed the old Roman bloodlines with immigration so too England will sadly perish into demographic nothing with the logic of empire.

    FG is ardently pro-British and I know that from personal connections and a religous observation of Irish politics. FG members I know regard Britain literally as a motherland and in same way as Brussels just a wider cosmopolitan entity. To claim FG iis anti English is to claim the LP under Corbyn are anarcho-capitalists.

    Irish people are aware of English indifference to Ireland btw and as mentioned before multiculturalism originated in the British empire as much as in left wing campuses.If the EU didn’t impose globalism it would be NATO.

    Again can’t see reason for Engel’s quote am aware of view of marxists that are hostile to right of small nations. The Irish have proved themselves a nation by force of arms against the invader and will verify it again to the sake of our homeland. Whatever aristocratic communists or anti Irish tories like yourself think.

    Ireland is ours and not the plaything of globalists or fifth rate imperial nostalgics

  19. dj1969 says:

    Look! Ireland has almost no army and no wherewithal to defend itself. So your pride in military prowess is quite funny. I think all Western nations have to accept the nation-states are over. The Queen and the Church of England are impossibly tarnished – both are traitorous. So there’s no going back to the glories of Britain. I would welcome a future pro-white state that included as much of Europe and North America and Australia/NZ as possible. We have to band together in some way, and cannot let very dusty old disputes get in the way. I get annoyed by the German attitude to Brexit – demanding tens of billions as if this was the Greek or Irish bailout crisis all over again – but at the same time, I know Germany is a key white nation that is central to the future of the white race and the German people can’t be abandoned, even if the German elite are worthless. Ireland is not in itself a large and important part of Europa, but if you include all Ireland’s descendants in America and Australia etc, it would be an important strand of whiteness, if it can ever move on from the Groundhog Day of replaying the Famine.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s