RSS
From my new column in Taki’s Magazine:
Due to the vagaries of the lunar calendar, the 100th anniversary of the Easter Rising in Dublin is either just past us or coming up in late April.
In either case, today is a convenient occasion for trying to put Irish history into some sort of long-term perspective. The 1916 attempted nationalist putsch (while the British were otherwise occupied on the Western Front) eventually led to the 26 southern counties of Ireland finally achieving independence after about 750 years of getting shoved around by England.
To talk about Ireland inevitably leads to the domineering subject of England. It’s admittedly unfair to Ireland, but understanding Irish history requires grasping something of what made England uniquely influential in molding the modern world. As English philosopher John Stuart Mill observed in 1866:
Ireland is not an exceptional country; but England is. Irish circumstances and Irish ideas as to social and agricultural economy are the general ideas of the human race; it is English circumstances and English ideas that are peculiar.
Read the whole thing there.
This article includes several ideas I’ve been kicking around for a long time and have finally aired.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
That’s a lot of potatoes. What did they eat before potatoes? Potatoes are from the New World so they’re relatively recent.
Famously, one contributory factor in Prussia's rise to power was Frederick the Great's encouragement of the population to eat potatoes.
Ireland has the highest rate of lactose tolerance
and also has the highest rate of an iron-retention genetic "disease" which can give you heart attacks when you're older
milk doesn't have any iron (bad for the babbies)Replies: @Anonymous
If the contemporary Irish I’ve met are any indication, the Irish seem intent on giving away their country in a few years. Tiz a puzzlement.
If you’ve fought for something for about a thousand years and finally get it, you should immediately throw it away, that’s what I always say!
According to archeology, everyone in the West is busy giving away that which we've been fighting and dying over for at least three thousand years.
Knowing the character of Irish people – particularly the lower type of Irish people, I doubt if this immigrationism of the past few decades will work out well.
If one cares to remember the horrific deaths of those two unfortunate plainclothes British Army corporals in Belfast back in 1988, then that gives you some sort of idea of what the Irish are capable of.
Indeed the character and behavior of the Irish are a constant theme running through the English reportage and literature on the subject for centuries.
If we're keeping score, the English are much, much worse. But who's keeping score?Replies: @random observer
That was truly a wonderful moment to watch.Replies: @Brutusale, @Cagey Beast
You’re right about the political-economic effects of Ireland as a safety valve for inhibiting wealth concentration within England. This allowed for the development and maintenance of the yeomanry – independent farmers with relatively small landholdings – the precursor to the modern middle-class. Of course it also had the effect of inhibiting the formation of a yeomanry in Ireland. Ireland became organized into huge estates owned by absentee English landlords and worked by Irish tenants, most of whose labor output would go to rents, with little left for wages. Whereas for the yeomanry, labor output is returned to the yeoman himself as his wage. This is why Ireland became a hotbed of Royalism. Thomas Wentworth, the infamous Earl of Strafford, was a staunch Royalist and favorite of King Charles and had gained his fortune in Ireland through basically graft after he was appointed as an administrator for the Crown there. By exporting this sort of thing to Ireland, England was protected from it, which set up the Royalist vs. Parliamentarian conflict, as Parliament’s base was the yeomanry and minor gentry of smaller landholders. Wentworth himself, after serving the Crown and acquiring a huge fortune for himself in Ireland, ended up being executed by Parliament, whose base grew in power because guys like Wentworth were off in Ireland predating over there rather than in England.
The New World later on served a similar purpose as an outlet for labor which kept wages higher in England than it would have been otherwise.
I believe James “Joyce” is a Norman surname.
“…whose patchwork empire then included Sicily and Antioch in West Asia.”
Oddly enough Norman Antioch was pretty close to one of their big adversaries, Aleppo, a location now central to a certain lack of tranquility in the world at large.
Principality of Antioch:
An odd factoid. By the time the Mongols came through in 1260 the Normans were greatly weakened; their numbers had never been all that high anyway (a small elite). They joined up with the Mongols. The Mongols then went on to be defeated by the Egyptian Mamluks (slave soldiers who had taken over the government), the first time the Mongols had suffered a serious defeat in a cavalry battle:
Those old Normans did get around.
A highly unpleasant business:
http://necrometrics.com/pre1700a.htm#EnglCW
Interesting to note just how blood-soaked the 17th century was:
Conquest of Ireland:
Approx 500,000 deaths
Thirty Years' War (1618-48):3-4 million to 7-8 million dead
I’ve been hearing an argument lately that purports to justify the immivasion on the grounds that since Europe colonized much of the world, it is now only fair that the formerly conquered peoples get to live the good life in the places that grew rich off colonial theft.
I disagree with this, but see how the bleeding hearts use this against the Englands and Spains of Europe. However, there is no way Ireland and many other Euro states qualify for this punishment.
Given Ireland’s history of being subjugated, humiliated and occupied for so long, why on earth would they want to import a fresh batch of strangers? I figured much of the Eastern European nations’ opposition to the immivasion was due to their history of being somebody’s pawn. Shouldn’t Ireland’s attitude towards demographic change be more like Poland’s and less like England’s?
What they were, however, was monolithically Lutheran with a strong tint of conformity. Many Swedes also immigrated to the US during the 19th century, and present-day liberals use this as the reason that Sweden must have an open border policy.
The same argument is used by the liberals in Ireland today, as well as channeling the myth that Ireland presaged the Third World "wars of national liberation". (There is some truth to that, Mao's thoughts on guerilla warfare came from Michael Collins).
And today, Ireland has shifted from monolithically Catholic to monolithically anti-clerical (despite having a liberal clergy). So most Irish voters don't even value their ethnoreligious identity at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Sutherland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Shatter
And these guys.Replies: @Carl, @Marcus, @RadicalCenter, @RadicalCenter, @Pericles
a) deliberately destroy us
or
b) prevent resistance to the cheap labor lobby
and so even though the fake arguments apply least to countries like Ireland/Iceland they still have the guilt gene.
I suppose the salient question to ask at this point would be whether independence was Pro-Irish, or merely Anti-British. If the former, it stands as an ideological lodestar for preserving Ireland as the sole home of a people. If the latter, then nothing.
Perhaps if the British had known that the Irish would sell their birthright for some Thai restaurants, it would still be under the Crown?Replies: @Rob McX
If you've fought for something for about a thousand years and finally get it, you should immediately throw it away, that's what I always say!Replies: @Wilkey, @Joe Walker
“If you’ve fought for something for about a thousand years and finally get it, you should immediately throw it away, that’s what I always say!”
According to archeology, everyone in the West is busy giving away that which we’ve been fighting and dying over for at least three thousand years.
I disagree with this, but see how the bleeding hearts use this against the Englands and Spains of Europe. However, there is no way Ireland and many other Euro states qualify for this punishment.
Given Ireland's history of being subjugated, humiliated and occupied for so long, why on earth would they want to import a fresh batch of strangers? I figured much of the Eastern European nations' opposition to the immivasion was due to their history of being somebody's pawn. Shouldn't Ireland's attitude towards demographic change be more like Poland's and less like England's?Replies: @Wilkey, @Maj. Kong, @anon, @Mr. Anon, @Alec Leamas, @anon
“I’ve been hearing an argument lately that purports to justify the immivasion on the grounds that since Europe colonized much of the world, it is now only fair that the formerly conquered peoples get to live the good life in the places that grew rich off colonial theft.”
The whole point of that argument was that they had the right to kick us out because we had no right to be there. Suddenly they have the moral right to be here, for some reason.
The number of European colonial rulers who lived in these countries was a tiny minority, who all mostly left when the era of colonialism ended. They’re coming to our countries in massive numbers, and they’re coming to stay.
I happen to think that was the right thing. Just as liberals and Muslims think its the right thing to destroy us. Subconsciously many liberals have already submitted to Islam, and are only waiting for the slightest pressure to publicly proclaim the Shahadah. (Its not hard to imagine some dejected rightists of the future to join the Shi'a variant.) The Muslims have a moral imperative to conquest, and a selfish goal of white woman to rape.
Interestingly, liberals are not so good at convincing other civilizations to commit suicide. Mass immigration is a problem only of Western civilization. Latin Americans and Orthodox* countries don't appear to have this problem, yet. East Asians care not about the tenets of political correctness, and will likely remain hostile to an African/Muslim invasion.
*Greece is not fully into either campReplies: @Bert, @Wilkey
I disagree with this, but see how the bleeding hearts use this against the Englands and Spains of Europe. However, there is no way Ireland and many other Euro states qualify for this punishment.
Given Ireland's history of being subjugated, humiliated and occupied for so long, why on earth would they want to import a fresh batch of strangers? I figured much of the Eastern European nations' opposition to the immivasion was due to their history of being somebody's pawn. Shouldn't Ireland's attitude towards demographic change be more like Poland's and less like England's?Replies: @Wilkey, @Maj. Kong, @anon, @Mr. Anon, @Alec Leamas, @anon
Think of it like Sweden. The Swedes were quite the empire during the 17th century, but never became big imperialists in the New World or in the Scramble for Africa. They stayed out of both World Wars, and have never been under authoritarian rule.
What they were, however, was monolithically Lutheran with a strong tint of conformity. Many Swedes also immigrated to the US during the 19th century, and present-day liberals use this as the reason that Sweden must have an open border policy.
The same argument is used by the liberals in Ireland today, as well as channeling the myth that Ireland presaged the Third World “wars of national liberation”. (There is some truth to that, Mao’s thoughts on guerilla warfare came from Michael Collins).
And today, Ireland has shifted from monolithically Catholic to monolithically anti-clerical (despite having a liberal clergy). So most Irish voters don’t even value their ethnoreligious identity at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Sutherland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Shatter
And these guys.
As usual, the self-abolishing tendency of Europeans is pinned on The Jew. How pathetic the "white race" must be! The kings of the world, yet also the hapless marionettes of Zionists. Huh. Make up your mind.Replies: @Anonymous, @Maj. Kong
That's not their problem. Their problem is a loss of pride in their race and culture, a loss of the willingness to fight to survive, to keep political and economic and cultural power in their land, and to perpetuate their own families and nation by having children.
Yes, I know how overwhelming has been the role of the r c church in Ireland's culture. I'm saying throw out the bathwater (the church) but not the baby (Ireland's racial and cultural identity apart from and beyond its subjugation to that corrupt, homosexual-infested, pedophile-sheltering, white-hating institution).
For example, we must be nice to poor refugees because otherwise we wouldn't be nice and that would shatter our self image; we would be nazis if we didn't take in this huge batch (Bosnians in the 90s); the immigrants will prop up our tottering demographics and provide our welfare state pensions in the future; we need more skilled workers (twice, the second time this fall as farce); our population is 9 million, let's just take in 30 million more, it doesn't matter (by a liberal-right politician, of course); when I flew over Sweden, possibly coming from Brussels, it looked basically empty so we could just settle those empty spaces with whoever turns up (from our prime minister at the time, a pretend-conservative); I will punish the surging Sweden Democrat voters by allying with the hard left Greens and sharply increasing immigration (same prime minister); not admitting everyone coming by would be like being nazis nazis nazis, it would in particular be like blocking the jews escaping from Denmark (from our left-liberal media, owned by the Bonniers family).
I may have forgotten a swathe, but the gist of it should be familiar. Lunatics and soulless fortune seekers set our policies.
A very interesting article but what I also find striking in the Irish Question is that the initial liberalists/reformists were the Anglo-Irish (as a corollary Annie Besant was President of the Indian Congress).
The Anglo-Irish, a very genteel & sophisticated population, had extremely noble ideas about reform that were catapulted and hijacked by the mainstream movements into full-blown independence.
Now of course the Anglo-Irish are either in England, an invisible minority in the Republic (except at the prestigious boarding schools or Trinity) and of course up north in Ulster where they are probably most hard-nosed population in a difficult island.
In the Third World, that claim is true. But in the Americas, it is not. The preexisting Amerind civilizations and cultures, were completely destroyed. European settlement and natural increase followed in the disease ridden wake.
I happen to think that was the right thing. Just as liberals and Muslims think its the right thing to destroy us. Subconsciously many liberals have already submitted to Islam, and are only waiting for the slightest pressure to publicly proclaim the Shahadah. (Its not hard to imagine some dejected rightists of the future to join the Shi’a variant.) The Muslims have a moral imperative to conquest, and a selfish goal of white woman to rape.
Interestingly, liberals are not so good at convincing other civilizations to commit suicide. Mass immigration is a problem only of Western civilization. Latin Americans and Orthodox* countries don’t appear to have this problem, yet. East Asians care not about the tenets of political correctness, and will likely remain hostile to an African/Muslim invasion.
*Greece is not fully into either camp
By the time of Plantations, the english settlements in Ireland, the irish were still semi-nomadic pastoralists living in clans ruled by petty kings.
Many of the colonists were scottish borderers who used to defend and raid the border between England and Scotland, but had nothing left to do after the Stuarts united the two british crowns, so the first Stuart king of England colonised many scottish borderers in Ireland.
These colonists become known as the Scotch-Irish and were persecuted because they were presbyterian, not anglican. Many moved to North America and their ancestry and their cultural influence is very important both in the US and Canada.
[England uniquely influential in molding the modern world]
Not an unambiguous compliment.
Sir William Petty is interesting not only for himself, but as a metaphor of the Anglo-Irish relationship. Ground-breaking thinker and polymath, ruthless coloniser and profiteer, ascetic and plebeian English founder of a vast fortune inherited by an Anglicised Norman-Irish family, the Lansdownes.
www.wsj.com/.../lansdownes-flagship-fund-loses-ne...The Wall Street Journal
Mar 10, 2016 - Lansdowne Partners, one of the world's biggest hedge funds, has suffered a loss of nearly $1 billion in its flagship fund this year, as choppy ..."Also, if I enter "Lansdowne" into Google, I get pictures of the Princess of Wales, Kate Middleton.Replies: @5371, @Rob McX
I know that I would never swap 2016 for 1416.....Replies: @5371
Sir William Petty is interesting not only for himself, but as a metaphor of the Anglo-Irish relationship. Ground-breaking thinker and polymath, ruthless coloniser and profiteer, ascetic and plebeian English founder of a vast fortune inherited by an Anglicised Norman-Irish family, the Lansdownes.Replies: @Steve Sailer, @syonredux
Lansdowne … that name keeps showing up:
“Lansdowne’s Flagship Fund Loses Nearly $1 Billion This Year
http://www.wsj.com/…/lansdownes-flagship-fund-loses-ne…The Wall Street Journal
Mar 10, 2016 – Lansdowne Partners, one of the world’s biggest hedge funds, has suffered a loss of nearly $1 billion in its flagship fund this year, as choppy …”
Also, if I enter “Lansdowne” into Google, I get pictures of the Princess of Wales, Kate Middleton.
Anyway, I forgot what I wanted to relate from Sir William - his remark that in political economy - which he practically invented as a quantitative science - Ireland could play the role of a corpus vile, a laboratory animal, which could be experimented on at will because its sufferings didn't matter.
Tommy Tiernan has a great take on this
I think someone projected that Black Africans will form the largest group in Ireland by 2050, and that the native irish will be a minority by then.
Also unlike America, Ireland changed their automatic birthright citizenship law ten years ago when they discovered Nigerians were abusing it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_in_Ireland
www.wsj.com/.../lansdownes-flagship-fund-loses-ne...The Wall Street Journal
Mar 10, 2016 - Lansdowne Partners, one of the world's biggest hedge funds, has suffered a loss of nearly $1 billion in its flagship fund this year, as choppy ..."Also, if I enter "Lansdowne" into Google, I get pictures of the Princess of Wales, Kate Middleton.Replies: @5371, @Rob McX
I don’t think there’s any direct connection, the name just sounds classy. The Petty-Fitzmaurice Lansdownes included the Marquis who having held all England’s highest offices became an outcast after suggesting a compromise peace privately in 1916 and publicly in 1917.
Anyway, I forgot what I wanted to relate from Sir William – his remark that in political economy – which he practically invented as a quantitative science – Ireland could play the role of a corpus vile, a laboratory animal, which could be experimented on at will because its sufferings didn’t matter.
I guess their diet was based on rye or something. But their population density must’ve been lower before the calorie-rich potato.
It is said that the Irish population began rising rapidly around 1780.
That's why Ben Franklin's assertion in his 1754 pamphlet "Observations Concerning the Increase in Mankind" that the population of America, not counting immigration, had doubled in the last 20-25 years from natural increase electrified the intellectuals of Britain, eventually inspiring both Malthus's and Darwin's theoretical breakthroughs.
It wasn’t clear during the Enlightenment that humankind would grow in numbers. The European norm had been slow growth interrupted by occasional Black Deaths.
That’s why Ben Franklin’s assertion in his 1754 pamphlet “Observations Concerning the Increase in Mankind” that the population of America, not counting immigration, had doubled in the last 20-25 years from natural increase electrified the intellectuals of Britain, eventually inspiring both Malthus’s and Darwin’s theoretical breakthroughs.
I visited Ireland in 2005.
I noticed that the Republic was very noticeably more advanced – better roads, more financially modern (credit cards were accepted everywhere), just plain more prosperous-feeling – than Northern Ireland. This is borne out by the statistics, even after the big recession of the late 2000s.
In addition to economic catchup, they were also successful at rebranding their national brand. The 19th century Irishman was associated with dirt, filth by the Brits. Now you have soaps like “Irish Fresh.”
Richard Lynn possibly made a bad bet when he emigrated north on account of Ireland’s low IQ scores.
Eire could be [shockingly loosely] compared to the American South in the era when the Ohio Valley/Old Northwest was a booming industrial country- the land of romance for outsiders and a reality of poverty both genteel and crushing. Now, with NI a post-industrial landscape, Eire has had its boom time comparable to bits of the South and also Southwest. Like them, some of it was technological, a lot a property bubble.
I wouldn't stretch the illustration too far.
The English have complicated stereotypes for Ireland. Yes, there is the 19c one you cite. But even then the country itself could be given a romantic gloss, mainly for the countryside and the mythology. Not unlike their impressions of Scotland at that same time.
When I was in England in the mid 90s, they were already using red-haired Irish girls with soft-
Irish accents in commercials for Irish banks seeking English retail custom. If I'd had any money, I would have been a sucker for that pitch.
The introduction of the potato contributed to a massive population increase in Ireland (and elsewhere in Europe). This happened first in poorer areas and more marginal populations, because the potato was initially looked down upon as a grubby root fit mainly for feeding to animals.
Famously, one contributory factor in Prussia’s rise to power was Frederick the Great’s encouragement of the population to eat potatoes.
As noted above, the Ulster Protestants are descendants of the Border Reivers. They consider themselves a people apart, as do the Irish.
One hope for a unified Ireland is the Brexit. Northern Ireland doesn’t do well, probably because the majority of the people are descendants of Border Reivers. Imagine a state where most of the people are descendants of such people. I can. It is called West Virginia.
Anyway, Ireland is firmly in the EU camp. If the North goes in the toilet after the Brexit, the population might be tempted by the Sultan’s gold of the EU and join the Republic.
I would be fine with just carving off County Down for the Republic, for obvious reasons.
If one cares to remember the horrific deaths of those two unfortunate plainclothes British Army corporals in Belfast back in 1988, then that gives you some sort of idea of what the Irish are capable of.
Indeed the character and behavior of the Irish are a constant theme running through the English reportage and literature on the subject for centuries.Replies: @Carl, @Niccolo Salo, @Joe Walker
And the 750 years of English occupation gives you some sort of idea of what the English are capable of.
If we’re keeping score, the English are much, much worse. But who’s keeping score?
Quite the opposite- a compliment, and a question. So no need to get all tetchy about the English as though some insult had been offered to Ireland.
On the other hand, let's not forget that by the Irish peoples' own traditional account of themselves, the history of Ireland before the coming of the Normans was about 2000 years of unremitting tribal warfare over land, blood and cows. And piracy and slaving. They were good shipbuilders and seamen from an early date.
And they managed to absorb the first few centuries of Normans into this system rather nicely, succumbing to the English seriously only in the 17th century.
This is all intended as my compliments to the Irish, in case this intent is not obvious.
Oddly enough Norman Antioch was pretty close to one of their big adversaries, Aleppo, a location now central to a certain lack of tranquility in the world at large.
Principality of Antioch:An odd factoid. By the time the Mongols came through in 1260 the Normans were greatly weakened; their numbers had never been all that high anyway (a small elite). They joined up with the Mongols. The Mongols then went on to be defeated by the Egyptian Mamluks (slave soldiers who had taken over the government), the first time the Mongols had suffered a serious defeat in a cavalry battle:Those old Normans did get around.Replies: @Diversity Heretic, @anon
Normans established kingdoms in Sicily as well.
The Anglo-Irish, a very genteel & sophisticated population, had extremely noble ideas about reform that were catapulted and hijacked by the mainstream movements into full-blown independence.
Now of course the Anglo-Irish are either in England, an invisible minority in the Republic (except at the prestigious boarding schools or Trinity) and of course up north in Ulster where they are probably most hard-nosed population in a difficult island.Replies: @Carl, @Hibernian
The Anglo-Irish are not an invisible minority, it’s just that no-one born here refers to themselves as anything other than Irish. Trinity is for anyone with decent enough grades.
What they were, however, was monolithically Lutheran with a strong tint of conformity. Many Swedes also immigrated to the US during the 19th century, and present-day liberals use this as the reason that Sweden must have an open border policy.
The same argument is used by the liberals in Ireland today, as well as channeling the myth that Ireland presaged the Third World "wars of national liberation". (There is some truth to that, Mao's thoughts on guerilla warfare came from Michael Collins).
And today, Ireland has shifted from monolithically Catholic to monolithically anti-clerical (despite having a liberal clergy). So most Irish voters don't even value their ethnoreligious identity at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Sutherland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Shatter
And these guys.Replies: @Carl, @Marcus, @RadicalCenter, @RadicalCenter, @Pericles
American “dissident right” types are renowned for their Jew obsession. So, looking at Ireland they find the ONE Jewish politician and attribute all sorts of ruin to his influence. Shatter was never popular, or influential, and was eventually fired. His Jewishness is irrelevant, and I doubt the vast majority of Irish people know or care that he’s Jewish.
As usual, the self-abolishing tendency of Europeans is pinned on The Jew. How pathetic the “white race” must be! The kings of the world, yet also the hapless marionettes of Zionists. Huh. Make up your mind.
Ireland went through a far more severe economic downturn than most of the US and Western Europe. Yet the immigration tidal wave did not cease, even though there were many reports of native Irish emigrating to the UK. The reason for that has much to do with Mr. Shatter, a man with no reason to have loyalty to the ethnoreligious nation of Ireland.
Shatter could atone for what he did and convert, or he could move to Israel. I would be pleased with either outcome, though I would prefer the first.
But I'm not going to ignore our suicidal tendencies, which is why I mentioned Sutherland, and probably should have included the American billionaire Charles Feeney.
Nonsense.
www.wsj.com/.../lansdownes-flagship-fund-loses-ne...The Wall Street Journal
Mar 10, 2016 - Lansdowne Partners, one of the world's biggest hedge funds, has suffered a loss of nearly $1 billion in its flagship fund this year, as choppy ..."Also, if I enter "Lansdowne" into Google, I get pictures of the Princess of Wales, Kate Middleton.Replies: @5371, @Rob McX
You’d better watch it if you attend any royal garden parties. There has been no Princess of Wales since 1997. Kate Middleton is the Duchess of Cambridge.
Now that you mention it, wasn't one of the negotiating points in the Charles-Diana divorce whether she would get to keep her title as Princess of Wales?Replies: @Rob McX, @random observer
Irish immigration policy is a model for Western Europe. If you exclude British immigrants, about 2/3 of the immigrants in Ireland are from Poland or the Baltic states.
You shouldn’t reflexively denounce everything Steve to do with immigration especially if it blurs the good, bad and ugly.
You shouldn’t reflexively denounce everything Steve to do with immigration especially if it blurs the good, bad and ugly."
While I have absolutely nothing against people from Poland and the Baltic states (quite the contrary, in fact), I still do not consider their large-scale immigration to Ireland to be a good thing, by any means. I want Ireland to remain Irish in character, not merely White (whatever that means). Yes, I'd much rather 30K Poles than 5K Nigerians, but that doesn't alter the reality I'd prefer none of each.Replies: @TheLatestInDecay
I happen to think that was the right thing. Just as liberals and Muslims think its the right thing to destroy us. Subconsciously many liberals have already submitted to Islam, and are only waiting for the slightest pressure to publicly proclaim the Shahadah. (Its not hard to imagine some dejected rightists of the future to join the Shi'a variant.) The Muslims have a moral imperative to conquest, and a selfish goal of white woman to rape.
Interestingly, liberals are not so good at convincing other civilizations to commit suicide. Mass immigration is a problem only of Western civilization. Latin Americans and Orthodox* countries don't appear to have this problem, yet. East Asians care not about the tenets of political correctness, and will likely remain hostile to an African/Muslim invasion.
*Greece is not fully into either campReplies: @Bert, @Wilkey
There are tens of millions of people in North and South America who are of pure indigenous ancestry. In some countries they form the majority. And that’s not even counting the not-insignificant number of mestizos who identify as indigenous.
You’re an idiot.
even more milk
Ireland has the highest rate of lactose tolerance
and also has the highest rate of an iron-retention genetic “disease” which can give you heart attacks when you’re older
milk doesn’t have any iron (bad for the babbies)
Oddly enough Norman Antioch was pretty close to one of their big adversaries, Aleppo, a location now central to a certain lack of tranquility in the world at large.
Principality of Antioch:An odd factoid. By the time the Mongols came through in 1260 the Normans were greatly weakened; their numbers had never been all that high anyway (a small elite). They joined up with the Mongols. The Mongols then went on to be defeated by the Egyptian Mamluks (slave soldiers who had taken over the government), the first time the Mongols had suffered a serious defeat in a cavalry battle:Those old Normans did get around.Replies: @Diversity Heretic, @anon
Baibars life is like a Conan story.
I disagree with this, but see how the bleeding hearts use this against the Englands and Spains of Europe. However, there is no way Ireland and many other Euro states qualify for this punishment.
Given Ireland's history of being subjugated, humiliated and occupied for so long, why on earth would they want to import a fresh batch of strangers? I figured much of the Eastern European nations' opposition to the immivasion was due to their history of being somebody's pawn. Shouldn't Ireland's attitude towards demographic change be more like Poland's and less like England's?Replies: @Wilkey, @Maj. Kong, @anon, @Mr. Anon, @Alec Leamas, @anon
It’s a con. All the globalist arguments are basically guilt-trips – manipulating the white guilt gene to either
a) deliberately destroy us
or
b) prevent resistance to the cheap labor lobby
and so even though the fake arguments apply least to countries like Ireland/Iceland they still have the guilt gene.
“The Irish are a fair people: they never speak well of one another.”
Dr. Johnson
The feisty Irish journalist Kevin Myers has repeatedly, and bravely, argued that Ireland’s modern difficulties arise in part from the one-eyed rewriting of the reality of the 1916 uprising that ultimately ushered in decades of stagnation, isolation and unnecessary poverty:
“Nationalists still do not know that Home Rule had been legally established in 1914. They do not know that there were no British regiments in Ireland in 1916, and that the 1916 Rising was directed solely at Irishmen, who for the most part didn’t join the army to defend the UK, but to fight for Belgium and Home Rule.
They do not know that all the violence between 1916-l923 finally resulted in largely the kind of parliamentary democracy that Home Rule would have produced anyway: whatever the differences were, they were not worth a single life, never mind the thousands of dead and the economic ruination resulting from the abominable civil wars of 1916-23.
The executions of 1916 still form the toxic staple of the brainwashing that passes for education in our secondary schools. Were you taught about the other executions, of the 77 helpless anti-Treaty prisoners taken from their cells, and shot in batches, as a means of ending the Civil War? Were you taught about the thousands of protestants chased from their homes in the 26 counties between 1919-23?
Did you learn about how the IRA evicted around 100 children from the two protestant orphanages in Clifden in 1922, and burnt the buildings down, while the Royal Navy had to send in a warship to save the homeless waifs? Did you learn about the protestants abducted in Cork City, murdered and secretly buried in the farm of an IRA leader who was to be a Fianna Fail TD for over 40 years?”
(Myers has gone behind a paywall so I do not know what he has been say recently.)
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-executions-of-1916-still-form-toxic-staple-of-brainwashing-that-passes-for-education-in-schools-26807649.html
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-ff-celebratory-plans-for-the-easter-rising-a-load-of-claptrap-26725254.html
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-i-dont-believe-you-can-separate-the-stupefying-reverence-for-1916-from-the-mess-were-in-now-26647260.html
I disagree with this, but see how the bleeding hearts use this against the Englands and Spains of Europe. However, there is no way Ireland and many other Euro states qualify for this punishment.
Given Ireland's history of being subjugated, humiliated and occupied for so long, why on earth would they want to import a fresh batch of strangers? I figured much of the Eastern European nations' opposition to the immivasion was due to their history of being somebody's pawn. Shouldn't Ireland's attitude towards demographic change be more like Poland's and less like England's?Replies: @Wilkey, @Maj. Kong, @anon, @Mr. Anon, @Alec Leamas, @anon
“I disagree with this, but see how the bleeding hearts use this against the Englands and Spains of Europe. However, there is no way Ireland and many other Euro states qualify for this punishment.”
Actually, Ireland does qualify for it (if any nation does, which of course, they do not), and much more so than, say, Sweden for example. Their were plenty of irish “Soldiers of the Queen” who built and policed the Empire.
What they were, however, was monolithically Lutheran with a strong tint of conformity. Many Swedes also immigrated to the US during the 19th century, and present-day liberals use this as the reason that Sweden must have an open border policy.
The same argument is used by the liberals in Ireland today, as well as channeling the myth that Ireland presaged the Third World "wars of national liberation". (There is some truth to that, Mao's thoughts on guerilla warfare came from Michael Collins).
And today, Ireland has shifted from monolithically Catholic to monolithically anti-clerical (despite having a liberal clergy). So most Irish voters don't even value their ethnoreligious identity at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Sutherland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Shatter
And these guys.Replies: @Carl, @Marcus, @RadicalCenter, @RadicalCenter, @Pericles
Irish I talked to on twitter think those two are “far-right,” should give you an indication of their political spectrum. And of course Irish Catholics here in the states are the most leftist “white” population other than Jews: Joan Walsh, Joe Biden, Martin O’Malley, Paul Ryan, etc.
Paul Ryan is of one-half Irish ancestry, and doesn't have any background in the major cities. His wife is from Oklahoma, and is more liberal than he is, her family was somewhat prominent there. He's not a Kennedy type. He's a true believer in Ayn Rand.
You must be reading some pretty crappy material because black Africans constitute 1% of the population. Annual immigration from Africa to Ireland is no where near the level for them to become a majority by 2050.
Also unlike America, Ireland changed their automatic birthright citizenship law ten years ago when they discovered Nigerians were abusing it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_in_Ireland
Not wrong but…
England did not, as a nation, export all its internal political disagreements onto foreigners, it consumed many of them locally. Steve misses a very important element of English history, though he brushes on it, the Norman conquest. England from 1066 onward had a minority occupation government, which had no qualms at all about plundering the people of England in a manner which they would emulate in Ireland. The near constant export of military energy was a feature of Norman, not Anglo-Saxon rule, I find it more convincing that this was a product of their particular interest than that of English national character.
Germany spawned three warrior states, England, Prussia, and Austria. All three are basically the same. A loose population of Germanic immigrants(lots of Dutch people went to Brandenburg too) get taken over by upstarts royals from somewhere else entirely who see no reason to stop conquering the surrounding non-germanic peoples around them.
The chief meta-reason for the great famine was the act of union in 1800. Before this Ireland was a separate state with its own currency, trade laws(no free trade with America for example), parliament and economy. After 1800, the economy reshaped into a Ricardoan free trade relationship(our food for their manufactures) with agriculture reorganized for export while manufacturing, beyond export industries in Belfast, withered. Population growth was not extraordinary. Irish, Scottish and English population rose in proportion from 1500 to 1841. What changed was the economy. You don’t need many people for agriculture, Particularly if you’re exporting cattle.
I would contest the idea that all is well. Northern Ireland, regardless of what you may hear, has not ended well. The people have an infantilizing form of government, laced with corruption, and an intensity of poverty not seen until your reach the Mediterranean or eastern Europe. The legacy of the troubles is a mezzogiorno complete with mafiosi.
As for your final point… Ireland and the UK get our politics second hand from America. It spreads like a virus. If you stay brainless, we will too.
"Nationalists still do not know that Home Rule had been legally established in 1914. They do not know that there were no British regiments in Ireland in 1916, and that the 1916 Rising was directed solely at Irishmen, who for the most part didn't join the army to defend the UK, but to fight for Belgium and Home Rule.
They do not know that all the violence between 1916-l923 finally resulted in largely the kind of parliamentary democracy that Home Rule would have produced anyway: whatever the differences were, they were not worth a single life, never mind the thousands of dead and the economic ruination resulting from the abominable civil wars of 1916-23.
The executions of 1916 still form the toxic staple of the brainwashing that passes for education in our secondary schools. Were you taught about the other executions, of the 77 helpless anti-Treaty prisoners taken from their cells, and shot in batches, as a means of ending the Civil War? Were you taught about the thousands of protestants chased from their homes in the 26 counties between 1919-23?
Did you learn about how the IRA evicted around 100 children from the two protestant orphanages in Clifden in 1922, and burnt the buildings down, while the Royal Navy had to send in a warship to save the homeless waifs? Did you learn about the protestants abducted in Cork City, murdered and secretly buried in the farm of an IRA leader who was to be a Fianna Fail TD for over 40 years?"
(Myers has gone behind a paywall so I do not know what he has been say recently.)
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-executions-of-1916-still-form-toxic-staple-of-brainwashing-that-passes-for-education-in-schools-26807649.html
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-ff-celebratory-plans-for-the-easter-rising-a-load-of-claptrap-26725254.html
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-i-dont-believe-you-can-separate-the-stupefying-reverence-for-1916-from-the-mess-were-in-now-26647260.htmlReplies: @Rob McX, @John Derbyshire, @TheLatestInDecay
Myers is the best known critic of the 1916 rebellion, but there are many professional historians (e.g Diarmaid Ferriter) who disagree and believe independence would never have been achieved by the peaceful means advocated by John Redmond.
If one cares to remember the horrific deaths of those two unfortunate plainclothes British Army corporals in Belfast back in 1988, then that gives you some sort of idea of what the Irish are capable of.
Indeed the character and behavior of the Irish are a constant theme running through the English reportage and literature on the subject for centuries.Replies: @Carl, @Niccolo Salo, @Joe Walker
“If one cares to remember the horrific deaths of those two unfortunate plainclothes British Army corporals in Belfast back in 1988”
That was truly a wonderful moment to watch.
If you've fought for something for about a thousand years and finally get it, you should immediately throw it away, that's what I always say!Replies: @Wilkey, @Joe Walker
Like many Europeans, a lot of Irish people believe that the enlightened position is to be an enemy of your own country particularly if that country is white and Christian.
If one cares to remember the horrific deaths of those two unfortunate plainclothes British Army corporals in Belfast back in 1988, then that gives you some sort of idea of what the Irish are capable of.
Indeed the character and behavior of the Irish are a constant theme running through the English reportage and literature on the subject for centuries.Replies: @Carl, @Niccolo Salo, @Joe Walker
I think I will reserve my sympathy for the native Irish rather than for the thugs of the British army.
I guess that explains why he spent so much time trying to undermine the traditional values of the Irish in his writings.
Many of those “Irish” were not native Irish but “Scots-Irish” or “Ulster Scots”.
Not every single individual was exterminated but of course their civilizations and cultures were, if not completely destroyed, at least very nearly completely destroyed.
There is a remarkable core of strength, endurance, perseverance and courage exhibited in the American Indian community. They have many problems, to be sure, but it is not true thatI assume your position is uninformed, and not merely biased.Replies: @Federalist, @Dan Kurt
Unfortunately, I’ve always thought that that infamous duo of early 19th century murderers, Burke and Hare somehow typify the worst aspects of the Irish national character.
Pathological alcoholism linked with pathological psychopathic bestial violence.
A quick eye to the main chance, as far as money is concerned, combined with quite a shameless and extraordinary capacity for deceit and deception.
The Scots surgeon/anatomist, Dr. Robert Knox, the hapless dupe of Burke and Hare wrote some pretty strong anti-Irish meat, if you will.
"...there is nothing fine about a group of moral decadents leading a superstitious minority into an epidemic of murder and violent crime; yet this is what has happened of recent years in Ireland, it is what has happened time and time again in the past, and it will happen again in the future; for the Irish problem is a problem of the Irish race, and it is rooted in the racial characteristics of the people themselves."Replies: @Alec Leamas, @Hibernian
the silent issue from a HBD standpoint is the whole British isles, from the population genetics standpoint are interchangeable, yea there are concentrations of redheads in Scotland, and such, but the vast majority share 90% plus of their genetics and punctures the whole nature over nurture thing., what England and Ireland show is the power of culture and leadership over largely similar people.
I would argue Steve’s, statements about the relative fertility of the lands is correctly applied to Wales and Scotland, but not to England and Ireland, at pre-agricultural revolution scales of agriculture, which again began in England before and was a predicate of the the industrial, but didn’t spread to the similarly governed Ireland, for the reason of there not being a bought in middle class or culture of cooperation, instead a culture of confrontation from both the top down and from the bottom up dating back to the petty chiefdoms kept a hostile landlord vs tenant relations alive, or nurture over nature.
Old Ireland had lotsa cattle. Who was eating all the beef?
And then there were pigs . . .
Samuel Beckett taught at a tony boys’ school in Belfast, late 1920s. He described the student body as: “The cream of Ulster — rich and thick.”
I will not disagree with the poster who compared Scots to West Virginia but the English have a reputation for industry. Monaghan, the county in the republic that sticks into the south of the north was said to be the wealthiest people in Ireland until recent times. It has a large Anglo COI population.
To blame the Republicans for the failures of the free state is a classic example of gas-lighting. The Republicans lost! The Irish civil war was fought between Republicans and the people who stayed with the Home rulers in 1918. The home rulers won. They ruled Ireland till 1932. Their economic strategy was pursued until the 1960s. Nor should independence be seen as the source of the Catholic churches power in Ireland. The institutional power of the church dates from the 19th century and British administration. The church had the same power in the North with similar results. Outsiders don't understand that though the church has two sides on this issue, it is hostile to Irish nationalism and has been for at least 150 years. Learning Irish history from Paul Johnson is like learning about Germany from Daniel Jonah Goldhagan.Replies: @Rob McX
"Nationalists still do not know that Home Rule had been legally established in 1914. They do not know that there were no British regiments in Ireland in 1916, and that the 1916 Rising was directed solely at Irishmen, who for the most part didn't join the army to defend the UK, but to fight for Belgium and Home Rule.
They do not know that all the violence between 1916-l923 finally resulted in largely the kind of parliamentary democracy that Home Rule would have produced anyway: whatever the differences were, they were not worth a single life, never mind the thousands of dead and the economic ruination resulting from the abominable civil wars of 1916-23.
The executions of 1916 still form the toxic staple of the brainwashing that passes for education in our secondary schools. Were you taught about the other executions, of the 77 helpless anti-Treaty prisoners taken from their cells, and shot in batches, as a means of ending the Civil War? Were you taught about the thousands of protestants chased from their homes in the 26 counties between 1919-23?
Did you learn about how the IRA evicted around 100 children from the two protestant orphanages in Clifden in 1922, and burnt the buildings down, while the Royal Navy had to send in a warship to save the homeless waifs? Did you learn about the protestants abducted in Cork City, murdered and secretly buried in the farm of an IRA leader who was to be a Fianna Fail TD for over 40 years?"
(Myers has gone behind a paywall so I do not know what he has been say recently.)
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-executions-of-1916-still-form-toxic-staple-of-brainwashing-that-passes-for-education-in-schools-26807649.html
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-ff-celebratory-plans-for-the-easter-rising-a-load-of-claptrap-26725254.html
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-i-dont-believe-you-can-separate-the-stupefying-reverence-for-1916-from-the-mess-were-in-now-26647260.htmlReplies: @Rob McX, @John Derbyshire, @TheLatestInDecay
My take:
The rising was "fascist" despite generously proclaiming a modern secular republic guaranteeing religious and civil liberty to all the people of Ireland (i.e. the actual Irish people and the people who had their boots on our necks for the past few centuries).
Several of my relatives were in the IRA during the war of independence and fought on both sides of the subsequent civil war. During the war of independence they fought against foreign invaders and their agents. They were mainly poor, pious, and hardworking small farmers who fought in their own townlands & parishes where their ancestors grew, lived and died since time immemorial. It's pretty disgraceful to attack them for defending their own patch against foreigners who had been treating them like second class citizens in their own homeland.
The English did not rule Ireland by tickling bellies and certainly not by the consent of the Irish people. Many bad things happened during the war of independence (as in all wars) but the imperial police force and their collaborators got what they deserved.
For those interested Dan Breen gave a great short interview in his old age which summed it all up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znrDWkDhYXM
People like Ruth Dudley Edwards would have us apologise for having the temerity to want to rule ourselves. Of course back in the good old days the natives would know their place and keep their mouths shut.Replies: @Irishman(), @Hibernian, @random observer
John Derbyshire's former country is more fully turned into a third-world hellhole than is Ireland (though the governmental leaders of Ireland and champs like Peter Sutherland are doing their level best to catch up). Why might this be so? As the avoidance of the fate of Rotherhamite England is pretty much the only concern that anyone not intent on their own demise should have in mind, perhaps John Derbyshire might better direct his witty attentions elsewhere than towards historical judgment of the leaders of the Easter Rising. For starters, he might consider that the subsequent leaders of Ireland did not participate in the firebombing of entire cities full of white Germans and civilized Japanese people at the behest of international usurers. Those interested in the latter subject might consult, among many other sources, the excellent NO MORE CHAMPAGNE: CHURCHILL AND HIS MONEY by David Lough.Replies: @Evocatus
Protestants in Northern Ireland divide in two. To the North tend to be Scottish Presbyterians and to the south tend to be English COI. Belfast prods tend to be more Scottish the lower down the social order and more English towards the top.
I will not disagree with the poster who compared Scots to West Virginia but the English have a reputation for industry. Monaghan, the county in the republic that sticks into the south of the north was said to be the wealthiest people in Ireland until recent times. It has a large Anglo COI population.
To blame the Republicans for the failures of the free state is a classic example of gas-lighting. The Republicans lost! The Irish civil war was fought between Republicans and the people who stayed with the Home rulers in 1918. The home rulers won. They ruled Ireland till 1932. Their economic strategy was pursued until the 1960s. Nor should independence be seen as the source of the Catholic churches power in Ireland. The institutional power of the church dates from the 19th century and British administration. The church had the same power in the North with similar results. Outsiders don’t understand that though the church has two sides on this issue, it is hostile to Irish nationalism and has been for at least 150 years. Learning Irish history from Paul Johnson is like learning about Germany from Daniel Jonah Goldhagan.
I noticed that the Republic was very noticeably more advanced - better roads, more financially modern (credit cards were accepted everywhere), just plain more prosperous-feeling - than Northern Ireland. This is borne out by the statistics, even after the big recession of the late 2000s.
In addition to economic catchup, they were also successful at rebranding their national brand. The 19th century Irishman was associated with dirt, filth by the Brits. Now you have soaps like "Irish Fresh."
Richard Lynn possibly made a bad bet when he emigrated north on account of Ireland's low IQ scores.Replies: @cwhatfuture, @random observer, @Gargamel
The harshest blow the UK has struck against Ireland was recently lowering their corporate tax rate to 20% and passing a diverted profits tax to tax sales to the UK being made from Ireland. Other countries are following with similar laws or court decisions. The days of multinationals moving to Ireland, and putting their IP in Ireland, to take advantage of their low corporate tax rates (and the ability to set up non-resident Irish companies in the Cayman Islands with a 0% rate) are soon ending. When that happens Ireland is going to find itself in a great deal of trouble. They have no advanced technology and no real industry – they have lawyers and accountants and english and a low tax rate. The UK has all of those and much more.
You’ve been reading Robert E. Howard again! REH did write a tale where Baibars meets up with a Irish Gaelic exile, Red Cathal, who is more than a bit like Conan himself. The story is titled, “Sowers of the Thunder” and is one of REH’s best Crusader adventure tales.
Sir William Petty is interesting not only for himself, but as a metaphor of the Anglo-Irish relationship. Ground-breaking thinker and polymath, ruthless coloniser and profiteer, ascetic and plebeian English founder of a vast fortune inherited by an Anglicised Norman-Irish family, the Lansdownes.Replies: @Steve Sailer, @syonredux
Dunno. Everything considered, the modern world seems distinctly preferable to the pre-modern….
I know that I would never swap 2016 for 1416…..
If we're keeping score, the English are much, much worse. But who's keeping score?Replies: @random observer
Given that Anonymous’ comment was given in the context of the current bout of Irish surrendering their patrimony, and to my eye suggesting what the Irish would be capable of if they suddenly decided to resist (or asking, given what they are capable of, why don’t they resist), I did not see Anonymous’ comment as intending any insult to the Irish.
Quite the opposite- a compliment, and a question. So no need to get all tetchy about the English as though some insult had been offered to Ireland.
On the other hand, let’s not forget that by the Irish peoples’ own traditional account of themselves, the history of Ireland before the coming of the Normans was about 2000 years of unremitting tribal warfare over land, blood and cows. And piracy and slaving. They were good shipbuilders and seamen from an early date.
And they managed to absorb the first few centuries of Normans into this system rather nicely, succumbing to the English seriously only in the 17th century.
This is all intended as my compliments to the Irish, in case this intent is not obvious.
Ireland has the highest rate of lactose tolerance
and also has the highest rate of an iron-retention genetic "disease" which can give you heart attacks when you're older
milk doesn't have any iron (bad for the babbies)Replies: @Anonymous
A gallon of milk is about 2400 calories. I don’t think each Irishman was drinking about a gallon of milk every day before potatoes. Presumably they were eating something else.
RE: The Cromwellian Conquest of Ireland,
Interesting to note just how blood-soaked the 17th century was:
Conquest of Ireland:
Approx 500,000 deaths
Thirty Years’ War (1618-48):3-4 million to 7-8 million dead
It’s amazing to contemplate the damage that could be done in 17th century wars, even allowing for the huge role of hunger and disease.
I gather the proportion of the population killed by the civil wars even in England was outlandishly large given the population base. Less so in Scotland but respectable given that that country had a very small population at the time.
Probably comparable to Syria.
Hard to believe now.
English Civil War
Charles Carlton, Going to the Wars: the experience of the British Civil Wars, 1638-1651 (1992)
England & Wales: 190,000 [approx]
Total k. in recorded fights: 84,830
Parliament: 34,130
Royalist: 50,700
War-related diseases, soldiers & civilians: 100,000
Scotland: 60,000 [approx]
Total k. in recorded fights: 27,895
Parliament: 16,245
Royalist: 11,765
[Disease: ca. 30,000], incl. ca. 10,000 POWs who never came home
I noticed that the Republic was very noticeably more advanced - better roads, more financially modern (credit cards were accepted everywhere), just plain more prosperous-feeling - than Northern Ireland. This is borne out by the statistics, even after the big recession of the late 2000s.
In addition to economic catchup, they were also successful at rebranding their national brand. The 19th century Irishman was associated with dirt, filth by the Brits. Now you have soaps like "Irish Fresh."
Richard Lynn possibly made a bad bet when he emigrated north on account of Ireland's low IQ scores.Replies: @cwhatfuture, @random observer, @Gargamel
Yeah- NI is the rust belt. It boomed and prospered in the age of metal-bashing industry and looks to have a much reduced future now.
Eire could be [shockingly loosely] compared to the American South in the era when the Ohio Valley/Old Northwest was a booming industrial country- the land of romance for outsiders and a reality of poverty both genteel and crushing. Now, with NI a post-industrial landscape, Eire has had its boom time comparable to bits of the South and also Southwest. Like them, some of it was technological, a lot a property bubble.
I wouldn’t stretch the illustration too far.
The English have complicated stereotypes for Ireland. Yes, there is the 19c one you cite. But even then the country itself could be given a romantic gloss, mainly for the countryside and the mythology. Not unlike their impressions of Scotland at that same time.
When I was in England in the mid 90s, they were already using red-haired Irish girls with soft-
Irish accents in commercials for Irish banks seeking English retail custom. If I’d had any money, I would have been a sucker for that pitch.
Potatoes. That’s when Europeans begain to eat them, with the French leading the fashion (Parmentier). Potatoes had been known in Europe for centuries but they had always been considered poisonous (the leaves and stalks are poisonous) and fit only for animal feed. This had spectacular demographic consequences all over northwestern Europe, areas where the potato thrived in spite of the cold and wet conditions.
I know that I would never swap 2016 for 1416.....Replies: @5371
Enjoy.
Interesting take that places the role of Ireland for England somewhat in the place of the American frontier for the early US.
Place for the poor to seek fortune in land and occasionally with violent means.
Place for the rich to get richer outside the confines of the homeland’s social arrangements.
Native population to exploit in all that, though not one incapable of violent objection.
Place for significant ethnic mixing [not so much between Indians and whites in America, but some, and more among white groups; lots between English/Scottish/Gaelic Irish in the early centuries, hence all the Fitzes, Burkes, etc.]
Closing of that frontier [in Ireland’s case, sometime between the end of the Williamite war and the Union of 1800 for argument’s sake] ultimately ending the country’s role as a sink for social problems and leading to some boiling over of the same in both the frontier and the homeland.
I find that comparison especially interesting since Ireland for me always seemed like another kind of frontier.
The geopolitically sad unfortunate place that forms the borderlands of some powerful neighbour and must be controlled lest it pose a threat either itself or on behalf of some other. Compare the marches of Germany and the Slav world, eastern Europe in general, or my personal favourite, the frontier between what are now Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Sometimes it’s the natives themselves one worries about [Irish or Pashtuns], sometimes it’s the powerful enemy that could use the territory as a base/route [French/Spanish/Germans or at one point even Scots for England/Britain; or Arabs/Turks/Mongols/Russians/Iranians for the Indian kingdoms/British India/Pakistan], and sometimes it’s even the rogue elements of one’s own society that can use the frontier to attack you [Strongbow and the first Normans who so agitated Henry II that he had to come after them and bring an English royal army to Ireland for the first time; every Pakistani terrorist group currently squatting in the FATA].
Come to think on it, the American frontier was that, too, for the early US.
And, needless to say, Edmund Spenser's A View of the Present State of Ireland comes up a lot, especially the passage where he talks about using famine as a weapon against the Irish:* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutes_of_Kilkenny
I disagree with this, but see how the bleeding hearts use this against the Englands and Spains of Europe. However, there is no way Ireland and many other Euro states qualify for this punishment.
Given Ireland's history of being subjugated, humiliated and occupied for so long, why on earth would they want to import a fresh batch of strangers? I figured much of the Eastern European nations' opposition to the immivasion was due to their history of being somebody's pawn. Shouldn't Ireland's attitude towards demographic change be more like Poland's and less like England's?Replies: @Wilkey, @Maj. Kong, @anon, @Mr. Anon, @Alec Leamas, @anon
Being Anglophone and so close to Britain proper (a slice of it, however disputed, being on the island itself) the television/movie/internet anti-white, multiculti propaganda is ubiquitous. It’s also mixed in with Ireland’s tradition of being a fertile recruiting grounds for Catholic missionary orders whose priests traveled to places like Africa before returning to Ireland inculcating themselves in schools and parishes and teaching love for our dark brothers on the great continent. Add to this the solidarity with other oppressed peoples, and particularly those in the Commonwealth, and you have a population particularly susceptible to demographic obliteration.
I suppose the salient question to ask at this point would be whether independence was Pro-Irish, or merely Anti-British. If the former, it stands as an ideological lodestar for preserving Ireland as the sole home of a people. If the latter, then nothing.
Perhaps if the British had known that the Irish would sell their birthright for some Thai restaurants, it would still be under the Crown?
I suspect resentment towards the Anglo-American establishment is what makes so many Irish-American politicians support non-white immigration. Race replacement is now a mainstream political policy in the US, but Irish-Americans were prominent among those who started it. The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act was sponsored by the Irish-American Senator Philip Hart (along with the Jewish Representative Emanuel Celler) and enthusiastically promoted by Edward Kennedy.Replies: @Alec Leamas, @anon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Volunteers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_Crisis_of_1918
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Henry_Wilson,_1st_Baronet (He was the highest ranking of the officers who said the army would not be fight against the UV, and later the eminence grise behind Britain’s military preperations with France to go to war with Germany ) but note this interesting little sketch of his wife’s
The Offshore islanders by Paul Johnson
I think nationalism has no point unless it is to resist enemy peoples. External threat is the reason for existence of states, they cannot come into being (or endure) without it. Look at Germany, for the first time Germany is cocooned within friendly countries, and as the result dismantling itself.
Whether nationalism can cope with the intangible threat of immigration remains to be seen. I think you’ll find Ireland is admitting more non european immigrants that ever
Peter Sutherland: Unlimited immigration into Europe from Africa is a benefit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Volunteers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_Crisis_of_1918
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Henry_Wilson,_1st_Baronet (He was the highest ranking of the officers who said the army would not be fight against the UV, and later the enenench grise behind Britain’s military preperations with France to go to war with Germany ). Note this interesting little sketch of his wife’s family.
The Offshore islanders by Paul Johnson
I think nationalism has no point unless it is to resist enemy peoples. External threat is the reason for existence of states, they cannot come into being (or endure) without it. Look at Germany, for the first time Germany is cocooned within friendly countries, and as the result dismantling itself. Whether nationalism can cope with the intangible threat of immigration remains to be seen. I think you’ll find Ireland is admitting more non European immigrants that ever
Peter Sutherland: Unlimited immigration into Europe from Africa is a benefit
I doubt Ireland as a place to offload troublesome English youth was demographically significant.
Protestant England and Scotland saw it as a potential backdoor for continental papist aggression.
The other dubious point in the article was the theory that if English monarchs had retained their French possessions that France would have been anglicized. Quite the reverse – Richard I could barely speak English and had no love of England. And he was a fairly typical Angevin in that respect. If anything England would have been assimilated into France.
You shouldn't reflexively denounce everything Steve to do with immigration especially if it blurs the good, bad and ugly.Replies: @Kevin O'Keeffe
“Irish immigration policy is a model for Western Europe. If you exclude British immigrants, about 2/3 of the immigrants in Ireland are from Poland or the Baltic states.
You shouldn’t reflexively denounce everything Steve to do with immigration especially if it blurs the good, bad and ugly.”
While I have absolutely nothing against people from Poland and the Baltic states (quite the contrary, in fact), I still do not consider their large-scale immigration to Ireland to be a good thing, by any means. I want Ireland to remain Irish in character, not merely White (whatever that means). Yes, I’d much rather 30K Poles than 5K Nigerians, but that doesn’t alter the reality I’d prefer none of each.
Some figures for England, Wales, and Scotland:
English Civil War
Charles Carlton, Going to the Wars: the experience of the British Civil Wars, 1638-1651 (1992)
England & Wales: 190,000 [approx]
Total k. in recorded fights: 84,830
Parliament: 34,130
Royalist: 50,700
War-related diseases, soldiers & civilians: 100,000
Scotland: 60,000 [approx]
Total k. in recorded fights: 27,895
Parliament: 16,245
Royalist: 11,765
[Disease: ca. 30,000], incl. ca. 10,000 POWs who never came home
Place for the poor to seek fortune in land and occasionally with violent means.
Place for the rich to get richer outside the confines of the homeland's social arrangements.
Native population to exploit in all that, though not one incapable of violent objection.
Place for significant ethnic mixing [not so much between Indians and whites in America, but some, and more among white groups; lots between English/Scottish/Gaelic Irish in the early centuries, hence all the Fitzes, Burkes, etc.]
Closing of that frontier [in Ireland's case, sometime between the end of the Williamite war and the Union of 1800 for argument's sake] ultimately ending the country's role as a sink for social problems and leading to some boiling over of the same in both the frontier and the homeland.
I find that comparison especially interesting since Ireland for me always seemed like another kind of frontier.
The geopolitically sad unfortunate place that forms the borderlands of some powerful neighbour and must be controlled lest it pose a threat either itself or on behalf of some other. Compare the marches of Germany and the Slav world, eastern Europe in general, or my personal favourite, the frontier between what are now Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Sometimes it's the natives themselves one worries about [Irish or Pashtuns], sometimes it's the powerful enemy that could use the territory as a base/route [French/Spanish/Germans or at one point even Scots for England/Britain; or Arabs/Turks/Mongols/Russians/Iranians for the Indian kingdoms/British India/Pakistan], and sometimes it's even the rogue elements of one's own society that can use the frontier to attack you [Strongbow and the first Normans who so agitated Henry II that he had to come after them and bring an English royal army to Ireland for the first time; every Pakistani terrorist group currently squatting in the FATA].
Come to think on it, the American frontier was that, too, for the early US.Replies: @syonredux
I’ve attended quite a few seminars/conferences on the topic of Ireland as Britain’s “first colony,” the proto-type for what was done later in Anglo-America, Australia, etc.One recent seminar really stressed the English fear of “creolian decay” in Ireland and noted how the Kilkenny* statutes presage fears about race mixing in the New World and Antipodean settler colonies.
And, needless to say, Edmund Spenser’s A View of the Present State of Ireland comes up a lot, especially the passage where he talks about using famine as a weapon against the Irish:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutes_of_Kilkenny
John I’ve been an intermittent reader of yours over the years thanks mainly to your association with our excellent host. However, honestly that piece you linked to puts your work in a new and disappointing context for me.
The rising was “fascist” despite generously proclaiming a modern secular republic guaranteeing religious and civil liberty to all the people of Ireland (i.e. the actual Irish people and the people who had their boots on our necks for the past few centuries).
Several of my relatives were in the IRA during the war of independence and fought on both sides of the subsequent civil war. During the war of independence they fought against foreign invaders and their agents. They were mainly poor, pious, and hardworking small farmers who fought in their own townlands & parishes where their ancestors grew, lived and died since time immemorial. It’s pretty disgraceful to attack them for defending their own patch against foreigners who had been treating them like second class citizens in their own homeland.
The English did not rule Ireland by tickling bellies and certainly not by the consent of the Irish people. Many bad things happened during the war of independence (as in all wars) but the imperial police force and their collaborators got what they deserved.
For those interested Dan Breen gave a great short interview in his old age which summed it all up
People like Ruth Dudley Edwards would have us apologise for having the temerity to want to rule ourselves. Of course back in the good old days the natives would know their place and keep their mouths shut.
- glorified the role of armed militancy as a positive good as well as merely necessary, and maintained this emphasis on paramilitarism long after independence, as well as clinging to it as the independence they got was at first not good enough
- emphasized the positive virtues of the sacrifice of blood through violence as the means to both win independence and to morally justify it
-emphasized the blood and soil form of nationalism and poeticized the sacrifice of the former as the price paid to earn again the ownership of the latter
-although eventually some accepted the parliamentary free state and even its opponents eventually created a parliamentary republic, all of whom I am aware disdained constitutional means of getting there before 1914 and sought armed struggle for its own sake
This was fascist iconography and thinking avant la lettre, but inherently fascist all the same. Every concept has its early examples before the term is coined for it. There's plenty of stuff being called fascist today with varying degrees of accuracy but none anywhere near as fascist as that.
It doesn't mean they were as fascist as the Italian trope-namers, let alone make them Nazis or anything like that, but it doesn't make there identifiable views and actions comparable to those of the American founders, for example. They weren't Whigs or liberals.
Nor do I see what their being secular has to do with it. Clericalism was an accommodation for Mussolini, not a built-in feature of his beliefs, and there is no way his state was more clerical than De Valera's Ireland, surely. Nothing about being secular clashes with being characterized as fascist. Neither was oppressing religious liberty one of its major concerns. Probably didn't have to be, of course.
Now if you want to say that the Ireland the republicans eventually built was not a fascist state, you bet. Whatever its problems, there is no way it can fairly be called that.
The only lingering fascist tendency was the regular, praising or at least neutral, references to the "physical-force tradition" in nationalism/republicanism when attempting to contextualize the later provo version of the IRA.
Of course, by making this comparison I am assuming that the degree to which a term like "fascist" can be applied and where it cannot should rely on the kind of considerations I raise above. It is not automatically assumed to be an insult, any more that correctly identifying other strands of early republicanism as socialist/Marxist would be. Merely an attempt to categorize use of symbols, rhetoric and beliefs about nationhood and political methods into wider European trends of that era.
Camilla didn’t become Princess of Wales upon her marriage to Charles? I thought that would be automatic, although the ways of English-Welsh aristocracy are mysterious.
Now that you mention it, wasn’t one of the negotiating points in the Charles-Diana divorce whether she would get to keep her title as Princess of Wales?
But there are exceptions, somewhat to do with the nature of Charles' titles. The Duchy of Cornwall is hereditary and always belongs to the heir to the throne, so when an heir possessing it inherits the throne, the Duchy [and many other titles] "merge in the Crown". At the moment an heir apparent is born, these titles are inherited by him. So Charles held these from birth.
The title of Prince of Wales is not hereditary in this way. It merges in the Crown when and if the Prince succeeds, but does not automatically pass to his firstborn son at birth. It has to be conferred by the sovereign. Charles was not Prince of Wales until, as a young man, he was given this title by the Queen, in that case at a ceremony in Wales.
That adds some flexibility to the title. In this case, Camilla automatically became the female version of all her husband's many other titles, of which Duchess of Cornwall is her senior title. But she would have had to be created Princess of Wales as a separate act. This would not necessarily have entailed a ceremony apart from the marriage, but it does have to be made explicit in some way, even if only as a line in some proclamation. Of course, it was pure politics and memory of Diana that this was not done, but the possibility of not doing it was inherent in the nature of the title.
I think someone projected that Black Africans will form the largest group in Ireland by 2050…
If that pans out, you’re looking at South Africa with single-malt whiskey.
I noticed that the Republic was very noticeably more advanced - better roads, more financially modern (credit cards were accepted everywhere), just plain more prosperous-feeling - than Northern Ireland. This is borne out by the statistics, even after the big recession of the late 2000s.
In addition to economic catchup, they were also successful at rebranding their national brand. The 19th century Irishman was associated with dirt, filth by the Brits. Now you have soaps like "Irish Fresh."
Richard Lynn possibly made a bad bet when he emigrated north on account of Ireland's low IQ scores.Replies: @cwhatfuture, @random observer, @Gargamel
This was the so-called “Celtic Tiger” economy of the period. Incidentally, this was the root cause of the mass Polish immigration to Britain that began around the same time – the Poles were brought in to replace the Irish laborers who had stopped coming due to the new work opportunities at home. The British construction and other industries traditionally depended on Irish labor and the Poles were a made-to-order replacement.
The rising was "fascist" despite generously proclaiming a modern secular republic guaranteeing religious and civil liberty to all the people of Ireland (i.e. the actual Irish people and the people who had their boots on our necks for the past few centuries).
Several of my relatives were in the IRA during the war of independence and fought on both sides of the subsequent civil war. During the war of independence they fought against foreign invaders and their agents. They were mainly poor, pious, and hardworking small farmers who fought in their own townlands & parishes where their ancestors grew, lived and died since time immemorial. It's pretty disgraceful to attack them for defending their own patch against foreigners who had been treating them like second class citizens in their own homeland.
The English did not rule Ireland by tickling bellies and certainly not by the consent of the Irish people. Many bad things happened during the war of independence (as in all wars) but the imperial police force and their collaborators got what they deserved.
For those interested Dan Breen gave a great short interview in his old age which summed it all up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znrDWkDhYXM
People like Ruth Dudley Edwards would have us apologise for having the temerity to want to rule ourselves. Of course back in the good old days the natives would know their place and keep their mouths shut.Replies: @Irishman(), @Hibernian, @random observer
Expect no better dear, he’s English.
Most Irishmen and women- even many militant Republicans- wholeheartedly agreed with Mr. Derbyshire in April of 1916. Dubliners were particularly incensed at their streets having been turned into shooting galleries, and spat on rebel prisoners. Eoin MacNeill and like-minded Republican leaders- certainly not opposed to violence in principle- countermanded the order for rebellion, correctly predicting abject failure and a harsh backlash. The government’s spectacularly incompetent handling of the later Conscription Crisis, though, provided a kind of retroactive justification for the rising in the public mind which, as always, the poets express far more clearly than the historians: “‘Twas better to die ‘neath an Irish sky than at Suvla or Sud-El-Bar“. With 17 million dead worldwide by 1918, 500 corpses in the streets of Dublin seemed downright trivial. The post-rising crackdown of executions and arrests also garnered sympathy for formerly-despised rebels- not because it was thought to be undeserved in itself, but because it contrasted badly with the lenience shown to the “mutineers” of the Curragh Incident who had scuttled Home Rule. This was hardly a fair comparison- recalcitrant officers in 1914 never killed anybody- but the cumulative effect was to imply that peaceful, law-abiding constitutional reform was a rigged game which the Irish would under no circumstances be permitted to win.
In general, Irish historiography of the whole period after 1800 could use a healthy dose of Hanlon’s Razor. My general impression is that most British statesmen after the Act of Union conscientiously tried their best to govern a troubled and complicated country. Ignorance, ineptitude, and stupidity can sometimes be laid at their feet, but rarely malice. Of course, given the traumatic events of the three centuries prior to Union, it’s also hardly surprising that Irishmen saw a sinister plot in every ignorant mistake:
Let us remember my beloved great W.R. Hamilton. Wikipedia:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rowan_Hamilton
Cayley–Hamilton theorem is something especially beautiful, albeit not the most important achievement.Replies: @Anonymous
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZElqbEPctGg#t=90m0s
I wonder how much of the anti-Irish sentiment in Britain is due specifically to these people:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Travellers
Firstly, there is very little anti-Irish sentiment, but folks will still be chippy about stuff that happened centuries ago.
Judging by things like imprisonment rates the descendants of 19th century Irish immigrants are disproportionately represented in the underclass in England and Scotland. But post war Irish immigrants are pretty indistinguishable from the White British average of all important social indicators.Replies: @Alec Leamas
Age of first marriage was dramatically higher in post-Famine Ireland than it had been in pre-famine Ireland, coming more into line with West European norms. If these later marriages were also less consanguineous (as seems plausible), that may explain why Irish independence movements succeeded after the Famine but failed miserably before. The old proverb went, “Put an Irishman on the spit and you can always get another Irishman to turn him“, and Irish politics before the 19th century certainly reflected it. Transitioning from a low-trust tribal society to a West European outbred nation would probably do wonders for political cohesion. I’m sure hbd chick has probably covered this at some point.
Pathological alcoholism linked with pathological psychopathic bestial violence.
A quick eye to the main chance, as far as money is concerned, combined with quite a shameless and extraordinary capacity for deceit and deception.
The Scots surgeon/anatomist, Dr. Robert Knox, the hapless dupe of Burke and Hare wrote some pretty strong anti-Irish meat, if you will.Replies: @Anonymous Nephew
From a web biography of Hugh Bertie Campbell Pollard, the man who took Franco from the Canaries to Morocco (starting the revolt which became the Civil War) – writing in the 1920s :
“…there is nothing fine about a group of moral decadents leading a superstitious minority into an epidemic of murder and violent crime; yet this is what has happened of recent years in Ireland, it is what has happened time and time again in the past, and it will happen again in the future; for the Irish problem is a problem of the Irish race, and it is rooted in the racial characteristics of the people themselves.”
Oh, I enjoy the fruits of the Industrial Revolution everyday….
I wonder how much of the anti-Irish sentiment in Britain is due specifically to these people:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_TravellersReplies: @Anonymous Nephew, @jimmyriddle
You should hear what Irish people think of “Irish travellers” – twould make your hair curl.
@Irish Millenial – “generously proclaiming a modern secular republic guaranteeing religious and civil liberty to all the people of Ireland” – it’s just that someone forgot to tell some of the people in Cork (and elsewhere) after independence.
http://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/ethnic-cleansing-protestant-decline-in-west-cork-between-1911-and-1926/
I wonder how much of the anti-Irish sentiment in Britain is due specifically to these people:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_TravellersReplies: @Anonymous Nephew, @jimmyriddle
No it isn’t. There aren’t enough of them.
Firstly, there is very little anti-Irish sentiment, but folks will still be chippy about stuff that happened centuries ago.
Judging by things like imprisonment rates the descendants of 19th century Irish immigrants are disproportionately represented in the underclass in England and Scotland. But post war Irish immigrants are pretty indistinguishable from the White British average of all important social indicators.
I have neither the knowledge, nor an opinion about English / Irish relationships.
Let us remember my beloved great W.R. Hamilton. Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rowan_Hamilton
Cayley–Hamilton theorem is something especially beautiful, albeit not the most important achievement.
Some people on both sides of the border felt more comfortable switching sides for obvious reasons. Nothing is ever perfect and change can be hard.
The Irish flag represents both sides, the first president of the south was a Protestant, as for the north…
Let us remember my beloved great W.R. Hamilton. Wikipedia:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rowan_Hamilton
Cayley–Hamilton theorem is something especially beautiful, albeit not the most important achievement.Replies: @Anonymous
Hamilton is a Scottish name.
but I have never heard that Hamilton could be not Irish.
Derbyshire, being both:
mathematician by University education,
and Englishman by birth,
probably can make the final judgement.
That was truly a wonderful moment to watch.Replies: @Brutusale, @Cagey Beast
Not as much fun as it would have been watching the criminal “martyrs” starving themselves to death at Long Kesh.
Nice article, Steve. I know a lot more about Ireland than you do, but one of the things I like most about your site is reading the interested and interesting opinion of a wide-ranging person dedicated to trying out some thoughts. Most often you know much more than me about your given subject. I was at an Irish-related lunch today with former president Bill J. Clinton and retired military leader Martin Dempsey. Clinton gave an interpretation of the Irish Proclamation which was close to entirely opposite of its clearly intended meaning. He then cited Yeats’s “The Second Coming” as a plea for globalist inclusiveness. The odd thing about these people, as I have known since my childhood spent among them, is that they genuinely believe in their globalist nonsense. I used to as well, naturally. They, or at least the Gentiles among them, are not faking it. They are true believers, as is true of many of the Jews as well (not Kristol, Podhoretz, etc. but many ordinary kind-natured Jews). As he was grabbing my intern’s ass, I noticed that Clinton had lipstick on his teeth. I had heard he was massively diminished by some medical condition or just depression at still being married to that old bag and tied to the mast of her disgusting ambition, but he seemed pretty all right, though frailer. He spoke for 30 minutes or so, without notes, intelligently, with a clear devotion to a world-view that is totally false in every particular. Everyone in the room clearly agreed and hardly needed to be persuaded. Martin Dempsey, a delightful and impressive fellow I had not met before, sang “Wherever You Go In The World You’ll Find An Irish Pub.” It sadly and radically diminished my hope that a military coup might soon bring down our government of traitors. At the end they showed a lovely video of Dempsey singing “The Parting Glass” at a moving retirement ceremony. I’d like to think we aren’t, but we are doomed.
What's really funny is that I can't be entirely sure that this is satire...
Except they weren’t. Many millions of indigenous still wear the same clothes, eat the same food, speak the same language, and ride the same llamas as they did before Columbus made his voyage.
The polytheistic religions of the Maya, Azetc and Inca do not form a major cultural influence as they did in the pre-colonial days. So I consider my point that the old civilizations were destroyed as correct, the distinction between Latin America and the West is the preponderance of the Iberian languages, Catholicism, mestizos, and a marked tolerance for political corruption.
The Amerind civilization is as gone as pagan Egypt, Second Temple Jews and Maghreb Christianity.
I trust your knowledge of names,
but I have never heard that Hamilton could be not Irish.
Derbyshire, being both:
mathematician by University education,
and Englishman by birth,
probably can make the final judgement.
You might want to consult THE DESIRE TO PLEASE by Harold Nicolson. Not that that could possibly cure your ignorance, but it might be a place to start.
I just ordered the book from Amazon; $2.52 + $3.99 S&H, used, will be sent from UK.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Desire-Please-Hamilton-Irishmen/dp/B0017KW9I8?Replies: @TheLatestInDecay
Exactly, look past the weird insurrection/resurrection thing and from romantics like Pearse and take heed of the clear headed, sensible and good natured James Connelly, who rightly assessed that in light of the executions the Irish would be less inclined to inscript to die in France. In contrast note the enthusiasm of Ulster Unionists to die for Britain. Threatened the English did away with the pesky Ulster Volunteers at Somme, for only a few years before these volunteers where threatening civil war and preventing resolution of the ‘Irish Question’.
http://www.counter-currents.com/2010/06/cu-chulainn-in-the-gpo/
John Derbyshire’s former country is more fully turned into a third-world hellhole than is Ireland (though the governmental leaders of Ireland and champs like Peter Sutherland are doing their level best to catch up). Why might this be so? As the avoidance of the fate of Rotherhamite England is pretty much the only concern that anyone not intent on their own demise should have in mind, perhaps John Derbyshire might better direct his witty attentions elsewhere than towards historical judgment of the leaders of the Easter Rising. For starters, he might consider that the subsequent leaders of Ireland did not participate in the firebombing of entire cities full of white Germans and civilized Japanese people at the behest of international usurers. Those interested in the latter subject might consult, among many other sources, the excellent NO MORE CHAMPAGNE: CHURCHILL AND HIS MONEY by David Lough.
Awww… pity the Sudetenbritish. Steal People’s land and spend a few centuries living off their labour, prepare to reap the whirlwind.
That was truly a wonderful moment to watch.Replies: @Brutusale, @Cagey Beast
Tell us all about the “English Disease” too Nic. Your act never gets stale, it just improves with age. Believe me. I loved you at The Phora and I love you in all the other places you seem to pop up all over cyberspace. You’re a one man meme.
"Nationalists still do not know that Home Rule had been legally established in 1914. They do not know that there were no British regiments in Ireland in 1916, and that the 1916 Rising was directed solely at Irishmen, who for the most part didn't join the army to defend the UK, but to fight for Belgium and Home Rule.
They do not know that all the violence between 1916-l923 finally resulted in largely the kind of parliamentary democracy that Home Rule would have produced anyway: whatever the differences were, they were not worth a single life, never mind the thousands of dead and the economic ruination resulting from the abominable civil wars of 1916-23.
The executions of 1916 still form the toxic staple of the brainwashing that passes for education in our secondary schools. Were you taught about the other executions, of the 77 helpless anti-Treaty prisoners taken from their cells, and shot in batches, as a means of ending the Civil War? Were you taught about the thousands of protestants chased from their homes in the 26 counties between 1919-23?
Did you learn about how the IRA evicted around 100 children from the two protestant orphanages in Clifden in 1922, and burnt the buildings down, while the Royal Navy had to send in a warship to save the homeless waifs? Did you learn about the protestants abducted in Cork City, murdered and secretly buried in the farm of an IRA leader who was to be a Fianna Fail TD for over 40 years?"
(Myers has gone behind a paywall so I do not know what he has been say recently.)
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-executions-of-1916-still-form-toxic-staple-of-brainwashing-that-passes-for-education-in-schools-26807649.html
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-ff-celebratory-plans-for-the-easter-rising-a-load-of-claptrap-26725254.html
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-i-dont-believe-you-can-separate-the-stupefying-reverence-for-1916-from-the-mess-were-in-now-26647260.htmlReplies: @Rob McX, @John Derbyshire, @TheLatestInDecay
Kevin Myers is the Bill Kristol of Ireland. Feisty indeed. They are known to be so. The mess “we” are in now… It is reminiscent of Sigmund Freud’s essay “The Crisis of OUR Culture.” As someone once said about Freud’s THE PSYCHOPATHOLOGY OF EVERYDAY LIFE, “Even the title is a lie.”
Thank you, Mr. TheLatestInDecay.
I just ordered the book from Amazon; $2.52 + $3.99 S&H, used, will be sent from UK.
The title of Princess of Wales was vacant from 1997-2005. The current holder choose not to use it, though.
Now that you mention it, wasn't one of the negotiating points in the Charles-Diana divorce whether she would get to keep her title as Princess of Wales?Replies: @Rob McX, @random observer
I think there was some talk of making Camilla Princess of Wales, but in the end she had to settle for being Duchess of Cornwall (Duke of Cornwall is the second highest title held by Charles). Diana held on to the title till she died.
I just ordered the book from Amazon; $2.52 + $3.99 S&H, used, will be sent from UK.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Desire-Please-Hamilton-Irishmen/dp/B0017KW9I8?Replies: @TheLatestInDecay
It’s a fascinating book, which includes an unexpected account of a visit by the author to James Joyce in Paris. Apologies for my initial rudeness in recommending it.
Your original response was directed to "Anonymous",
but I was happy to learn about the book.
I have also just bought your other recommendation,
"No more champagne, ..."
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1250071267/ref=tmm_hrd_used_olp_sr?
Your I.f.f.U.
I will not disagree with the poster who compared Scots to West Virginia but the English have a reputation for industry. Monaghan, the county in the republic that sticks into the south of the north was said to be the wealthiest people in Ireland until recent times. It has a large Anglo COI population.
To blame the Republicans for the failures of the free state is a classic example of gas-lighting. The Republicans lost! The Irish civil war was fought between Republicans and the people who stayed with the Home rulers in 1918. The home rulers won. They ruled Ireland till 1932. Their economic strategy was pursued until the 1960s. Nor should independence be seen as the source of the Catholic churches power in Ireland. The institutional power of the church dates from the 19th century and British administration. The church had the same power in the North with similar results. Outsiders don't understand that though the church has two sides on this issue, it is hostile to Irish nationalism and has been for at least 150 years. Learning Irish history from Paul Johnson is like learning about Germany from Daniel Jonah Goldhagan.Replies: @Rob McX
The civil war was over the provisions in the Anglo-Irish Treaty, i.e. the partition of the country, the oath of allegiance to the crown, the retention of the Treaty Ports by Britain and their occupation by the British Navy, etc. Most of those who fought on both sides had been against Home Rule and in favour of armed rebellion from the start.
"...there is nothing fine about a group of moral decadents leading a superstitious minority into an epidemic of murder and violent crime; yet this is what has happened of recent years in Ireland, it is what has happened time and time again in the past, and it will happen again in the future; for the Irish problem is a problem of the Irish race, and it is rooted in the racial characteristics of the people themselves."Replies: @Alec Leamas, @Hibernian
I’m not sure that rehashing 19th Century “scientific” race theories is helpful: first, the modern Irish Republic makes a lie of them as applied to the Irish race, and, secondly, they are used to undermine legitimate and scientifically well-founded objections to multicult and engineered diversity. There’s no need to fabricate any more sympathy and solidarity by and between the modern Irish or the numerous descendants of the Irish diaspora in the West and the third world’s invading brown hordes. It’s the sort of maudlin nonsense cranked out by the Mayor of Philadelphia on this St. Patrick’s Day past to argue that it should remain a lawless “Sanctuary City” in the face of opposition because Central American Indios are “the new Irish.” It’s also used as support for the dubious proposition that the 70 IQ invaders will produce their own scholars and poets in a few decades time and therefore opposition to dysgenic immigration is illegitimate.
Dear Mr. TLID:
Your original response was directed to “Anonymous”,
but I was happy to learn about the book.
I have also just bought your other recommendation,
“No more champagne, …”
Your I.f.f.U.
Traditionally, wheat for the rich, barley for the middle, oats for the poor. Grains were labor intensive to grow and require a lot of space. Potatoes are easier and don’t take up a lot of space to grow.
There was still plenty of grain, meat, dairy, being produced in Ireland during the famine of the 1840s, but much of it was being shipped to England. There’s an Irish singer who wrote the lyrics to a song listing the staggering amount of food — we’re talking many bushels and tons — that left the Cork harbor during the worst days of the famine. The final shocker was that all this food left Ireland in one day, and similar quantities went out everyday. Listening to the list you think it was over a few weeks or months. I don’t blame the English entirely because the Irish who weren’t starving themselves were among the ones selling and sending the food to England and elsewhere. It’s the kind of mismanagement that occurs in many parts of the world. The English did send aid of a sort, and Queen Victoria was very upset about the sufferings of the Irish, but some religious associations demanded conversion to Protestentism before dishing it out. The Americans sent corn which the Irish didn’t know how to process, and so was indigestiable. When the Queen visited a year later she was nonetheless greeted enthusiastically by the irish, including the Catholics, and surprisingly she was impressed by their good looks (I thought the English were depicting the Irish as monkeys) despite their desperate situation.
Firstly, there is very little anti-Irish sentiment, but folks will still be chippy about stuff that happened centuries ago.
Judging by things like imprisonment rates the descendants of 19th century Irish immigrants are disproportionately represented in the underclass in England and Scotland. But post war Irish immigrants are pretty indistinguishable from the White British average of all important social indicators.Replies: @Alec Leamas
They’re also disproportionately over-represented in The Beatles, if that is your sort of thing.
I happen to think that was the right thing. Just as liberals and Muslims think its the right thing to destroy us. Subconsciously many liberals have already submitted to Islam, and are only waiting for the slightest pressure to publicly proclaim the Shahadah. (Its not hard to imagine some dejected rightists of the future to join the Shi'a variant.) The Muslims have a moral imperative to conquest, and a selfish goal of white woman to rape.
Interestingly, liberals are not so good at convincing other civilizations to commit suicide. Mass immigration is a problem only of Western civilization. Latin Americans and Orthodox* countries don't appear to have this problem, yet. East Asians care not about the tenets of political correctness, and will likely remain hostile to an African/Muslim invasion.
*Greece is not fully into either campReplies: @Bert, @Wilkey
The fact that Europeans came to demographically dominate only in lands that hadn’t seen Old World diseases pretty much makes the point, though. We won out in those lands thanks to “survival of the fittest.” What good, evolution believing leftist could object to that?
You shouldn’t reflexively denounce everything Steve to do with immigration especially if it blurs the good, bad and ugly."
While I have absolutely nothing against people from Poland and the Baltic states (quite the contrary, in fact), I still do not consider their large-scale immigration to Ireland to be a good thing, by any means. I want Ireland to remain Irish in character, not merely White (whatever that means). Yes, I'd much rather 30K Poles than 5K Nigerians, but that doesn't alter the reality I'd prefer none of each.Replies: @TheLatestInDecay
I fully agree, Kevin. That being said, it is highly beneficial — and, I would argue, necessary for our survival — that all European peoples recognize that we are one. There are, of course, ways that we are not one. But the ways that we are are the ones that need to be most attended to at this stage of our engineered erasure. The Irish police search for notorious drunken driver Prawo Jazdy is a Google-worthy episode in contemporary intra-European multicultural confusion. Anyhow, beats getting blown up in the Brussels airport at the behest of one’s own supposed “leaders.”
The Anglo-Irish, a very genteel & sophisticated population, had extremely noble ideas about reform that were catapulted and hijacked by the mainstream movements into full-blown independence.
Now of course the Anglo-Irish are either in England, an invisible minority in the Republic (except at the prestigious boarding schools or Trinity) and of course up north in Ulster where they are probably most hard-nosed population in a difficult island.Replies: @Carl, @Hibernian
The hard-nosed Ustermen are not Anglo-Irish; they’re Scots-irish.
You should go to Indian country. The American Indians contradict your assertions, and quite impressively too. That is, if you are willing to attend their ceremonies.
There is a remarkable core of strength, endurance, perseverance and courage exhibited in the American Indian community. They have many problems, to be sure, but it is not true that
I assume your position is uninformed, and not merely biased.
Maj. Kong pointed out that in the Third World, that claim is true. But in the Americas, it is not. He said, "The preexisting Amerind civilizations and cultures, were completely destroyed. European settlement and natural increase followed in the disease ridden wake."
I said that these civilizations and cultures were at least almost completely destroyed. You may be right. I probably stated this too strongly. But if they were not almost completely destroyed, they certainly did not fare well. I do not say this to disparage American Indians or their culture. Huge numbers of American Indians were killed. Many American Indian groups were completely wiped out. Many of those groups that did survive had there numbers reduced and were pushed out of their lands and relocated elsewhere. It is admirable that Indians are working to keep their cultures and traditions alive but certainly their culture has been supplanted to a large degree by generic American culture.
Dan KurtReplies: @Charles Erwin Wilson
An important milestone in Anglo-Irish relations was the widespread adoption of steam propulsion by the world’s navies in the first half of the 19th century. In the age of sail, the prevailing winds in NW Europe made it easier to invade England from Ireland than from the Continent. All this became irrelevant from the c. 1840s onward.
Many of America’s heroes were Scots-Irish. Sure West Virginia’s a poor state. Man does not live on bread alone.
We’re a fair people except when we speak ill of each other, which is depressingly often. (Former Mayor Richard M. Daley and Alderman Ed Burke of Chicago, call your offices.)
My other reply to this post was intended for another poster above.
Mr. Derbyshire, do you feel any embarrassment or shame at the massive bloodshed perpetrated by your British forebears for over a millenium? People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
My answer would be nope, why should we? Just an unusually [hardly uniquely] successful example of what nations did. And the British people[s] of today are descended from groups that were themselves on both ends of the stick at one time or another.
The Irish of old were no saints, merely limited in their ability to organize their island properly and project power off of it, though for centuries many of their petty kings managed at least a bit of that. My people were southwest of Scotland, so I assume there was a time long ago when the Britons in my ancestry saw Irish men as foreign raiders and slavers. The 'Scots' in that same line, if I had any such, were the descendants of a colonizing mission sent to conquer lands for an Ulster-based set of tribes and spread their religion among the locals.
Later on, Scotland and some of those Irish princelings could ally against the English, and later still a Scottish army seeking to expand that war would end up making a real mess of Ireland, and not wholly accidentally. Not to mention wanting some sweet plantation land even later on than that.
So it goes. I find in my reading of Derb that his problem is not at all that the Irish wanted to be beastly to the English in the early 20th century. He seems like a 'what goes around comes around' kind of guy. The more likely complaint is about the endless moaning about how saintly and poetic and peace-loving the Irish would have otherwise been, like an island of happy shepherds merrily stroking their lutes until the English [Normans, at first] showed up.
I figure I can make that sort of comment- if my original Scots had any blood left over from Dalriada, that makes them and me as Irish as the next man.
The rising was "fascist" despite generously proclaiming a modern secular republic guaranteeing religious and civil liberty to all the people of Ireland (i.e. the actual Irish people and the people who had their boots on our necks for the past few centuries).
Several of my relatives were in the IRA during the war of independence and fought on both sides of the subsequent civil war. During the war of independence they fought against foreign invaders and their agents. They were mainly poor, pious, and hardworking small farmers who fought in their own townlands & parishes where their ancestors grew, lived and died since time immemorial. It's pretty disgraceful to attack them for defending their own patch against foreigners who had been treating them like second class citizens in their own homeland.
The English did not rule Ireland by tickling bellies and certainly not by the consent of the Irish people. Many bad things happened during the war of independence (as in all wars) but the imperial police force and their collaborators got what they deserved.
For those interested Dan Breen gave a great short interview in his old age which summed it all up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znrDWkDhYXM
People like Ruth Dudley Edwards would have us apologise for having the temerity to want to rule ourselves. Of course back in the good old days the natives would know their place and keep their mouths shut.Replies: @Irishman(), @Hibernian, @random observer
Mr. Derbyshire’s Irish obsession is no secret; he displayed it during his NR years, while Mr. Buckley was still alive and well.
I had this conversation with some Brits in a pub and their answer was that turnips were big before potatoes.
The Irish Republic is hardly unique in not always living up to its founding documents.
"...there is nothing fine about a group of moral decadents leading a superstitious minority into an epidemic of murder and violent crime; yet this is what has happened of recent years in Ireland, it is what has happened time and time again in the past, and it will happen again in the future; for the Irish problem is a problem of the Irish race, and it is rooted in the racial characteristics of the people themselves."Replies: @Alec Leamas, @Hibernian
You’re quoting a professional killer on morality. He had his reasons to do what he did, and the Irish people had theirs.
I suppose the salient question to ask at this point would be whether independence was Pro-Irish, or merely Anti-British. If the former, it stands as an ideological lodestar for preserving Ireland as the sole home of a people. If the latter, then nothing.
Perhaps if the British had known that the Irish would sell their birthright for some Thai restaurants, it would still be under the Crown?Replies: @Rob McX
Good points. Two things you mention, solidarity with other colonised peoples and the large number of Irish Catholic missionaries working in the Third World, have greatly influenced perceptions of race in Ireland. And they have certainly influenced them for the worse, making opposition to non-white immigration more difficult.
Unfortunately the answer is the latter. There are Irish “nationalists” who would seem to be happy if the country was half African as long as the new arrivals are willing to shout “Brits out!” It’s the proposition-nation/magic-dirt idea gone crazy.
I suspect resentment towards the Anglo-American establishment is what makes so many Irish-American politicians support non-white immigration. Race replacement is now a mainstream political policy in the US, but Irish-Americans were prominent among those who started it. The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act was sponsored by the Irish-American Senator Philip Hart (along with the Jewish Representative Emanuel Celler) and enthusiastically promoted by Edward Kennedy.
This lefty Salon columnist would disagree with you:
http://www.salon.com/2014/03/15/how_did_irish_americans_get_so_disgusting/
Irish Americans here in New York tend to be generally conservative law and order types, although somewhat less so then their Italian neighbors. The Conservative Party in New York State was founded by two lawyers named Mahoney and O’Doherty in opposition to the liberal WASPy Rockefeller Republicans who dominated the state GOP during the sixties and, of course, Bill Buckley was of Irish ancestry. The idea that Irish American Catholics vote en masse for the liberal candidates hasn’t been true since the Kennedy Administration.
Diet might have something to do with the irish curse. Also all that alcohol consumption. Ah yes, the stubby irishmen.
I suspect resentment towards the Anglo-American establishment is what makes so many Irish-American politicians support non-white immigration. Race replacement is now a mainstream political policy in the US, but Irish-Americans were prominent among those who started it. The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act was sponsored by the Irish-American Senator Philip Hart (along with the Jewish Representative Emanuel Celler) and enthusiastically promoted by Edward Kennedy.Replies: @Alec Leamas, @anon
Perhaps the exception that proves the rule – I was for a time an Irish schoolboy myself in the 1990s, and had an Irish Priest who had done his missionary work in Kenya (as I recall) tell some of us that he had to close the dormitories at a school that the order had established there because of the rampant forced buggery practiced by the older boys upon the younger boys. “They’re just a different sort, vast cultural differences, until very recently heathens . . . it really is the dark continent in more ways than one . . . ”
As usual, the self-abolishing tendency of Europeans is pinned on The Jew. How pathetic the "white race" must be! The kings of the world, yet also the hapless marionettes of Zionists. Huh. Make up your mind.Replies: @Anonymous, @Maj. Kong
This is reason #96847320 why I think that WNs are just as pathetic and non-nonsensical as leftists.
Still, that’s an Irish writer on a site edited by an Irish leftist. They might not be as leftist in the past, but I feel safe saying that they’re the most liberal white gentile group.
Also Joan Walsh is no longer editor at Salon. And she has about as much affection for her fellow Irish Americans as that self-hater O'Hehir does.
The Hamiltons were Anglo-Irish i.e. of English or Scottish Protestant descent, not Irish i.e. of Gaelic Irish descent.
What they were, however, was monolithically Lutheran with a strong tint of conformity. Many Swedes also immigrated to the US during the 19th century, and present-day liberals use this as the reason that Sweden must have an open border policy.
The same argument is used by the liberals in Ireland today, as well as channeling the myth that Ireland presaged the Third World "wars of national liberation". (There is some truth to that, Mao's thoughts on guerilla warfare came from Michael Collins).
And today, Ireland has shifted from monolithically Catholic to monolithically anti-clerical (despite having a liberal clergy). So most Irish voters don't even value their ethnoreligious identity at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Sutherland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Shatter
And these guys.Replies: @Carl, @Marcus, @RadicalCenter, @RadicalCenter, @Pericles
Good on the Irish for rejecting the catholic church.
That’s not their problem. Their problem is a loss of pride in their race and culture, a loss of the willingness to fight to survive, to keep political and economic and cultural power in their land, and to perpetuate their own families and nation by having children.
Yes, I know how overwhelming has been the role of the r c church in Ireland’s culture. I’m saying throw out the bathwater (the church) but not the baby (Ireland’s racial and cultural identity apart from and beyond its subjugation to that corrupt, homosexual-infested, pedophile-sheltering, white-hating institution).
What they were, however, was monolithically Lutheran with a strong tint of conformity. Many Swedes also immigrated to the US during the 19th century, and present-day liberals use this as the reason that Sweden must have an open border policy.
The same argument is used by the liberals in Ireland today, as well as channeling the myth that Ireland presaged the Third World "wars of national liberation". (There is some truth to that, Mao's thoughts on guerilla warfare came from Michael Collins).
And today, Ireland has shifted from monolithically Catholic to monolithically anti-clerical (despite having a liberal clergy). So most Irish voters don't even value their ethnoreligious identity at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Sutherland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Shatter
And these guys.Replies: @Carl, @Marcus, @RadicalCenter, @RadicalCenter, @Pericles
Good on the Irish for rejecting the catholic church.
That’s not their problem. Their problem is a loss of pride in their race and culture, a loss of the willingness to fight to survive, to keep political and economic and cultural power in their land, and to perpetuate their own families and nation by having children.
Yes, I know how overwhelming has been the role of the r c church in Ireland’s culture. I’m saying throw out the bathwater (the church) but not the baby (Ireland’s racial and cultural identity apart from and beyond its subjugation to that corrupt, homosexual-infested, pedophile-sheltering, white-hating institution).
And they didn’t have to reject Christianity, just that sick church. They’ve gone too far.
They still have more than the English.
John Derbyshire's former country is more fully turned into a third-world hellhole than is Ireland (though the governmental leaders of Ireland and champs like Peter Sutherland are doing their level best to catch up). Why might this be so? As the avoidance of the fate of Rotherhamite England is pretty much the only concern that anyone not intent on their own demise should have in mind, perhaps John Derbyshire might better direct his witty attentions elsewhere than towards historical judgment of the leaders of the Easter Rising. For starters, he might consider that the subsequent leaders of Ireland did not participate in the firebombing of entire cities full of white Germans and civilized Japanese people at the behest of international usurers. Those interested in the latter subject might consult, among many other sources, the excellent NO MORE CHAMPAGNE: CHURCHILL AND HIS MONEY by David Lough.Replies: @Evocatus
Ironically, one of the first individuals to speak out about Rotherham and the grooming gangs was the half Irish Tommy Robinson (aka Stephen Yaxley-Lennon), who was promptly vilified by the respectable British media establishment as a racist hooligan.
And your own non-patheticness derives from where, exactly? Clearly not from your non-nonsensicality nor from your understanding of the English language. For what it’s worth, Alan Shatter’s Judaism was absolutely central to his position in the Irish government and to his public persona. Try googling his name and “holocaust,” you imbecile.
I seem to recall reading that WASPS/Mainline Protestants are the most leftist white demographic.
My guess is that it's a function of living in big cities and them still thinking of themselves as descendants of immigrants
Do you believe that Anglo-Irish and Scottish are the same thing?
There may be a contingent of outspoken left wingers with Irish heritage who deign to speak for Irish America as a whole, but from my experience that is not the case, particularly since so many Irish Americans have historically been aligned with traditionalist institutions such as law enforcement, fire departments, the Catholic Church, and the building trades. Saying that Irish Americans today are liberal based on the views of Joan Walsh, Andrew O’Hehir or Joe Biden (only half Irish) would be like calling Anglo Protestants as a group left wing by citing Hillary Clinton, John Lindsay or Howard Dean.
Also Joan Walsh is no longer editor at Salon. And she has about as much affection for her fellow Irish Americans as that self-hater O’Hehir does.
Beckett taught at Portora Royal School which is in Enniskillen, Co. Fermanagh — about 100 miles from Belfast, a meaningful distance on an island about the size of Maine.
[and to perpetuate their own families and nation by having children]
They still have more than the English.
Actually, my mistake. He went to Portora but taught at The Campbell School in Belfast, about whose students he made that comment.
I disagree with this, but see how the bleeding hearts use this against the Englands and Spains of Europe. However, there is no way Ireland and many other Euro states qualify for this punishment.
Given Ireland's history of being subjugated, humiliated and occupied for so long, why on earth would they want to import a fresh batch of strangers? I figured much of the Eastern European nations' opposition to the immivasion was due to their history of being somebody's pawn. Shouldn't Ireland's attitude towards demographic change be more like Poland's and less like England's?Replies: @Wilkey, @Maj. Kong, @anon, @Mr. Anon, @Alec Leamas, @anon
Exercising political control over a country and the demographic race-replacement of its indigenous population are wholly different matters. Britain exercised political suzerainty over the Indian sub-continent but it never even remotely displaced the peoples of Pakistan, India etc. I doubt the British were ever one-tenth of one percent of the total population of the sub-continent and anyways they all left after 1948.
In the early bucaneering days of British involvement many colourful characters dressed and acted like exotic locals, including the practice of multiple mistresses etc..
This changed, particularly after the Indian Mutiny when London realised it could no longer permit a private company so much power and, arguably even more important, with the start in the 19th Century of the "fishing fleets" of English women seeking husbands in the Raj whose presence quickly slammed the gates against dubious fraternisation with the locals.
It was also likely important to the self-belief and confidence of the British in India that they regard themselves as distinct and culturally different and always destined at some point to go "home".
It has always been interesting to me that the British have long appeared to admire and respect India - always a rather difficult country in many ways - so much: a French friend claims that the British decided at some early point that India was "exotic" and "colourful" and "sublime" - perhaps by contrast to the calm, peaceful, stolid country they came from.
Even today, my French friend mocks, the British will say "I've just come from India were I had terrible diarrhoea" but meaning to indicate some usual exotic experience.Replies: @Gargamel
I suspect resentment towards the Anglo-American establishment is what makes so many Irish-American politicians support non-white immigration. Race replacement is now a mainstream political policy in the US, but Irish-Americans were prominent among those who started it. The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act was sponsored by the Irish-American Senator Philip Hart (along with the Jewish Representative Emanuel Celler) and enthusiastically promoted by Edward Kennedy.Replies: @Alec Leamas, @anon
The Jews and the Irish. Two of the groups not welcomed at the country clubs. They sure took their revenge for this little bit of WASP snobbism.
Wealthy Irish Catholics often tended to be accepted at Protestant country clubs, although they probably had to be a little wealthier to make up for it. For example, the founder/designer of the National Golf Links of America in the Hamptons in 1909, Charles Blair MacDonald had a daughter married to a Grace, the rich Irish Catholic family that furnished the first Catholic mayor of New York. Winged Foot, the U.S. Open course in Westchester County, long had a sizable number of Catholic hierarchy members. I recall it having 15 monsignors as members at the time of the 1984 US Open.
The closest you get to Indio control is Bolivia, but you cannot call a few rural outcasts a “civilization”. The rest of Latin America has adopted a form of “mestizo nationalism” that maxes out in the Mexican “La Raza Cosmica”. (Uruguay, Argentina and Chile are quasi-Western in orientation, but have no real Protestantism despite the British influence)
The polytheistic religions of the Maya, Azetc and Inca do not form a major cultural influence as they did in the pre-colonial days. So I consider my point that the old civilizations were destroyed as correct, the distinction between Latin America and the West is the preponderance of the Iberian languages, Catholicism, mestizos, and a marked tolerance for political corruption.
The Amerind civilization is as gone as pagan Egypt, Second Temple Jews and Maghreb Christianity.
As usual, the self-abolishing tendency of Europeans is pinned on The Jew. How pathetic the "white race" must be! The kings of the world, yet also the hapless marionettes of Zionists. Huh. Make up your mind.Replies: @Anonymous, @Maj. Kong
I don’t consider myself to have the “Jew obsession”, if you visit my commenting history you would see that I take a friendly stance towards Israel, but a critical take on diaspora Jewish culture.
Ireland went through a far more severe economic downturn than most of the US and Western Europe. Yet the immigration tidal wave did not cease, even though there were many reports of native Irish emigrating to the UK. The reason for that has much to do with Mr. Shatter, a man with no reason to have loyalty to the ethnoreligious nation of Ireland.
Shatter could atone for what he did and convert, or he could move to Israel. I would be pleased with either outcome, though I would prefer the first.
But I’m not going to ignore our suicidal tendencies, which is why I mentioned Sutherland, and probably should have included the American billionaire Charles Feeney.
The Irish half of my extended family is leftist, my other side is Appalachian and populist along with one Ukrainian great-grandparent.
Paul Ryan is of one-half Irish ancestry, and doesn’t have any background in the major cities. His wife is from Oklahoma, and is more liberal than he is, her family was somewhat prominent there. He’s not a Kennedy type. He’s a true believer in Ayn Rand.
Brits Out, Nigerians In!!!!
Find below an excerpt from the book “My Lunches with Orson,” in which Henry Jaglom asks Orson Welles his opinions of/experiences with the Irish, among a few other things…
HJ: If Spencer Tracy was hateful, none of that comes across in the work.
OW: To me it does. I hate him so. Because he’s one of those bitchy Irishmen.
HJ: One of those what?
OW: One of those bitchy Irishmen.
HJ: I can’t believe you said that.
OW: I’m a racist, you know. Here’s the Hungarian recipe for making an omelet. First, steal two eggs. [Alexander] Korda told me that.
HJ: But you liked Korda.
OW: I love Hungarians to the point of sex! I almost get a hard-on when I hear a Hungarian accent, I’m so crazy about them.”
HJ: I don’t understand why you’re saying that about the Irish.
OW: I know them; you don’t. They hate themselves. I lived for years in Ireland. The majority of intelligent Irishmen dislike Irishmen, and they’re right.
HJ: All these groups dislike themselves. Jews dislike themselves.
OW: Nothing like Irishmen.
HJ: That doesn’t make them right, Orson, and you know that. And I don’t accept this prejudice from you. I know that you don’t really have it.
OW: I do have it. I do have it. Particularly against Irish-Americans. I much prefer Irishmen from Ireland. If I have to have an Irishman, I’ll take one of those. And Irishmen in England are quite good. All the great Irish writers mostly left and went to England, except for [George William] Russell and [William Butler] Yeats. Yeats makes me shiver. I was in Dublin at the time when he was still—
HJ: I didn’t realize he was still around in the thirties.
OW: Yeah. He was at every party, and you could see him walking in the park. And Lady Gregory. All those people were still around—the famous Gaelic nationalists. I got to know them all. And you know, some of my best friends are Irishmen.
HJ: Oh, God!
OW: But when I look at Tracy, I see that everything that’s hateful about him is Irish. Everything that’s mean. Every Irishman will tell you that. Seven hundred years of bitter oppression changed their character, gave them that passive meanness and cunning. All I can say is what Micheál Mac Liammóir said when we were making Othello, and I asked him, “Describe the Irish in one word.” He said, “Malice.” Look, I love Ireland, I love Irish literature, I love everything they do, you know. But the Irish-Americans have invented an imitation Ireland which is unspeakable. The wearin’ o’ the green. Oh, my God, to vomit!
HJ: That’s boring and silly, and—
OW: No, it’s to vomit. Not boring and silly. Don’t argue with me. You’re such a liberal! Of course there’s no proof. It’s the way I feel! You don’t want me to feel that, but I do! I think everybody should be bigoted. I don’t think you’re human if you don’t acknowledge some prejudice.
HJ: Yes. But acknowledging some prejudice and really having full-out hate, like you have against the Irish—”
OW: Well, not so much that I’m rude to them or would bar them from my house. It doesn’t mean anything, it’s just a perception of their character. Or of the majority of them.
HJ: Okay. But if that’s true, then all it means is that there’s cultural conditioning.
OW: Well, of course there is!
HJ: So when they come to America, that changes them.
OW: Yes, they become a new and terrible race. Which is called “Irish-Americans.” They’re fine in Australia; they’re fine in England; they do well in Latin America. It’s in New York and Boston that they became so frightful. You know, the old Kennedy was a real Irish-American. That’s what I mean.
HJ: But his kids weren’t?
OW: No. They escaped it. You can see the Irish ancestry, but their character wasn’t Irish. Their life wasn’t based on malice. You know, if you’re here in America long enough, you lose the faults and the virtues of your original culture. The Italians will lose the sense of family when they finally get to the next generation. They won’t hang together, the way they still do now.
HJ: It’s like in Israel, where there’s no art now. Jews, they thought they were gonna have a renaissance, and suddenly, they’re producing a great air force, but no artists. All those incredible virtues of the centuries—
OW: They left all that in Europe. Who needs it? They get to Israel, and they sort of go into retirement.
HJ: Their theater is boring; their film is boring. Painting and sculpture—
OW: Boring. You know, the only time they make good music is when Zubin Mehta, a Hindu, comes to conduct.
HJ: Getting back to the Irish, some are liberals, like Robert Ryan. He was a brave man, politically and socially. Tell me Robert Ryan was not a decent man.
OW: He’s a wonderful actor. I don’t think of him as Irish; he just has an Irish name. He must be fourth-generation.
HJ: Now, Ford you liked. He was an Irishman.
OW: We were very good friends, and he always wanted to do a picture with me. He was a pretty mean son-of-a-bitch Irishman. But I loved him anyway.
HJ: I’ve always heard that Ford was a drunk.
OW: Never when he was working. Not a drop. Just the last day of a picture. And he’d be drunk for weeks. Serious, serious drunk. But for him, drinking was fun. In other words, he wasn’t an alcoholic. Went out with all the boys. Irishmen, get drunk and fight. Everybody gets beat up in the pub, you know? I’ve lived through all that. Went to jail in Ireland for rowdyism. It was a culture where nobody got married until they were thirty-five, because they were always dreaming of emigrating, and they didn’t want to be stuck with the kids, financially. So all these poor virgin ladies sat around waiting to get married, and the guys are all swinging at each other, reverting to the bestiality of the male.
HJ: There was not much fucking around, I would imagine, because it was a Catholic culture?
OW: Oh, my God, yes. By the girls. I could hardly draw a breath when I visited the Aran Islands. I was all of seventeen. And these great, marvelous girls in their white petticoats, they’d grab me. Off the petticoats would go. It was as close to male rape as you could imagine. And all with husbands out in their skin-covered canoes. All day, while I had nothing to do. Then the girls would go and confess it all to the priest, who finally said to me, “I had another confession this morning. When are you leaving?”
“HJ: Wasn’t Ford very reactionary, politically? Like his pals John Wayne and Ward Bond?
OW: Yes, but all those guys loved me, for some reason. And I loved them. I have a beer bottle that was put together on Ford’s yacht, with different Mexican and American beer labels signed by that gang of people, all dedicated to me. Now this was at a time when I was a well-known Hollywood Red.
HJ: And their reactionary positions came from what?
OW: Irish, Irish, Irish. The Irish were taught, “Kill the k****,” you know. I really loved John Wayne. He had some of the best manners of almost any actor I’ve ever met in Hollywood.
HJ: Did you ever speak to him about politics at all?
OW: Why would I? I’m not like you. I’m not gonna set John Wayne straight. I never had any trouble with extreme right-wingers. I’ve always found them tremendously likeable in every respect, except their politics. They’re usually nicer people than left-wingers.
HJ: But you’re so forgiving about these kinds of very dangerous—
OW: Forgiving!? Supposing you go to the Amazon, and you live in a village of headhunters. Now, if you’re an anthropologist, you can become very fond of those headhunters, but you’re not gonna argue about head-hunting with them.
HJ: I don’t understand how somebody with liberal feelings would not discuss politics with Wayne or Bond or Adolphe Menjou at a time when they had the power to hurt people, and in fact did a lot of damage.
OW: Well, Menjou was so fighting mad that you couldn’t talk to him. But Noël Coward took care of him wonderfully. Menjou was heading a USO troupe. Noël Coward was heading the equivalent of the USO—whatever it was called in England—you know, entertaining the troops. And they met in Casablanca. And they were eating in the mess. Menjou was talking about how terrible it was in England, that those “n******” soldiers were fucking all the English girls, and you didn’t know what kind of race it was gonna be: “Isn’t that true, Noël?” And Noël said, “Well, I think it’s perfectly marvelous.” Menjou said, “What?” Noël said, “At last there’ll be a race of Englishmen with good teeth.” No, with Menjou you couldn’t talk. He was a raving maniac.”
Excerpt From: Peter Biskind. “My Lunches with Orson.”
All lost now, like tears in rain.Replies: @Cagey Beast
HJ: If Spencer Tracy was hateful, none of that comes across in the work.
OW: To me it does. I hate him so. Because he’s one of those bitchy Irishmen.
HJ: One of those what?
OW: One of those bitchy Irishmen.
HJ: I can’t believe you said that.
OW: I’m a racist, you know. Here’s the Hungarian recipe for making an omelet. First, steal two eggs. [Alexander] Korda told me that.
HJ: But you liked Korda.
OW: I love Hungarians to the point of sex! I almost get a hard-on when I hear a Hungarian accent, I’m so crazy about them.”
HJ: I don’t understand why you’re saying that about the Irish.
OW: I know them; you don’t. They hate themselves. I lived for years in Ireland. The majority of intelligent Irishmen dislike Irishmen, and they’re right.
HJ: All these groups dislike themselves. Jews dislike themselves.
OW: Nothing like Irishmen.
HJ: That doesn’t make them right, Orson, and you know that. And I don’t accept this prejudice from you. I know that you don’t really have it.
OW: I do have it. I do have it. Particularly against Irish-Americans. I much prefer Irishmen from Ireland. If I have to have an Irishman, I’ll take one of those. And Irishmen in England are quite good. All the great Irish writers mostly left and went to England, except for [George William] Russell and [William Butler] Yeats. Yeats makes me shiver. I was in Dublin at the time when he was still—
HJ: I didn’t realize he was still around in the thirties.
OW: Yeah. He was at every party, and you could see him walking in the park. And Lady Gregory. All those people were still around—the famous Gaelic nationalists. I got to know them all. And you know, some of my best friends are Irishmen.
HJ: Oh, God!
OW: But when I look at Tracy, I see that everything that’s hateful about him is Irish. Everything that’s mean. Every Irishman will tell you that. Seven hundred years of bitter oppression changed their character, gave them that passive meanness and cunning. All I can say is what Micheál Mac Liammóir said when we were making Othello, and I asked him, “Describe the Irish in one word.” He said, “Malice.” Look, I love Ireland, I love Irish literature, I love everything they do, you know. But the Irish-Americans have invented an imitation Ireland which is unspeakable. The wearin’ o’ the green. Oh, my God, to vomit!
HJ: That’s boring and silly, and—
OW: No, it’s to vomit. Not boring and silly. Don’t argue with me. You’re such a liberal! Of course there’s no proof. It’s the way I feel! You don’t want me to feel that, but I do! I think everybody should be bigoted. I don’t think you’re human if you don’t acknowledge some prejudice.
HJ: Yes. But acknowledging some prejudice and really having full-out hate, like you have against the Irish—”
OW: Well, not so much that I’m rude to them or would bar them from my house. It doesn’t mean anything, it’s just a perception of their character. Or of the majority of them.
HJ: Okay. But if that’s true, then all it means is that there’s cultural conditioning.
OW: Well, of course there is!
HJ: So when they come to America, that changes them.
OW: Yes, they become a new and terrible race. Which is called “Irish-Americans.” They’re fine in Australia; they’re fine in England; they do well in Latin America. It’s in New York and Boston that they became so frightful. You know, the old Kennedy was a real Irish-American. That’s what I mean.
HJ: But his kids weren’t?
OW: No. They escaped it. You can see the Irish ancestry, but their character wasn’t Irish. Their life wasn’t based on malice. You know, if you’re here in America long enough, you lose the faults and the virtues of your original culture. The Italians will lose the sense of family when they finally get to the next generation. They won’t hang together, the way they still do now.
HJ: It’s like in Israel, where there’s no art now. Jews, they thought they were gonna have a renaissance, and suddenly, they’re producing a great air force, but no artists. All those incredible virtues of the centuries—
OW: They left all that in Europe. Who needs it? They get to Israel, and they sort of go into retirement.
HJ: Their theater is boring; their film is boring. Painting and sculpture—
OW: Boring. You know, the only time they make good music is when Zubin Mehta, a Hindu, comes to conduct.
HJ: Getting back to the Irish, some are liberals, like Robert Ryan. He was a brave man, politically and socially. Tell me Robert Ryan was not a decent man.
OW: He’s a wonderful actor. I don’t think of him as Irish; he just has an Irish name. He must be fourth-generation.
HJ: Now, Ford you liked. He was an Irishman.
OW: We were very good friends, and he always wanted to do a picture with me. He was a pretty mean son-of-a-bitch Irishman. But I loved him anyway.
HJ: I’ve always heard that Ford was a drunk.
OW: Never when he was working. Not a drop. Just the last day of a picture. And he’d be drunk for weeks. Serious, serious drunk. But for him, drinking was fun. In other words, he wasn’t an alcoholic. Went out with all the boys. Irishmen, get drunk and fight. Everybody gets beat up in the pub, you know? I’ve lived through all that. Went to jail in Ireland for rowdyism. It was a culture where nobody got married until they were thirty-five, because they were always dreaming of emigrating, and they didn’t want to be stuck with the kids, financially. So all these poor virgin ladies sat around waiting to get married, and the guys are all swinging at each other, reverting to the bestiality of the male.
HJ: There was not much fucking around, I would imagine, because it was a Catholic culture?
OW: Oh, my God, yes. By the girls. I could hardly draw a breath when I visited the Aran Islands. I was all of seventeen. And these great, marvelous girls in their white petticoats, they’d grab me. Off the petticoats would go. It was as close to male rape as you could imagine. And all with husbands out in their skin-covered canoes. All day, while I had nothing to do. Then the girls would go and confess it all to the priest, who finally said to me, “I had another confession this morning. When are you leaving?”
“HJ: Wasn’t Ford very reactionary, politically? Like his pals John Wayne and Ward Bond?
OW: Yes, but all those guys loved me, for some reason. And I loved them. I have a beer bottle that was put together on Ford’s yacht, with different Mexican and American beer labels signed by that gang of people, all dedicated to me. Now this was at a time when I was a well-known Hollywood Red.
HJ: And their reactionary positions came from what?
OW: Irish, Irish, Irish. The Irish were taught, “Kill the k****,” you know. I really loved John Wayne. He had some of the best manners of almost any actor I’ve ever met in Hollywood.
HJ: Did you ever speak to him about politics at all?
OW: Why would I? I’m not like you. I’m not gonna set John Wayne straight. I never had any trouble with extreme right-wingers. I’ve always found them tremendously likeable in every respect, except their politics. They’re usually nicer people than left-wingers.
HJ: But you’re so forgiving about these kinds of very dangerous—
OW: Forgiving!? Supposing you go to the Amazon, and you live in a village of headhunters. Now, if you’re an anthropologist, you can become very fond of those headhunters, but you’re not gonna argue about head-hunting with them.
HJ: I don’t understand how somebody with liberal feelings would not discuss politics with Wayne or Bond or Adolphe Menjou at a time when they had the power to hurt people, and in fact did a lot of damage.
OW: Well, Menjou was so fighting mad that you couldn’t talk to him. But Noël Coward took care of him wonderfully. Menjou was heading a USO troupe. Noël Coward was heading the equivalent of the USO—whatever it was called in England—you know, entertaining the troops. And they met in Casablanca. And they were eating in the mess. Menjou was talking about how terrible it was in England, that those “n******” soldiers were fucking all the English girls, and you didn’t know what kind of race it was gonna be: “Isn’t that true, Noël?” And Noël said, “Well, I think it’s perfectly marvelous.” Menjou said, “What?” Noël said, “At last there’ll be a race of Englishmen with good teeth.” No, with Menjou you couldn’t talk. He was a raving maniac.”
Excerpt From: Peter Biskind. “My Lunches with Orson.”Replies: @Steve Sailer, @vinteuil
Hilarious.
I’ve always wondered about Anthony Burgess’s “A Clockwork Orange:” back in 1962, home invasion barely existed as a crime in England. But Burgess’s wife had suffered home invasion and rape at the hands of American GI’s during WWII. So he wrote it into his novel, and then, by the 1990s, it had become commonplace in England, just like he’d predicted.
But I’ve always wondered what was the race of the GIs who broke into the future Mrs. Burgess’s home in the 1940s.
Home invasion would have been difficult when most houses with anything worth stealing would have had domestic servants who could raise the alarm.
Of course, the whole topic of Black GIs and rape in WW2 is covered over in several layers of Crimestop.* Still, suggestive facts do slip through:http://www.nytimes.com/1993/02/07/us/when-black-soldiers-were-hanged-a-war-s-footnote.html
As a good Liberal, Lilly is certain that the higher Black rate must be due to racism.....But Thought Criminals are willing to entertain other possibilities....
*The mind should develop a blind spot whenever a dangerous thought presented itself. The process should be automatic, instinctive. Crimestop, they called it in Newspeak.
Given that there were four rapists, there’s a good chance they were black, because white sex criminals are more likely to act alone. But there was quite a bit of crime from GIs of all races in Britain during the war. Private Karl Hulten, who was hanged in London for murdering a taxi driver, was Swedish-American. There was an American Indian executed for murder in the south of England also.
Home invasion would have been difficult when most houses with anything worth stealing would have had domestic servants who could raise the alarm.
Protestant England and Scotland saw it as a potential backdoor for continental papist aggression.
The other dubious point in the article was the theory that if English monarchs had retained their French possessions that France would have been anglicized. Quite the reverse - Richard I could barely speak English and had no love of England. And he was a fairly typical Angevin in that respect. If anything England would have been assimilated into France.Replies: @LondonBob
Quite, Ireland was always the launchpad for a number of French and Spanish intended invasions. The primary concern was strategic, protecting the realm.
Catholics, presumably “ethnics,” are left of other Americans http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/catholics-real-liberals/
My guess is that it’s a function of living in big cities and them still thinking of themselves as descendants of immigrants
The first husband of Burgess’s second wife was a black American.
The conventional story says that Joe Kennedy Sr. was looked down upon by New England Brahmins because of his Irish-Catholic background, but I’ve always suspected their disdain had far more to do with his personal character. I’m not sure if the word “unclubbable” is precisely right, but every well-known anecdote about the man portrays the kind of shallow, self-absorbed, overambitious social climber with whom no sane person would want to socialize.
“I was at an Irish-related lunch today with former president Bill J. Clinton…Clinton gave an interpretation of the Irish Proclamation which was close to entirely opposite of its clearly intended meaning. He then cited Yeats’s “The Second Coming” as a plea for globalist inclusiveness…As he was grabbing my intern’s ass, I noticed that Clinton had lipstick on his teeth….”
What’s really funny is that I can’t be entirely sure that this is satire…
The result was she had a miscarriage, and gynecological problems the rest of her life. She also turned into a bitter alcoholic. I tried googling up the details, and all I found was “american G.I.’s” were the culprits.
I would reckon that if they were black, it’s not something that anyone in the literary/film world would want to know, since it would change a popular film into a bleak indictment of black culture, in the public’s eye. That would be a lot of tough stuff to collectively swallow.
I would say that it’s an interesting parallel that the author created a form of “ebonics” used by the gang, and also the director’s use of black and white, noting the gang, dressed in white, committed their social atrocities while wearing black bowler hats. It wouldn’t be considered writing “on the nose” unless the author’s assailants were black, I guess.
I’m not much of a student of “A Clockwork Orange.” I’ve seen it once, and don’t want to see it again. I have a cinemaphile friend who occasionally asks me to go with him whenever it gets rereleased in a local theater. I always say, “why would you want to pay money to watch a movie that cheerleads for the fall of man? I can sit home and watch ‘the hitler channel’ for free!”
To me, “A Clockwork Orange” is just WWII being waged in someone’s house. Not a far reach considering it’s personal effect on the author.
I cannot understand the public fascination with it. Some people are devoted to that movie like Trekkies. I’m still waiting for them to hold conventions.
HJ: If Spencer Tracy was hateful, none of that comes across in the work.
OW: To me it does. I hate him so. Because he’s one of those bitchy Irishmen.
HJ: One of those what?
OW: One of those bitchy Irishmen.
HJ: I can’t believe you said that.
OW: I’m a racist, you know. Here’s the Hungarian recipe for making an omelet. First, steal two eggs. [Alexander] Korda told me that.
HJ: But you liked Korda.
OW: I love Hungarians to the point of sex! I almost get a hard-on when I hear a Hungarian accent, I’m so crazy about them.”
HJ: I don’t understand why you’re saying that about the Irish.
OW: I know them; you don’t. They hate themselves. I lived for years in Ireland. The majority of intelligent Irishmen dislike Irishmen, and they’re right.
HJ: All these groups dislike themselves. Jews dislike themselves.
OW: Nothing like Irishmen.
HJ: That doesn’t make them right, Orson, and you know that. And I don’t accept this prejudice from you. I know that you don’t really have it.
OW: I do have it. I do have it. Particularly against Irish-Americans. I much prefer Irishmen from Ireland. If I have to have an Irishman, I’ll take one of those. And Irishmen in England are quite good. All the great Irish writers mostly left and went to England, except for [George William] Russell and [William Butler] Yeats. Yeats makes me shiver. I was in Dublin at the time when he was still—
HJ: I didn’t realize he was still around in the thirties.
OW: Yeah. He was at every party, and you could see him walking in the park. And Lady Gregory. All those people were still around—the famous Gaelic nationalists. I got to know them all. And you know, some of my best friends are Irishmen.
HJ: Oh, God!
OW: But when I look at Tracy, I see that everything that’s hateful about him is Irish. Everything that’s mean. Every Irishman will tell you that. Seven hundred years of bitter oppression changed their character, gave them that passive meanness and cunning. All I can say is what Micheál Mac Liammóir said when we were making Othello, and I asked him, “Describe the Irish in one word.” He said, “Malice.” Look, I love Ireland, I love Irish literature, I love everything they do, you know. But the Irish-Americans have invented an imitation Ireland which is unspeakable. The wearin’ o’ the green. Oh, my God, to vomit!
HJ: That’s boring and silly, and—
OW: No, it’s to vomit. Not boring and silly. Don’t argue with me. You’re such a liberal! Of course there’s no proof. It’s the way I feel! You don’t want me to feel that, but I do! I think everybody should be bigoted. I don’t think you’re human if you don’t acknowledge some prejudice.
HJ: Yes. But acknowledging some prejudice and really having full-out hate, like you have against the Irish—”
OW: Well, not so much that I’m rude to them or would bar them from my house. It doesn’t mean anything, it’s just a perception of their character. Or of the majority of them.
HJ: Okay. But if that’s true, then all it means is that there’s cultural conditioning.
OW: Well, of course there is!
HJ: So when they come to America, that changes them.
OW: Yes, they become a new and terrible race. Which is called “Irish-Americans.” They’re fine in Australia; they’re fine in England; they do well in Latin America. It’s in New York and Boston that they became so frightful. You know, the old Kennedy was a real Irish-American. That’s what I mean.
HJ: But his kids weren’t?
OW: No. They escaped it. You can see the Irish ancestry, but their character wasn’t Irish. Their life wasn’t based on malice. You know, if you’re here in America long enough, you lose the faults and the virtues of your original culture. The Italians will lose the sense of family when they finally get to the next generation. They won’t hang together, the way they still do now.
HJ: It’s like in Israel, where there’s no art now. Jews, they thought they were gonna have a renaissance, and suddenly, they’re producing a great air force, but no artists. All those incredible virtues of the centuries—
OW: They left all that in Europe. Who needs it? They get to Israel, and they sort of go into retirement.
HJ: Their theater is boring; their film is boring. Painting and sculpture—
OW: Boring. You know, the only time they make good music is when Zubin Mehta, a Hindu, comes to conduct.
HJ: Getting back to the Irish, some are liberals, like Robert Ryan. He was a brave man, politically and socially. Tell me Robert Ryan was not a decent man.
OW: He’s a wonderful actor. I don’t think of him as Irish; he just has an Irish name. He must be fourth-generation.
HJ: Now, Ford you liked. He was an Irishman.
OW: We were very good friends, and he always wanted to do a picture with me. He was a pretty mean son-of-a-bitch Irishman. But I loved him anyway.
HJ: I’ve always heard that Ford was a drunk.
OW: Never when he was working. Not a drop. Just the last day of a picture. And he’d be drunk for weeks. Serious, serious drunk. But for him, drinking was fun. In other words, he wasn’t an alcoholic. Went out with all the boys. Irishmen, get drunk and fight. Everybody gets beat up in the pub, you know? I’ve lived through all that. Went to jail in Ireland for rowdyism. It was a culture where nobody got married until they were thirty-five, because they were always dreaming of emigrating, and they didn’t want to be stuck with the kids, financially. So all these poor virgin ladies sat around waiting to get married, and the guys are all swinging at each other, reverting to the bestiality of the male.
HJ: There was not much fucking around, I would imagine, because it was a Catholic culture?
OW: Oh, my God, yes. By the girls. I could hardly draw a breath when I visited the Aran Islands. I was all of seventeen. And these great, marvelous girls in their white petticoats, they’d grab me. Off the petticoats would go. It was as close to male rape as you could imagine. And all with husbands out in their skin-covered canoes. All day, while I had nothing to do. Then the girls would go and confess it all to the priest, who finally said to me, “I had another confession this morning. When are you leaving?”
“HJ: Wasn’t Ford very reactionary, politically? Like his pals John Wayne and Ward Bond?
OW: Yes, but all those guys loved me, for some reason. And I loved them. I have a beer bottle that was put together on Ford’s yacht, with different Mexican and American beer labels signed by that gang of people, all dedicated to me. Now this was at a time when I was a well-known Hollywood Red.
HJ: And their reactionary positions came from what?
OW: Irish, Irish, Irish. The Irish were taught, “Kill the k****,” you know. I really loved John Wayne. He had some of the best manners of almost any actor I’ve ever met in Hollywood.
HJ: Did you ever speak to him about politics at all?
OW: Why would I? I’m not like you. I’m not gonna set John Wayne straight. I never had any trouble with extreme right-wingers. I’ve always found them tremendously likeable in every respect, except their politics. They’re usually nicer people than left-wingers.
HJ: But you’re so forgiving about these kinds of very dangerous—
OW: Forgiving!? Supposing you go to the Amazon, and you live in a village of headhunters. Now, if you’re an anthropologist, you can become very fond of those headhunters, but you’re not gonna argue about head-hunting with them.
HJ: I don’t understand how somebody with liberal feelings would not discuss politics with Wayne or Bond or Adolphe Menjou at a time when they had the power to hurt people, and in fact did a lot of damage.
OW: Well, Menjou was so fighting mad that you couldn’t talk to him. But Noël Coward took care of him wonderfully. Menjou was heading a USO troupe. Noël Coward was heading the equivalent of the USO—whatever it was called in England—you know, entertaining the troops. And they met in Casablanca. And they were eating in the mess. Menjou was talking about how terrible it was in England, that those “n******” soldiers were fucking all the English girls, and you didn’t know what kind of race it was gonna be: “Isn’t that true, Noël?” And Noël said, “Well, I think it’s perfectly marvelous.” Menjou said, “What?” Noël said, “At last there’ll be a race of Englishmen with good teeth.” No, with Menjou you couldn’t talk. He was a raving maniac.”
Excerpt From: Peter Biskind. “My Lunches with Orson.”Replies: @Steve Sailer, @vinteuil
Wow – amazing stuff. So there was a time when lefties could be amusing and edgy.
All lost now, like tears in rain.
There is a remarkable core of strength, endurance, perseverance and courage exhibited in the American Indian community. They have many problems, to be sure, but it is not true thatI assume your position is uninformed, and not merely biased.Replies: @Federalist, @Dan Kurt
The original point made by someone else was that in the time of European imperialism, European colonial rulers who lived in these countries were only a small minority in places like Africa and that the Europeans mostly left after the era of colonialism.
Maj. Kong pointed out that in the Third World, that claim is true. But in the Americas, it is not. He said, “The preexisting Amerind civilizations and cultures, were completely destroyed. European settlement and natural increase followed in the disease ridden wake.”
I said that these civilizations and cultures were at least almost completely destroyed. You may be right. I probably stated this too strongly. But if they were not almost completely destroyed, they certainly did not fare well. I do not say this to disparage American Indians or their culture. Huge numbers of American Indians were killed. Many American Indian groups were completely wiped out. Many of those groups that did survive had there numbers reduced and were pushed out of their lands and relocated elsewhere. It is admirable that Indians are working to keep their cultures and traditions alive but certainly their culture has been supplanted to a large degree by generic American culture.
Whereas the Catholic Grace family of New York City fulfilled all demands for noblesse oblige and thus was admired everywhere.
New York City has always been less tribal than Puritan Boston. Boston Brahmins were notoriously anti-Irish and anti-Catholic.
Also note that the Grace family was a prominent shipping family from the Irish midlands and William Russell Grace ran for mayor on a reform, anti-Tammany platform; thus, he was palatable to the upper class in New York. Kennedy Sr. was the son of a local wardheeler and tavern owner who became wealthy through rumrunning during prohibition.
He did NOT become wealthy through "rumrunning." He owned some bars early on–he was by no means a "rumrunner," any more than any other bar owner. He didn't transport booze. He paid for delivery. If you apply some common sense, rumrunning was a federal crime. Kennedy would not become a multimillionaire via rumrunning, a lowbrow affair, along the east coast as a young man.
Kennedy made far more money in New York real estate, but made his FORTUNE by leveraging what he had, and massively shorting the stock market just before the crash, via "insider trading," which was perfectly legal at that time.
So stop with the "rumrunning" myth, and consider reading a decent Joe Kennedy biography sometime. There's a few of them.Replies: @Hibernian
20 pounds of potatoes?! Can that be right? A potato has 350 calories per pound. Even a modern 2,000 calorie diet would still be under 6 pounds. Even 10 sounds suspicious, but 20? Were potatoes one third less nutritious back then?
All lost now, like tears in rain.Replies: @Cagey Beast
Orson Welles would be alt-right if he were alive today. Maybe the alt-right should do like the Mormons do and convert people after their death?
The US is the only place I can think of that talk so much of the Jews and Irish in the breath and put them into one category in this way. It sure wasn’t done in Canada. Outside of urban American civic life, the Irish and the Jews have as much in common as another other two groups of humans chosen at random. They’re both mammals I suppose, so that’s one thing …
Unmechanized agriculture is damn hard work. You burn a lot more than 2,000 calories.
There is a remarkable core of strength, endurance, perseverance and courage exhibited in the American Indian community. They have many problems, to be sure, but it is not true thatI assume your position is uninformed, and not merely biased.Replies: @Federalist, @Dan Kurt
Have you actually lived on an Indian Reservation?
Dan Kurt
But I have spent time there, have you?
My first friend (at age four) was an American Indian. My father had no notion of affirmative action, but he hired American Indians to work for him, and he worked with them, and I worked with them.
I went to school with them, fought with them, courted the ones I thought pretty (though unsuccessfully), went to church with them, mourned their passing (even the ones I fought) and lamented their condition.
Who the f_ck are you, sh_thead?
In Canada the Irish integrated into the greater Anglo society more than in the US. I doubt there was ever much of an Irish Lobby in Canada agitating for more immigration or for forcing affirmative action on Ulster Protestants as there has always been in the US. If Irish Americans, or at least a proportion of them, mostly in the north east, have insisted on having different interests from other Americans it’s hardly surprising they would occasionally be treated as a separate category of Americans by their fellow countrymen.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-cutting_cleavage
Surely Jews are the most Leftist Whites
White Lesbians are the most Leftist Whites. Who is the Lesbian version of Michael Savage and Mark Levin?
Yeah, I’ve always found the lack of specificity intriguing….
Of course, the whole topic of Black GIs and rape in WW2 is covered over in several layers of Crimestop.* Still, suggestive facts do slip through:
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/02/07/us/when-black-soldiers-were-hanged-a-war-s-footnote.html
As a good Liberal, Lilly is certain that the higher Black rate must be due to racism…..But Thought Criminals are willing to entertain other possibilities….
*The mind should develop a blind spot whenever a dangerous thought presented itself. The process should be automatic, instinctive. Crimestop, they called it in Newspeak.
The Irish in Canada also benefited from many more “cross cutting cleavages”* than the Irish in the US Northeast. In Canada there were old stock Catholic French, Catholic Scots, Protestant Scots, Protestant Irish and Catholic Irish and each of these groups were represented at every economic level and in both cities and countryside. Irishness did not equate to Catholicism or vice versa. This is not like the Irish in Boston.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-cutting_cleavage
“Great-granddaughter of Easter Rising leader James Connolly is told to ‘go home’ from 1916 wreath-laying event because of her English accent”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3517069/James-Connolly-s-great-granddaughter-told-home-Easter-Rising-event-English-accent.html
It was British government policy to strongly discourage the creation of any kind of white settlement in India, partly out of fear of a repeat of the American revolt.
In the early bucaneering days of British involvement many colourful characters dressed and acted like exotic locals, including the practice of multiple mistresses etc..
This changed, particularly after the Indian Mutiny when London realised it could no longer permit a private company so much power and, arguably even more important, with the start in the 19th Century of the “fishing fleets” of English women seeking husbands in the Raj whose presence quickly slammed the gates against dubious fraternisation with the locals.
It was also likely important to the self-belief and confidence of the British in India that they regard themselves as distinct and culturally different and always destined at some point to go “home”.
It has always been interesting to me that the British have long appeared to admire and respect India – always a rather difficult country in many ways – so much: a French friend claims that the British decided at some early point that India was “exotic” and “colourful” and “sublime” – perhaps by contrast to the calm, peaceful, stolid country they came from.
Even today, my French friend mocks, the British will say “I’ve just come from India were I had terrible diarrhoea” but meaning to indicate some usual exotic experience.
Dan KurtReplies: @Charles Erwin Wilson
No, I have not.
But I have spent time there, have you?
My first friend (at age four) was an American Indian. My father had no notion of affirmative action, but he hired American Indians to work for him, and he worked with them, and I worked with them.
I went to school with them, fought with them, courted the ones I thought pretty (though unsuccessfully), went to church with them, mourned their passing (even the ones I fought) and lamented their condition.
Who the f_ck are you, sh_thead?
I recently reread the book which is I now realise is even crueler than the film. (It is clearly the model for several much inferior writers like Irvine “Transporting” Welsh.)
If one really wants to get a feel for how sour young Muslim men feel about living among the kafir read about the gang’s everyday antics preying on the soft and the weak.
In the early bucaneering days of British involvement many colourful characters dressed and acted like exotic locals, including the practice of multiple mistresses etc..
This changed, particularly after the Indian Mutiny when London realised it could no longer permit a private company so much power and, arguably even more important, with the start in the 19th Century of the "fishing fleets" of English women seeking husbands in the Raj whose presence quickly slammed the gates against dubious fraternisation with the locals.
It was also likely important to the self-belief and confidence of the British in India that they regard themselves as distinct and culturally different and always destined at some point to go "home".
It has always been interesting to me that the British have long appeared to admire and respect India - always a rather difficult country in many ways - so much: a French friend claims that the British decided at some early point that India was "exotic" and "colourful" and "sublime" - perhaps by contrast to the calm, peaceful, stolid country they came from.
Even today, my French friend mocks, the British will say "I've just come from India were I had terrible diarrhoea" but meaning to indicate some usual exotic experience.Replies: @Gargamel
The Indian climate in the pre-penecillin era was unhealthy for Europeans, especially children. It just wasn’t a good country for British colonists. There were greener pastures in North America, South Africa and Australia.
w.r.t. Burgess and Clockwork Orange. Here’s info on the executions of American servicemen in Britain in WWII:
http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/sheptonm.html
Was rape a capital offense in those days?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3517069/James-Connolly-s-great-granddaughter-told-home-Easter-Rising-event-English-accent.htmlReplies: @Hibernian
She ran into one ignorant man and that proves what?
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
He did NOT become wealthy through “rumrunning.” He owned some bars early on–he was by no means a “rumrunner,” any more than any other bar owner. He didn’t transport booze. He paid for delivery. If you apply some common sense, rumrunning was a federal crime. Kennedy would not become a multimillionaire via rumrunning, a lowbrow affair, along the east coast as a young man.
Kennedy made far more money in New York real estate, but made his FORTUNE by leveraging what he had, and massively shorting the stock market just before the crash, via “insider trading,” which was perfectly legal at that time.
So stop with the “rumrunning” myth, and consider reading a decent Joe Kennedy biography sometime. There’s a few of them.
“Surely Jews are the most Leftist Whites”
White Lesbians are the most Leftist Whites. Who is the Lesbian version of Michael Savage and Mark Levin?
What they were, however, was monolithically Lutheran with a strong tint of conformity. Many Swedes also immigrated to the US during the 19th century, and present-day liberals use this as the reason that Sweden must have an open border policy.
The same argument is used by the liberals in Ireland today, as well as channeling the myth that Ireland presaged the Third World "wars of national liberation". (There is some truth to that, Mao's thoughts on guerilla warfare came from Michael Collins).
And today, Ireland has shifted from monolithically Catholic to monolithically anti-clerical (despite having a liberal clergy). So most Irish voters don't even value their ethnoreligious identity at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Sutherland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Shatter
And these guys.Replies: @Carl, @Marcus, @RadicalCenter, @RadicalCenter, @Pericles
Regarding Sweden, actually, no, the pro-immivasion arguments aren’t historical. That would presume a far too intellectual and educated level of discourse. Instead those arguments have seamlessly shifted over time and should be mostly familiar.
For example, we must be nice to poor refugees because otherwise we wouldn’t be nice and that would shatter our self image; we would be nazis if we didn’t take in this huge batch (Bosnians in the 90s); the immigrants will prop up our tottering demographics and provide our welfare state pensions in the future; we need more skilled workers (twice, the second time this fall as farce); our population is 9 million, let’s just take in 30 million more, it doesn’t matter (by a liberal-right politician, of course); when I flew over Sweden, possibly coming from Brussels, it looked basically empty so we could just settle those empty spaces with whoever turns up (from our prime minister at the time, a pretend-conservative); I will punish the surging Sweden Democrat voters by allying with the hard left Greens and sharply increasing immigration (same prime minister); not admitting everyone coming by would be like being nazis nazis nazis, it would in particular be like blocking the jews escaping from Denmark (from our left-liberal media, owned by the Bonniers family).
I may have forgotten a swathe, but the gist of it should be familiar. Lunatics and soulless fortune seekers set our policies.
That’s right, I’ve noticed the Jews have a gut hatred for Irish more than any race. We’re exact opposite – Us – physical and impulsive, them – cold and intellectual. Wrt immigration to Ireland. I notice a lot of my cousins still in the Old Country have married Polish girls and are having plenty children.
But, yeh, Polish girls are phenomenally beautiful and intelligent, congrats!
The rising was "fascist" despite generously proclaiming a modern secular republic guaranteeing religious and civil liberty to all the people of Ireland (i.e. the actual Irish people and the people who had their boots on our necks for the past few centuries).
Several of my relatives were in the IRA during the war of independence and fought on both sides of the subsequent civil war. During the war of independence they fought against foreign invaders and their agents. They were mainly poor, pious, and hardworking small farmers who fought in their own townlands & parishes where their ancestors grew, lived and died since time immemorial. It's pretty disgraceful to attack them for defending their own patch against foreigners who had been treating them like second class citizens in their own homeland.
The English did not rule Ireland by tickling bellies and certainly not by the consent of the Irish people. Many bad things happened during the war of independence (as in all wars) but the imperial police force and their collaborators got what they deserved.
For those interested Dan Breen gave a great short interview in his old age which summed it all up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znrDWkDhYXM
People like Ruth Dudley Edwards would have us apologise for having the temerity to want to rule ourselves. Of course back in the good old days the natives would know their place and keep their mouths shut.Replies: @Irishman(), @Hibernian, @random observer
Valid criticisms insofar as Derb has had a thing about Ireland over the years and generally takes this analogy too far, but the rising and the more radical republican tradition more generally were fascist insofar as they:
– glorified the role of armed militancy as a positive good as well as merely necessary, and maintained this emphasis on paramilitarism long after independence, as well as clinging to it as the independence they got was at first not good enough
– emphasized the positive virtues of the sacrifice of blood through violence as the means to both win independence and to morally justify it
-emphasized the blood and soil form of nationalism and poeticized the sacrifice of the former as the price paid to earn again the ownership of the latter
-although eventually some accepted the parliamentary free state and even its opponents eventually created a parliamentary republic, all of whom I am aware disdained constitutional means of getting there before 1914 and sought armed struggle for its own sake
This was fascist iconography and thinking avant la lettre, but inherently fascist all the same. Every concept has its early examples before the term is coined for it. There’s plenty of stuff being called fascist today with varying degrees of accuracy but none anywhere near as fascist as that.
It doesn’t mean they were as fascist as the Italian trope-namers, let alone make them Nazis or anything like that, but it doesn’t make there identifiable views and actions comparable to those of the American founders, for example. They weren’t Whigs or liberals.
Nor do I see what their being secular has to do with it. Clericalism was an accommodation for Mussolini, not a built-in feature of his beliefs, and there is no way his state was more clerical than De Valera’s Ireland, surely. Nothing about being secular clashes with being characterized as fascist. Neither was oppressing religious liberty one of its major concerns. Probably didn’t have to be, of course.
Now if you want to say that the Ireland the republicans eventually built was not a fascist state, you bet. Whatever its problems, there is no way it can fairly be called that.
The only lingering fascist tendency was the regular, praising or at least neutral, references to the “physical-force tradition” in nationalism/republicanism when attempting to contextualize the later provo version of the IRA.
Of course, by making this comparison I am assuming that the degree to which a term like “fascist” can be applied and where it cannot should rely on the kind of considerations I raise above. It is not automatically assumed to be an insult, any more that correctly identifying other strands of early republicanism as socialist/Marxist would be. Merely an attempt to categorize use of symbols, rhetoric and beliefs about nationhood and political methods into wider European trends of that era.
Now that you mention it, wasn't one of the negotiating points in the Charles-Diana divorce whether she would get to keep her title as Princess of Wales?Replies: @Rob McX, @random observer
It is normal for a new married wife to assume the corresponding rank and titles of her husband, although the reverse has historically not been true.
But there are exceptions, somewhat to do with the nature of Charles’ titles. The Duchy of Cornwall is hereditary and always belongs to the heir to the throne, so when an heir possessing it inherits the throne, the Duchy [and many other titles] “merge in the Crown”. At the moment an heir apparent is born, these titles are inherited by him. So Charles held these from birth.
The title of Prince of Wales is not hereditary in this way. It merges in the Crown when and if the Prince succeeds, but does not automatically pass to his firstborn son at birth. It has to be conferred by the sovereign. Charles was not Prince of Wales until, as a young man, he was given this title by the Queen, in that case at a ceremony in Wales.
That adds some flexibility to the title. In this case, Camilla automatically became the female version of all her husband’s many other titles, of which Duchess of Cornwall is her senior title. But she would have had to be created Princess of Wales as a separate act. This would not necessarily have entailed a ceremony apart from the marriage, but it does have to be made explicit in some way, even if only as a line in some proclamation. Of course, it was pure politics and memory of Diana that this was not done, but the possibility of not doing it was inherent in the nature of the title.
Valid criticisms insofar as Derb has had a thing about Ireland over the years
No, he just doesn’t have the childish Disneyfied view of Ireland that so many Americans cling to. One sees the same thing with Americans and Israel. There are thousands of websites in which any criticism of Israel/Jews or the American glorified view of Israel/Jews, no matter how mild and innocuous, is immediately met with accusations of anti-Semitism. Ireland and the Irish have comparable advocates.
That’s right, I’ve noticed the Jews have a gut hatred for Irish more than any race.
That’s the first time I’ve ever heard that. Not buying it.
And today, albeit only in rare and highly individualized cases, as people who want to get rid of the Canadian monarchy even though their ancestors knew perfectly well that in leaving Ireland for Canada, they were leaving a part of the then-UK for a place then part of the British Empire, and one far less likely to end up an outpost of Irish republicanism, and yet somehow they think they are oppressed today by living in a monarchy. There was one frequently cited guy who had volunteered for the Canadian Army and accepted a commission yet spent half his career moaning about having to swear allegiance to the Queen of Canada in accordance with Canadian law, and suing in the courts to end this practice. On each occasion judges had to waste their time laboriously repudiating this twaddle in writing. Why the idiot didn't just try to join the US army or the Irish army I don't know. Imagine a Mexican American going to West Point on the taxpayers' dime and then at the end accepting his commission only to repudiate his oath to the Constitution on the grounds it was written by gringo landowners and used to oppress his ancestors.
On the upside, our most famous Irish-Canadian politician started in Ireland as an all-the-way red/green nationalist agitating for anti-British peasant revolt who was cured by living in the US and ended up a fullbore royalist Catholic reactionary who opposed the Fenians of the day and got assassinated for his troubles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_D%27Arcy_McGee
Dude has a statue on Parliament Hill and an [ugly late modernist, to be sure] enormous government building just off the Hill and housing, of all things, a big chunk of the federal judiciary.
By far the most interesting of our Fathers of Confederation. Never any passive-aggressive moderate wuss any day of his life.Replies: @dkjhcskdbcsdhb
I can’t speak for Derb, but my people were Scots from the 20th century back as far as the 17th, so given the limited demographic mobility of the British Isles before that I assume I have a few thousand years of ancestors in whom the only incomers would have been Danes, Norse and the like. No Normans- we were poor folks probably the whole time.
My answer would be nope, why should we? Just an unusually [hardly uniquely] successful example of what nations did. And the British people[s] of today are descended from groups that were themselves on both ends of the stick at one time or another.
The Irish of old were no saints, merely limited in their ability to organize their island properly and project power off of it, though for centuries many of their petty kings managed at least a bit of that. My people were southwest of Scotland, so I assume there was a time long ago when the Britons in my ancestry saw Irish men as foreign raiders and slavers. The ‘Scots’ in that same line, if I had any such, were the descendants of a colonizing mission sent to conquer lands for an Ulster-based set of tribes and spread their religion among the locals.
Later on, Scotland and some of those Irish princelings could ally against the English, and later still a Scottish army seeking to expand that war would end up making a real mess of Ireland, and not wholly accidentally. Not to mention wanting some sweet plantation land even later on than that.
So it goes. I find in my reading of Derb that his problem is not at all that the Irish wanted to be beastly to the English in the early 20th century. He seems like a ‘what goes around comes around’ kind of guy. The more likely complaint is about the endless moaning about how saintly and poetic and peace-loving the Irish would have otherwise been, like an island of happy shepherds merrily stroking their lutes until the English [Normans, at first] showed up.
I figure I can make that sort of comment- if my original Scots had any blood left over from Dalriada, that makes them and me as Irish as the next man.
No, he just doesn't have the childish Disneyfied view of Ireland that so many Americans cling to. One sees the same thing with Americans and Israel. There are thousands of websites in which any criticism of Israel/Jews or the American glorified view of Israel/Jews, no matter how mild and innocuous, is immediately met with accusations of anti-Semitism. Ireland and the Irish have comparable advocates.
That’s right, I’ve noticed the Jews have a gut hatred for Irish more than any race.
That's the first time I've ever heard that. Not buying it.Replies: @random observer
As to your first point, agreed. As a Canadian, I mainly think of Irish Americans as the people who tried several times to invade my country in hare-brained schemes to hold it hostage to free their ancestral homeland.
And today, albeit only in rare and highly individualized cases, as people who want to get rid of the Canadian monarchy even though their ancestors knew perfectly well that in leaving Ireland for Canada, they were leaving a part of the then-UK for a place then part of the British Empire, and one far less likely to end up an outpost of Irish republicanism, and yet somehow they think they are oppressed today by living in a monarchy. There was one frequently cited guy who had volunteered for the Canadian Army and accepted a commission yet spent half his career moaning about having to swear allegiance to the Queen of Canada in accordance with Canadian law, and suing in the courts to end this practice. On each occasion judges had to waste their time laboriously repudiating this twaddle in writing. Why the idiot didn’t just try to join the US army or the Irish army I don’t know. Imagine a Mexican American going to West Point on the taxpayers’ dime and then at the end accepting his commission only to repudiate his oath to the Constitution on the grounds it was written by gringo landowners and used to oppress his ancestors.
On the upside, our most famous Irish-Canadian politician started in Ireland as an all-the-way red/green nationalist agitating for anti-British peasant revolt who was cured by living in the US and ended up a fullbore royalist Catholic reactionary who opposed the Fenians of the day and got assassinated for his troubles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_D%27Arcy_McGee
Dude has a statue on Parliament Hill and an [ugly late modernist, to be sure] enormous government building just off the Hill and housing, of all things, a big chunk of the federal judiciary.
By far the most interesting of our Fathers of Confederation. Never any passive-aggressive moderate wuss any day of his life.
You're full of shit. As a Gynecologist, I recommend you get that checked out immediately.
This comment is worth a post in its own right. There’s a long history of Irish/Jews getting on well, and much of it springs form New York City. Irish-American intellectual history is quite sympathetic to Jews (Moynihan et al). Bizarre as it may seem to commenters here, two of the most popular American musicians in Ireland are Leonard Cohen and… Garth Brooks. But there was a hard left (now long dead) of Irish-Americans, such as Mike Quill, Haywood, Mother Jones, etc that were in common cause with socialism. Socialism acted, in a way, like Catholicism, allowing for an intermingling that otherwise wouldn’t have happened. Look at the list of Sinn Fein supporters, they are midwest and northeast construction unions (the undead socialists) and some nationalistic eastern hoteliers. People underestimate the popularity of socialism among the Irish (the Limerick Soviet, 1913 Lock Out, etc.), both here and in Ireland. Larkin and Connolly were very very popular here, and not just for their nationalism. Just like they underestimate the role of libertarianism/the right in leading us to our present circumstances. It’d be interesting to discuss why this didn’t take place in, say, Boston, or many other places. (though that crowd did cheer Briscoe’s visit). Steve, you’re a very smart man, but you’ve always been lazy on this matter. Put down Johnson and read a bit more. You’re in no position to complain about whites sucking up to foreigners the way you go on about the English.
But, yeh, Polish girls are phenomenally beautiful and intelligent, congrats!
And today, albeit only in rare and highly individualized cases, as people who want to get rid of the Canadian monarchy even though their ancestors knew perfectly well that in leaving Ireland for Canada, they were leaving a part of the then-UK for a place then part of the British Empire, and one far less likely to end up an outpost of Irish republicanism, and yet somehow they think they are oppressed today by living in a monarchy. There was one frequently cited guy who had volunteered for the Canadian Army and accepted a commission yet spent half his career moaning about having to swear allegiance to the Queen of Canada in accordance with Canadian law, and suing in the courts to end this practice. On each occasion judges had to waste their time laboriously repudiating this twaddle in writing. Why the idiot didn't just try to join the US army or the Irish army I don't know. Imagine a Mexican American going to West Point on the taxpayers' dime and then at the end accepting his commission only to repudiate his oath to the Constitution on the grounds it was written by gringo landowners and used to oppress his ancestors.
On the upside, our most famous Irish-Canadian politician started in Ireland as an all-the-way red/green nationalist agitating for anti-British peasant revolt who was cured by living in the US and ended up a fullbore royalist Catholic reactionary who opposed the Fenians of the day and got assassinated for his troubles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_D%27Arcy_McGee
Dude has a statue on Parliament Hill and an [ugly late modernist, to be sure] enormous government building just off the Hill and housing, of all things, a big chunk of the federal judiciary.
By far the most interesting of our Fathers of Confederation. Never any passive-aggressive moderate wuss any day of his life.Replies: @dkjhcskdbcsdhb
“As a Canadian, I mainly think of Irish Americans as the people who tried several times to invade my country in hare-brained schemes to hold it hostage to free their ancestral homeland.”
You’re full of shit. As a Gynecologist, I recommend you get that checked out immediately.
He did NOT become wealthy through "rumrunning." He owned some bars early on–he was by no means a "rumrunner," any more than any other bar owner. He didn't transport booze. He paid for delivery. If you apply some common sense, rumrunning was a federal crime. Kennedy would not become a multimillionaire via rumrunning, a lowbrow affair, along the east coast as a young man.
Kennedy made far more money in New York real estate, but made his FORTUNE by leveraging what he had, and massively shorting the stock market just before the crash, via "insider trading," which was perfectly legal at that time.
So stop with the "rumrunning" myth, and consider reading a decent Joe Kennedy biography sometime. There's a few of them.Replies: @Hibernian
Pat Kennedy was a saloonkeeper/wholesale liquor dealer/politician/coal dealer/banker/who knows what else. The political organization and wholesale liquor trade stemmed from the saloon. The non-liquor businesses were jump started by his political connections. His highest public office was State Senator. He was based in East Boston. This was all before Prohibition.
Joe Kennedy after graduating from Harvard apprenticed in the financial services industry with a respectable firm. He then established a firm which engaged in practices later made illegal and made a lot of money. There was some insider trading; he was a political insider, as Pat Kennedy’s son, and as the son-in-law of John Fitzgerald, who was Mayor, Congressman, and an unsuccessful Gubernatorial candidate. Some of the insider trading was in the liquor industry. The foolishness of Prohibition was unique to the United States, and foreign distilleries continued to operate legally, especially in Britain, Canada, and Latin America. This legal offshore production fed illegal importation into the United States (rum-running) and thus also the activities of bootleggers within the United States. Also Mr. Kennedy jumped at the opportunity to be the first in line to import British liquor when Prohibition ended.
The Crown Jewel of the Kennedy real estate holdings was the Merchandise Mart in Chicago.
Was that because the uptight Puritans had a more judgmental, less laissez-faire view of corruption, drunkenness, fighting, etc., than the more easygoing and mercenary Dutch-Anglican New Yorkers?
The Boston political scene was already well in the throes of Irish Catholics by the time Joe Kennedy came around. Similarly to the situation for blacks in contemporary Baltimore, if he attracted wrath, it must have been entirely his own fault.