Counter-Currents
Bleeding Ulster: Lessons for White Advocates in Mostly What Not to Do
Morris van de Camp
6,987 words
Northern Ireland is unique. The Wars of Religion that made seventeenth-century Europe a blood-soaked hellscape never ended there. To describe the situation in Northern Ireland simply, the Republicans — or Nationalists — are nearly all Catholic (or better said, culturally Catholic) and see themselves as Native Irish Gaels. They are the “Green” Irish. Those who wish for Northern Ireland to remain in the United Kingdom are called Loyalists, Orangemen, or Unionists and they are usually Protestant or culturally so. Loyalists see themselves as a different people entirely from the Native Irish. In Northern Ireland, they are usually called Ulster-Scots. In America, they are called the Scots-Irish.
In other words, the conflict is political, ideological, religious, and ethnic at the same time. There is one other thing to understand. Ulster is a place name. It refers to the traditional kingdom in the north of Ireland. Northern Ireland is a political entity that consists of the part of Ulster which remained with the United Kingdom after the rest of Ireland became a Free State in 1921.
The point of this article is not to take sides in the conflict. Instead, the point of the article is for American white advocates to learn from a conflict that has some applicable parallels to our dilemma. There are also things going on in Northern Ireland that don’t apply that should be discussed. There are also some big mistakes made there by the Irish Nationalists which will be examined.
The Irish Nationalists are and were the advanced guard for other Third World de-colonial movements. Irish Catholic immigrants in America also developed the model for alienated non-white groups to follow in asserting themselves politically. The non-white portions of the British Empire that sought independence following World War II followed the Irish model, not the America of 1776 model.
This Irish Nationalist mural shows the ideological link between Irish Nationalism and Third World de-colonial/anti-white movements elsewhere.
The relationship between the Sub-Saharans in America of the present day with the American political elite matches the Irish situation in the late 1800s. Then, Irish Nationalists formed a bloc in the British Parliament that was so powerful that all other parties had to deal with them in some way to form a government.
In other words, by the 1880s, the Irish Nationalists sat at the pinnacle of British Imperial power, were mostly getting whatever they wanted, and were still nursing historical grievances against the British.
Left: The distribution of Scots-Irish persons in the United States. Right: Locations of those Americans with Scottish ancestors. The Scots-Irish dominate in Appalachia but are found all over the country. The American frontier — north and south — was advanced by the Scots-Irish.
The Ulster Plantation & America’s Backcountry
It is to the great misfortune of the Irish that they never developed the economic dynamism or political organization of their English and Scottish neighbors although they were very similar genetically. They were behind by every social and economic measure when Richard de Clare, the Earl of Pembroke and his army were invited to come to Ireland to support one Irish faction over the other in a domestic political struggle in 1170. Pembroke eventually “took over” Ireland, although his reach and the reach of his successors never really got far from Dublin. The situation continued on in Ireland until geopolitics caused the Tudors to start a renewed conquest and settlement scheme in the late 1500s.
The exact military and political situation in Ulster prior to 1603 is complex and beyond the scope of this article. Suffice to say a Scottish lord gained title to part of the property of a jailed Irish aristocrat that year and he started to settle Scottish Protestants in Northern Ireland in an organized way. The settlement expanded from there after some Irish Earls went into exile in 1607.
Many of the Ulster-Scots originated on Scotland’s west coast. [1]
The border between Scotland and England comes into play here also. The region was a lawless zone filled with “Border Reivers.” The Reivers weren’t particularly loyal to Scotland or England and spent much time feuding and stealing the cattle and sheep of others in the uncontrolled zone in which they lived. After King James got control of both sides of the border, the King’s sheriffs swiftly hanged the leaders of raiding parties. The border raids evaporated, but coaches and wagons in the region had a man armed with a blunderbuss and another with a drawn sword next to the driver for many decades thereafter. [2]
King James I encouraged the Borderers to head to Northern Ireland to make a fresh start doing more productive and legal activity. The settlement also secured the Irish side of the seaborne approaches to Glasgow and Liverpool.
The Border Reivers were expert soldiers. They used state of the art military equipment and wore practical uniforms.
Border Plaid — a traditional regional pattern of woolen clothing — makes an excellent camouflage.
Those who made up the Protestant Ulster settlers were around 5:1 Scots to English. [3] There were also native Irish in Ulster that converted to Protestantism. Despite the converts, the settlers always feared a Native Catholic attack. Churches were built with gun ports and the Protestants built fortified areas to retreat to in case of an uprising.
For the next few decades, the Ulster-Scots developed their community and carried out ordinary economic activity. When the attack finally came, the Ulster Scots didn’t see it coming. In 1641, the Catholics revolted across Ireland. Thousands of Protestants were killed. [4] In response, Oliver Cromwell’s New Model Army deployed to Ireland and conducted a cruel campaign that led to the native Irish landowners being removed to west of the Shannon River.
After Cromwell deployed to Ireland, the native landowning elite were forced to the west of the island. This policy was duplicated in North America by Scots-Irish President Andrew Jackson’s Indian Removal Policy.
When King James II’s daughter Mary and her husband William of Orange were invited by Parliament to become the British monarchs in 1688, King James II used Ireland as a springboard to start his campaign to win back the crown. His army in Ireland besieged the Protestant town of Londonderry but were beaten off. King James II’s army was later decisively destroyed at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690. Needless to say, King James II’s campaign in Ireland didn’t help community relations. The Irish and British governments and social elite never thought to carry out some sort of community healing or financial settlement to the dispossessed Catholic landowners after the conclusion of the English Civil War.
The Loyalist victories during the Williamite War (1688-1691) were the results of cumulative productive day-to-day economic activity of the Ulster-Scots prior to the conflict. The Orangemen were more literate, had more men qualified to be officers, and better equipment. King James II’s troops were often armed with pikes and poorly supplied. The commanders of the Royalist Army at Londonderry were French — not Irish Catholics. James II’s forces at the Battle of the Boyne were raw recruits.
Meanwhile, the English colonists in North America realized that they could encourage the Ulster Protestants to settle on the frontiers of the various colonies to protect the coastal settlements from Indian and/or French attacks. The Scots-Irish began to arrive in 1717, settling in New Hampshire and the western parts of Pennsylvania. They spread out from there. The potato got to Maine from Ireland.
The Scots-Irish in America and their cousins in Northern Ireland and the English/Scots Border did the same sorts of things. They developed industrial towns on both sides of the Atlantic — Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Saint Louis, Belfast, Glasgow, Newcastle, and Tyne and Wear. They both also created vast coal mining industries in places such as Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Northumberland. De-industrialization, opioid addiction, and alcoholism affect both regions in the same ways. [5]
The regions of Appalachia, Northern Ireland, and the English/Scots border send more troops to their respective nations’ militaries than other regions and these men give a good account of themselves. The mostly Scots-Irish 30th and 80th US Infantry Divisions share a common heritage of valor with the British 34th (Ulster) Division and the 50th (Northumberland) Division.
Diversity destroyed Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland didn’t become an ethnostate in 1921. Instead it became a part of the United Kingdom with a hostile population that was more loyal to a neighboring country.
The Storm Before the Storm: The Ulster Crisis of 1912-1913
Throughout the nineteenth century, the rest of the British Empire moved away from the fierce battles of the Wars of Religion. Catholics were emancipated. As mentioned above, Irish Nationalists came to be a critical block in Parliament. Eventually, Home Rule for Ireland became a major effort of the British imperial elite. [6]
Home Rule bills had advanced in Parliament before, but in 1912, a new Home Rule bill was on the cusp of being made law. To the Ulster Protestants, Home Rule meant potential dispossession. There were enough nationalist attacks on their community from time to time that they felt very threatened. The Ulster-Scots responded with an extra-parliamentary show of defiance. On Saturday, September 28, 1912 two Ulster Protestants, Sir Edward Carson and Captain James Craig, organized a mass signing of the Ulster Covenant protesting Home Rule. Nearly a half million people turned out to sign the male and female versions of the covenant.
At this point, the Irish Nationalists should have headed to Ulster to inform the public how Home Rule would best serve the Orangemen. They could have made a considerable case on economic grounds alone. They could have added that everywhere else in Europe, the Wars of Religion had ended and they’d do their best to keep down any outrages from young Catholic hot-heads provided the Orangemen did the same. However, they laughed the whole thing off as a stunt. This was a terrible mistake.
The Ulster Protestants began to arm. This effort was led by Major Frederick Hugh Crawford. He raised money and did all sorts of cloak-and-dagger stuff to get rifles from Germany to Ireland, organized a militia, and created a secure communications network. When the British government attempted to apply Home Rule to Ireland, they were faced with an armed Protestant militia in the north. The British Army’s officers threatened to resign rather than enforce Home Rule there. After World War I, Ireland gained Home Rule but the six counties of Northern Ireland remained in the United Kingdom.
Tens of thousands of Protestants signed the Ulster Covenant on September 28, 1912.
The Ulster Covenant — Not Applicable
The Ulster Covenant worked because it drew upon important cultural folk memories of the Ulster-Scots people. During the Reformation, the Scots had signed a Covenant protesting the use of prayer books in their churches. It was as important an event for them as 9/11 has become to Americans later. The Ulster-Scots also had support from the wealthy and politically connected elite of their community and broad sympathy in the rest of the United Kingdom.
White advocates have none of this. Forming a “militia” in America is easy — one can get an AR-15 and a box of .223 at a hardware store and tap into a communications network with encrypted emails from one’s cell phone. The problem is that no “militia” that any white advocates can create will have moral legitimacy. There is no pro-white moral narrative that is broadly understood or agreed to by the American population even as whites flee diversity, fear Congoid-caused crime, don’t want to fight for Israel, and grumble about Black Lives Matter terrorism.
The Americans involved in white advocacy must also go against a long-running cultural current of Negro worship in America that goes as far back as the abolition movement of the 1830s. The most critical thing to do is create a new metapolitical narrative.
We must write a new covenant.
The Storm Arrives: 1966-1970
In 1916 Irish Republicans captured the General Post Office in Dublin but were defeated after a heavy-handed British response. The Easter Rising is a good story and matches the Indo-European “last stand” epic that is mirrored in the tales of the Alamo, Isandlwana, Thermopylae, etc.
There are some really great movies and miniseries about the battle, but I will assert here that the Easter Rebellion was an unnecessary event. Prior to the outbreak of World War I, Irish Home Rule was in the bag and accommodations for the Ulster-Scots in Northern Ireland were already laid out. Had no rising taken place, Ireland would have become independent without much of the bloodshed that followed. New Zealand, Canada, and Australia became “free states” without civil wars. As it so happened after World War I, there was a fierce insurgency against the British (who were already disposed to leave) and then an even uglier Irish Civil War that pitted the “Free Staters” against the “Republicans.”
After Ireland stabilized, the Irish Republic’s government did nothing whatsoever to “reclaim” Northern Ireland. However, Nationalists in Northern Ireland used flashlights to guide German bombers during their raids on Belfast, and there was an IRA border campaign in the 1950s. Needless to say, Unionist resolve to remain in the UK only hardened.
A demographic map of Belfast.
The Troubles started in Ireland in 1966. There were several factors. First, the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, Terrance O’Neill (1914-1990) carried out moderate reforms that empowered and politically radicalized Catholics but didn’t make them loyal to Northern Ireland. Then, the 50-year anniversary commemorations of the Easter Rebellion and the Battle of the Somme occurred at the same time. The two communities viewed the events differently and tensions rose until 12 August 1969, when the first day of a three-day riot in a Catholic part of Derry occurred that came to be called The Battle of the Bogside.
The British Army was called in afterward. The Troubles had become official.
A Poor Nationalist Launch
The Prussian military leader Helmuth von Moltke the Elder said words to the effect that in war, a mistake in the initial disposition of forces can never be fixed after things get going. After looking at the situation from all angles it is clear that the Irish Nationalist effort had several flaws in their initial distribution of forces.
The first major flaw started in 1968, when the Nationalists started their campaign using the style and rhetoric of the “civil rights” movement that had recently taken place in North America. By 1968 it was clearly understood, but not discussed openly by anyone, that the “civil rights” movement in America had nothing to do with the obligations and benefits of citizenship, but instead was a racial/ethnic attack launched behind a smokescreen that used the language of citizenship.
The Ulster Loyalists were a bit more dialed-in to what was going on in North America than the Nationalists. The Loyalists saw the Irish version of “civil rights” as a sectarian attack to move Northern Ireland into the Irish Republic. Steve Bruce, who wrote several books about the Troubles, goes further. He argues that the “civil rights” movement was a Republican United Ireland movement from the beginning.
Next, the Nationalists had no feasible strategy for how to achieve a united Ireland. By back-engineering the Nationalist strategy by looking at what they did and said, one can surmise that the plan was to unite Ireland via the violent Mau Mau tactics that drove the British out of places like Kenya. Gerry Adams was inspired by the British retreat from Empire following the Suez Crisis. He also referred to other de-colonial struggles in his writings.
Those that believe in “civil rights” always misread data. The situation in Ulster and Kenya were vastly different. The Mau Mau were attacking communities in Africa whose roots in the region were less than a generation deep while the Ulster-Scots had lived in Northern Ireland since before the founding of Jamestown. The second problem was that the Mau Mau and other non-white terrorists had the advantage of a new development in the social ecosystem of Western civilization — Negro worship. While African Nationalist movements can do no wrong no matter what, Irish Nationalists are whiter than Jefferson Davis. Finally, the Nationalists failed to recognize the path to gain victory — winning the hearts and minds of the Ulster-Scots.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s White Identity Politics here.
The Storm’s Full Fury 1970-1972
They always had a chance to win hearts and minds on economic grounds alone. British policy in the late twentieth century towards the industrial areas in Northern Ireland and the Border region was every bit as awful as American policy was towards the industrial regions of the Rust Belt at the same time.
As it happened though, the bombing campaign got going with little consideration for winning hearts and minds. Gerry Adams insists that the Nationalist bombings (mostly carried out by the Provisional IRA) [7] were more humane than the British gunfire directed at rioters in the Republican-held areas of places like Derry or Belfast because the Provisionals called in thirty-minute warnings. However, the warnings were often late, often routed wrongly, or inadequate considering the number of bombs. It was a bit like the Israeli “warnings” before their artillery drops phosphorous shells on Gaza City.
Additionally, British soldiers were firing at active rioters. The IRA bombs were killing and maiming people unlucky enough to be passing through at the time of the explosion.
By 1972, the British Army was reeling. A secret memo to the British Cabinet from the senior British Commander explained how precarious the situation was and suggested withdrawal. Again, Irish Nationalist struggles match the anti-white/Third World efforts elsewhere. The 1970s were something of a high water mark for Third Worldist accomplishment. In 1972, the Americans were withdrawing from Vietnam and Saigon would go on to fall in 1975. That year, Moroccans carried out a “Green March” that drove the Spanish from their colony in the Sahara. The Indonesians captured the Portuguese colony at East Timor in 1975 also. At the time in the United States, the Jewish-organized New Left carried out thousands of bombings (mostly non-fatal) and black crime was so bad that muggings became a routine cost of living in a place like New York City. Even the Arabs were able to cooperate enough to tank the economy with an oil embargo.
The British Army started to turn things around during Operation Motorman. Republican areas that had been no-go zones were swarmed with British troops, tanks, and armored vehicles. Meanwhile, the British started to conduct secret talks with the Nationalists while infiltrating their terrorist cells. The war in Northern Ireland was dirty, but the British didn’t use the same scope and scale of force that the Americans did during the Iraq War.
The Nationalists & The Sleeping Giants
In reading Irish Nationalist memoirs, I was struck by how little the Nationalists thought things through. For example, Gerry Adams seemed to be genuinely surprised to discover that the British Army deployed Scottish regiments to Northern Ireland and those regiments were highly sympathetic to the Ulster-Scots. None of the Nationalists seemed to do the “uncooperative S2” drill for high-level events. Such a drill is when the Military Intelligence Officer of a unit attempts to put himself in the mind of the enemy prior to any operations thus bringing to light potential surprises.
The Nationalists also ignored and failed to consider or utilize the sleeping giants that surrounded them. Any successes they had on that count seemed to be lucky breaks. To explain:
Sleeping Giant #1: NATO
There was a push on the part of the Nationalists that went nowhere to encourage the Irish Republic to send troops into Northern Ireland, but the Nationalists didn’t seem to recognize that such an affair would trigger a NATO Article 5 response against the Republic of Ireland. Nor did they seem to be sympathetic to the Republic of Ireland’s geopolitical situation. Ireland was a neutral loose cannon that would have been in the way of the United States and its important British ally should the Cold War have turned hot in Europe. The Irish Republic thus stayed as neutral as possible throughout the Troubles. The Irish Navy even intercepted arms shipments to Northern Ireland.
Sleeping Giant #2: The Political Balance in the Republic of Ireland
The Nationalists failed to recognize how incorporating Northern Ireland into the Irish Republic would play out. At a minimum, a million-plus Ulster-Scots who were implacably hostile to the Republic would need to be dealt with. This could have led to the Republic of Ireland being forced to wage a difficult campaign that could be either an insurgency, with the Irish Republic getting the blame for the ugliness, or a campaign of ethnic cleansing which would not win the Irish Republic any friends. Had that not happened after a hypothetical unification, Irish politics could have become one where the Ulster-Scots formed a block of voters in parliament that had to be accommodated.
The biggest Sleeping Giant during the Troubles was the Scots-Irish in America. The greatest feat the Nationalists pulled off was keeping the American Scots-Irish apathetic to the situation in Northern Ireland. It is likely that Irish Catholic impact in America is overstated. Those identifying as “Irish” in the 1990 Census (left) closely align with the Scots-Irish of Appalachia (right).
Sleeping Giant #3: The Americans
The biggest Sleeping Giant was the American response. The US government viewed the “Special Relationship” between the US and Great Britain as absolutely vital, but there was a big Irish presence in the States that could have had an impact.
Although there was always sympathy for the Irish Nationalists in British prisons, support from the Irish American community was tepid on the whole. Activists that raised money for Northern Ireland had to insist they were supporting the families of those jailed, not purchasing weapons. Much of the money that went towards the IRA’s weapons came from extorting organized crime rings in the United States. Other aid came from Libya — the Irish Nationalists were ideologically part of the Third World’s decolonial efforts. The Libyan connection didn’t play well in Peoria.
The Irish Catholics in America were not interested in repeating the Wars of Religion. They were more concerned about black crime, The Cold War, bread and butter issues, and getting by.
The Protestants in America were largely concerned about the same things and many were thinking very seriously about the ideas presented by Roman Catholics. The Pope during the Troubles was John Paul II. He was highly regarded by Protestants in the United States.
The Loyalists were able to remind Americans that many of them had Ulster-Scots roots.
The biggest advantage that the Ulster-Scots had in America was the fact that much of America’s religious heritage — North and South — was like that of the Ulster-Scots. Documentaries in the 1980s about the situation often showed a Loyalist attending a church service; included would be a few bars of a hymn Americans would recognize. Undoubtedly, this was a quiet influence.
Tom Clancy’s Patriot Games (1987) made the Irish Nationalists the antagonists. This was a major metapolitical defeat for the Nationalists. Chuck Norris even fought the IRA in an episode of Walker, Texas Ranger.
Nationalists vs. Loyalists — Strategic Leadership
The Nationalists in Northern Ireland had a considerable body of metapolitical work. IRA songs, such as “Come out ye Black & Tans,” are catchy. It seemed like all my friends in the early 1990s had some Irish folk band in their collection of CDs. Additionally, the Easter Rebellion story is good and the Potato Famine narrative is a decent grievance story, but the Loyalists were not lacking either. In fact, the Loyalists had several things going for them at the same time and they took full advantage of those trends.
Because they were ensconced in the British Parliament and political system they were able to get the British Army to do the heavy counter-insurgency work. Had the Loyalists not had those regiments, they could have plussed up militias like the Ulster Volunteer Force. To see how things might have played out without the British Army, consider that the Croatian Ustaše was a deadly efficient machine that operated on a shoestring budget in the 1990s. The Nationalists would have responded, of course, and the Troubles would have swollen to Yugoslavia levels.
During the Troubles, three men rose to the top of their respective communities. From left to right, Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness, and Ian Paisley.
In looking at the situation rationally, the Loyalists were playing the game with one fist behind their back, but clearly the biggest advantage they had was better strategic leadership.
As the Troubles played out, three men rose to the top as the figures leading their respective communities. On the Nationalist side, there was Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness (1950-2017). Adams’s memoirs of the 1970s display no sense of the total picture of how the Nationalist strategy was working or not working out. He makes no connection between this or that bombing and how it affected this or that election. It’s like reading a history of the US Civil War and not mentioning how the Fall of Atlanta impacted Lincoln’s re-election chances in 1864. Adams ties in a bunch of Leftist ideas and unicorns into his speeches, drops in Gaelic phrases that nobody understands, and apologizes for the “gendered language” used in the 1960s.
Martin McGuinness was not much different. He stated in an interview that the British Army was the only obstacle to peace. Since the British Army deployed after community relations had deteriorated from 1966 to 1969, McGuinness was obviously either wrong or being deliberately misleading. [8]
One of the most prominent Loyalist leaders was Ian Paisley (1926-2014). Reverend Paisley led a public life, so there is much more information about him that I felt was accurate than with Gerry Adams. [9] I also came to believe he and the British governments Paisley (sometimes) supported were better strategic leaders.
Ian Paisley’s Northern Irish community was every bit out-of-step with the globalist elite as his American Scots-Irish cousins. He was also a minister out-of-step with the dominant ecumenical movement within Christianity. Most articles about his life on the internet give a view of the man that is in a vacuum. From those accounts, Paisley’s actions appear bigoted and irrational. However, his actions were finely-tuned responses to a very serious threat to his community. No Congregationalist minister or Catholic priest in America has led a protest march against black crime although that is the number one physical threat to everyone in their community.
Paisley preached his first sermon at the age of 16. He then did a great deal of study. He attended a theological school in Wales and received degrees from two degree mills; Pioneer Theological Seminary in Rockford, Illinois, and Burton College and Seminary in Manitou Springs, Colorado. Despite the degrees by mail, Paisley was a serious theologian who wrote and published books on a number of religious issues. His Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Romans was written while he was in prison in 1966.
In 1951, Paisley broke with a different Protestant denomination and founded the Free Presbyterian Church. Initially, the denomination remained small. The challenge was to ordain ministers who were in agreement with the organization’s theology and goals and it took two decades to grow ministers. When Paisley was arrested in 1966 for “causing” a riot, he became famous overnight and all of the hard work he’d done since the 1940s came into fruition.
Paisley created the Democratic Unionist Party and was elected to several different political offices. While serving as a member of the European Parliament, he was attacked by Otto von Hapsburg when Paisley heckled the Pope.
Ian Paisley should be seen as something of an armed prophet. He organized a new religious denomination, caused it to grow, and carefully walked on a fine line with regards to legality when gunplay and bombings were common and passions were high. Eventually, he was able to come to an accommodation with the Nationalists in a compromise that I believe favors the Unionists. His broad skill set — from writing theology to fisticuffs with European Royalty to outstanding oratory with much hard work in-between was the critical strategic advantage.
Loyalist Paramilitaries
The Loyalists were able to create a metapolitical narrative that they were not the other side of the same coin as the Nationalists. The fact that they did fewer bombings was probably the most important part of their successful campaign to capture the moral high ground.
For the most part, Nationalists did far more murders than the Loyalists. The worst of the killing was done in the 1970s. [10]
Initially, the Loyalist paramilitaries did bomb Nationalists, but they changed tactics to targeted assassinations of suspected IRA terrorists by the mid-1970s. The Loyalist paramilitaries had internal drama, but they usually — not always — fired members for personal failings or political differences rather than kill them outright.
At the start of the conflict in the late 1960s, many of the loyalists were veterans [11] who’d served in the various de-colonial wars Britain fought in the 1960s. They were used to discipline and utterly unpersuaded by Nationalist propaganda about “freedom fighters.” A little military service goes a long way. They were able to bounce back from disappointment, handle things rationally, and easily fight off accusations of being “Nazis” since their lineage was tied to the British side in World War II.
Professor Steve Bruce called the Loyalist paramilitaries “pro-state terrorists.” This meant that their goals were in line with government policy. As the British government filled the police and army with Ulster-Scots, solid people joined the police or the Ulster Defense Regiment. Eventually, the Loyalist paramilitaries consisted of less reputable members.
As a result of the increasingly criminal nature of the Loyalist paramilitaries, they were able to be easily rolled up by their fellow loyalists in the police as the Peace Process became increasingly viable. In other words, the State was eventually able to maintain its monopoly on organized violence while suppressing the bad optics violence of its own members. The Nationalists did not have this advantage.
The Storm Continues: 1973-1988
Throughout the 1970s, Northern Ireland continued to be plagued with trouble. Provisional IRA bombs killed week after week. The war was a frustrating slog. There were tit-for-tat atrocities. Occasionally, they were ugly enough that they’d make the American news. I’ll focus on what was most notable.
On February 17, 1978, the IRA conducted a bombing whose effects were so bad the Irish Nationalist cause was lost then and there, although it still took another two decades for the war to come to its ragged end. Provisional IRA bombers set a napalm-like bomb at the La Mon Hotel. The IRA screwed up the warning call, the bomb exploded, and twelve people were burned alive and another thirty injured. Many of the victims were attending a dog breeder’s convention. All were Protestants.
The outrage from the bombing further hardened attitudes. Margret Thatcher became Prime Minister shortly thereafter. In August that year, the Queen’s cousin, Lord Louis Mountbatten, was killed along with his grandson, another teenaged boy, and Lady Bradbourne. The Nationalists also ambushed British paratroopers that day, killing 18.
The British government then changed tactics — they started to treat captured Provisional IRA men as criminals rather than POWs. They also started the military working alongside Northern Irish policemen.
To protest the criminalization policy, imprisoned IRA men refused to wear prison clothes and smeared their feces on the prison walls. Bobby Sands and nine others refused to eat and starved to death. The reaction to this situation was probably the only time the Nationalists in Northern Ireland got a genuinely sympathetic response, but it was still a failure. [12] The men were imprisoned because they were part of the group that had murdered a large number of ordinary people. Additionally, going on hunger strike while in the hands of one’s enemies is an obviously wrongheaded line of attack. The poo-smeared walls and self-starvation were deliberate acts of spite. The outrage eventually faded outside Ireland and Margaret Thatcher ended up looking very tough.
The blanket men and the poo walls.
There are two schools of thought on how to deal with terrorism. One is to treat terrorism as a crime. This means that everything has to hold up in court and evidence is conducted using legal means. This limits terrorism’s potential to become a big war (like World War I or the GWOT), but law enforcement can’t prevent crimes and the situation can get out of hand quickly. The other way to treat terrorism is by considering it warfare. A captured terrorist might be treated like the POW’s in Hogan’s Heroes, or they might be considered illegal combatants and summarily executed, or they might be shot without warning as what happened to three Provisional IRA men who attempted to attack the British fortress at Gibraltar in 1988. The Nationalists didn’t seem to grasp this idea when they argued for “political status” for their prisoners.
In 1987, the Provisional IRA bombed a Remembrance Day parade in Enniskillen. The attack was another metapolitical failure for the Nationalists. The Irish band U2’s front-man made an impassioned anti-IRA speech in the movie Rattle and Hum. The Nationalists lost millions of potential supporters. [13]
You can buy The World in Flames: The Shorter Writings of Francis Parker Yockey here.
The Storm Subsides: 1989-1998
Since much remains secret, one cannot know for certain when the tide turned in Northern Ireland, but it is certain that by the late 1980s many of the Provisional IRA’s management were secretly working for the British. The IRA’s chief of Internal Security, Freddie Scappaticci was almost certainly “Stakeknife” — a top British informant.
There were other problems. Nationalists were not getting the best in human material. When the terror cell that attempted to take out Margaret Thatcher in Brighton in 1984 was caught, one of its members turned out to be a manic depressive.
Later, the Nationalists started a severe round of in-fighting after some wished to focus on politics rather than armed revolutionary struggle. There were many murders. The Provisional IRA also started to kill suspected informants.
In 1996, a faction of the Provisional IRA bombed Manchester. By the end of the conflict, Nationalist bombers had bombed the Royal Family, the Conservative Party, many working-class Ulster-Scots, many British soldiers, and numerous other targets across Britain. They’d angered everyone and not won a single heart or mind.
In 1995, Bill Clinton journeyed to Northern Ireland to help bring about peace between the warring factions. He was not alone. The British and Irish Republic were engaged in ending the Troubles also, but Clinton’s neutral attitude and Scots-Irish heritage helped.
Probably much of the drama was related to Eigentumsprämie, i.e. a property benefit, a place in the social order that young men try and seek. The worst part of the Troubles occurred during the time that the Boomers were of military age. The Troubles came to a sort-of end as the Boomer generation aged.
To sum up the Northern Ireland Peace Process, an agreement was made that promised both a peaceful path to joining Ireland as well as an assurance for Northern Ireland to stay in the United Kingdom. It encouraged all factions to cease fighting which they mostly did. It was two contradictory positions and the resolution is semi-dishonest, but the Unionists effectively won. The British can use any bomb or act of violence to nullify the agreement and easily send troops. The Irish Nationalists remain disadvantaged.
What Can We Learn from All This?
If one wants a dedicated group of people working hard for your cause, have children. The British Empire advanced on a high English birthrate. There is more, of course:
First, one must have a feasible strategy for victory that matches a narrative vision that even one’s enemies can believe in. White advocates can win hearts and minds of non-whites with the vision of Wakanda, free of wypipo, the police, redlining, etc. Second, controversial leaders, especially those like Ian Paisley — who are easy for pretentious middle-class white people to hate — need to live a personal life that is beyond reproach. Scandals with the perky young intern and the pool boy don’t help. Avoid drugs and alcohol. Think everything through, and work hard every day.
Additionally, there is more to life than waging racial conflict. The winners of the Troubles in Northern Ireland — at least the winners for now — had a broad view and were well-read in a number of issues. Margaret Thatcher managed economics, the Cold War, international diplomacy, the Falklands War, and the start of the Gulf War while she dealt with the events in Northern Ireland. In interviews with Ian Paisley, one sees a man not too far removed from the preachers of America’s Burned-Over District. He thought about much, much more than just Loyalism.
In the end, though, the troubles in Northern Ireland were a terrible tragedy. A truly ugly war between whites. That conflict didn’t help Western civilization in its fight with the Jacobin Soviet monstrosity during the Cold War. And while there has been some recovery, the economy in Northern Ireland is a wreck of its former self, and the situation is still unsettled. Remember this also: while Northern Ireland smolders, the Armies of the Prophet are always on the march.
If you want to support Counter-Currents, please send us a donation by going to our Entropy page and selecting “send paid chat.” Entropy allows you to donate any amount from $3 and up. All comments will be read and discussed in the next episode of Counter-Currents Radio, which airs every weekend on DLive.
Don’t forget to sign up for the twice-monthly email Counter-Currents Newsletter for exclusive content, offers, and news.
Notes
[1] Madison Grant, The Conquest of a Continent. York, South Carolina: Liberty Bell Publications, 2004, p. 85.
[2] “Ridin’ shotgun” got its start in the English/Scots marches!
[3] This is a low estimate. Other estimates are 20:1. Scots-Irish President Andrew Jackson’s family origins are in northern Yorkshire, England.
[4] After the 161 Rebellion, many Anglo settlers gave depositions. One can read them here.
[5] The American Scots-Irish did intermarry with other groups — those from the New Sweden Colony, the Pennsylvania Dutch, Virginia Cavaliers, and Yankees. Ulysses Grant and John Wayne had Yankee ancestors. The Scots-Irish Pennsylvania Thomas Mellon married a Pennsylvania Dutch woman named Sarah Jane Negley.
[6] The biggest problems that occurred in the British Empire had a commonality. To put it simply, whenever the Imperial elite decide to give the land and property of the settlers to the natives, problems like that of the Ulster Crisis of 1913 developed. In British North America, the Proclamation of 1763 was a major driver leading to the Revolutionary War. In South Africa in 1815, British Imperial virtue signaling and Negro worship led to the Schlachter’s Nek Rebellion. That disaster led to the Boer War of 1899 to 1902 — which in retrospect was a mortal blow to the British Empire.
[7] The IRA had several factions. The Provisional IRA was the organization that did most of the bombing. I use the IRA and Provisional IRA as synonyms in this article, but I recognize that not every Nationalist bombing was the work of the Provisionals.
[8] Both men were intelligent and charming. One can see Gerry Adams keep his cool during a grenade attack by a Loyalist.
[9] Gerry Adams became a famous globalist superstar. Many of his colleagues leveled serious accusations against him. These accusations might have been true, but they had a ring of jealousy about them so I chose to not include these accusations in this article.
[10] Steve Bruce, The Red Hand Protestant Paramilitaries in Northern Ireland. Oxford University Press, New York, 1992, p. 298.
[11] One thing I thought noticeable is that the leaders of the various Loyalist paramilitaries took the title Lieutenant Colonel. They didn’t have a Queen’s Commission, so they could have taken any title. I suspect that this is a cultural trait of some sort. Ulster Scots, like the Scots-Irish in America, are, as a group, not at the top of society, but they form a critical part of it. Especially the part that does the work. They must not see themselves as landowning aristocrats who would take the title of Colonel.
[12] The marches in response to Bobby Sands’ death by self-starvation are something like the “Pussy Hat March” after Donald Trump’s election. They were an emotional response to a loss, but not a rally to a victory.
[13] Roger Waters also wrote metapolitical responses to the Provisional IRA’s bombing campaign. In “The Gunner’s Dream,” from the Pink Floyd album The Final Cut, Waters specifically calls out the IRA bombing band concerts.
Bibliography
Gerry Adams, Before the Dawn. South Bend: University of Notre Dame Press, 2017.
Steve Bruce, Paisley: Religion and Politics in Northern Ireland. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Steve Bruce, The Red Hand Protestant Paramilitaries in Northern Ireland. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
David Hackett Fischer, Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.
Rory Fitzpatrick, God’s Frontiersmen: The Scots Irish Epic. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1989.
Madison Grant, The Conquest of a Continent. York, South Carolina: Liberty Bell Publications, 2004.
Dan Jackson, The Northumbrians: North-East England and its People. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019.
Kevin Myers, Watching the Door: Drinking Up, Getting Down, and Cheating Death in 1970s Belfast. New York: Soft Skull Press, 2009.
A. T. Q. Stewart, The Ulster Crisis. Glasgow: Faber & Faber Limited, 1967.
Colin Woodard, American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America. New York: Penguin, 2011.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
53 comments
Im an Ulster scots man born and raised in Belfast this was a fantastic article its good to see someone who understands the ethnic component of the conflict as the vast majority of people outside of northern Ireland just think it was some sort of religious civil war between Irish Catholic’s and Irish protestants rather than an ethnic conflict.
So why don’t the Ulster Scots, who value their Scots heritage and identify as British subjects, go back to bonnie Scotland?
Could it have something to do with 400 years of living there?
The Irish Catholics lived there even longer.
When you come down to it, Irish Catholics have been in Scotland far longer than “Ulster Protestants” have been in Ireland.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if you want the British out of Ireland, you necessarily must also want Whites out of the New World (America, South Africa, Australia) since Brits have been in Ireland BEFORE Whites were in America, and Ireland was similarly backward and unpopulated as the New World was.
I see a lot of cognitive dissonance going on surrounding this topic – Ulster is British clay, and if you disagree, and you’re a White American, you can leave America since if Ulster isn’t British clay then the USA isn’t White clay either.
You even say this in your article – and I quote – “the Ulster-Scots had lived in Northern Ireland since before the founding of Jamestown”. How very true. Ulster-Scots-British have more right to Ireland than Whites do to North America. I never, ever see this point made by anyone, dissident right or otherwise.
I feel that many on the dissident right love Ireland because it’s armed White people fighting for freedom – OR, they’re American-Irish – OR, they’re American, and see a kinship with Ireland (sticking one up to the British Empire). I feel all these perspectives totally miss the point, and again just to reiterate – if you want the Brits out of Ireland you logically must also want the Whites out of America. (And South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada).
” … support from the Irish American community was tepid on the whole.” Citation needed. I suggest that most Americans, Irish-American or otherwise, generally love freedom and democracy and beating back any ‘tyrants’ who stand in the way of freedom and democracy. There is also an undercurrent of anti-Britishness in America (villains are often portrayed as being British-aristocratic, a trope going back to the days of George Washington and the wars of independence). Bill Clinton was very warmly received in Ireland. I don’t think American sympathy for Ireland has to come exclusively from ethnic Irish-Americans; besides, by the 1970s and onwards, these white American ethnicities began to cease to really matter. I think it is fair to say Americans on the whole support and sympathise with Irish nationalists, (and Scottish nationalists), comparing it to their own struggle. America now has a history of stepping in and playing global freedom police; defeating Hitler, defeating Saddam Hussein, championing Ireland, and various other liberal emancipation movements globally. The modern day equivalents would be Hong Kong and Belarus, among others.
Now we see with plans like Ireland 2040, a plan made by modern day Irish nationalists to repopulate their country with racial aliens, and other left wing progressivism taking over like mad, that one thing remains consistent with the Irish Republicans: they are hell bent on destruction of any successful enterprise, be it British or Irish.
So much for the idea of belonging there first – the Irish republicans now want to replace their own selves. Ulster Protestants, it must be said, are one of the only White communities with a higher birth rate than others in Britain and are less taken to left wing progressivism more generally.
As for “the Irish republic stayed as neutral as possible”, it is a well known fact that the USSR was funding and arming the IRA both in Northern and in Southern Ireland. Pretty neutral, huh.
On the subject of IRA bombs killing more people than UDF ones, it must be noted that many killed in IRA bombings were Irish Catholics themselves. UDA bombings tended to target their enemies more accurately.
It must also be pointed out that an unspoken incentive for the Irish Republicans is to seize control of the better economy of Ulster and its Protestant work ethic. A foreign student once said to me, “Wasn’t the Titanic built in Ireland?” I laughed out loud. “Yeah, NORTHERN Ireland – big difference”, I replied. There is an economic incentive for the Republic to ensnare the North, it isn’t just about ethnic or religious conflict. Ireland is a sort of backwater and kind of always has been. Northern Ireland isn’t and if the Ulster Scots did up sticks and leave, wherever they go would become prosperous, and if Ulster was replaced with Irish Catholics it would probably also become a backwater. This is all wrapped up in the IQ (or perhaps, lack of it) – the Irish Question.
On the subject of border reivers, highwaymen needing arms to hand is one of the reasons in Britain they drive on the left-hand-side of the road. (If you are right-handed, as most people are, you hold your gun/sword in your right hand, and so need the road to be clear on that side. Therefore you would drive on the left to give your right hand side more view of road. This also goes back to medieval knights jousting, where most would have held lance in right hand. The driving on the right-hand-side of the road is a more modern, logical thing that doesn’t take into account border reivers and highwaymen.)
Also, are you comparing (Bleeding) Ulster to (Bleeding) Kansas? The two are not that similar, Kansas is an ideological battle and the situation in Ulster is more like a Wild West settlement being bombarded by native americans.
‘NoBlaksNoDogsNoIrish
November 5, 2020
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if you want the British out of Ireland, you necessarily must also want Whites out of the New World (America, South Africa, Australia) since Brits have been in Ireland BEFORE Whites were in America, and Ireland was similarly backward and unpopulated as the New World was.’
Wow you are insane. The two situations are not analogous not least because American Indians are not White fellow Europeans. While American settlers were divided by what to do with American Indians (with many at first thinking they should be assimilated or treated kindly) Ulster was settled through ethnic cleansing precisely because it was the most authentically Irish part of Ireland. Previous attempts to merely replace the ruling elites had always failed with the Irish assimilating them so it was time for the British to colonise and ethnically cleanse the most Gaelic part of Ireland. This is what you celebrate.
‘There is an economic incentive for the Republic to ensnare the North, it isn’t just about ethnic or religious conflict. Ireland is a sort of backwater and kind of always has been’
Hey 1979 called and would like its take back. Actually Northern Ireland is currently Subsidised by the British to the tune of eight billion pounds a year, has a tourist industry one-tenth the size of the Republic and vast parts of it are a post industrial wasteland. Meanwhile the Republic of Ireland has advanced dramatically into the twenty first century. You might try taking your head out of the sand. Ulster bigotry is hard to get rid of I suppose but then again a name like noblacksnodogsnoirish (which was a phrase associated with anti-Irish discrimination in England) is rather giving the game away.
‘Ireland is a sort of backwater and kind of always has been.’
Northern Ireland is not a backwater? Jesus you have ethnic blinders on that makes the average member of the tribe look enlightened by comparison. Just to let you know how everyone else in Britain looks at you- when they think of you at all- is that of backwards uneducated bigoted freaks. They are entirely unsympathetic to you as has been proven by the Brexit vote. By the way Northern Ireland has a massive brain drain with a majority of its young professional middle class wanting to move to mainland Britain. Not a backwater-what a joke.
‘and if the Ulster Scots did up sticks and leave, wherever they go would become prosperous, and if Ulster was replaced with Irish Catholics it would probably also become a backwater”
Wherever they would go? Like the backwoods of Appalachia maybe? Ulster scots are nowhere near close to being the most industrious sub-ethnic group In America and large areas where they moved to have always been traditionally poor in addition to other areas today that suffer deindustrialisation.
Your pathetic attempt to hog tie Ulster sectarianism to genuine White nationalism is laughable and shows what a clown you are.
Your hostility to Irish people is clear when you declare that ‘Irish nationalists’ are responsible for replacement level immigration in Ireland today. Since this is happening in all European countries we can safely surmise that like all White elites Irish Elites have been co-opted for the globalist agenda. Blaming White genocide in Ireland on ‘Irish nationalists’ lol.
Bad faith much?
What a loon
Just like all the Irish Republicans on this page, your answer is just mealy-mouthed waffle, amounting to nothing and pointing wild-eyed accusations my way. One Irish nat on this page claims “what could White identity mean to someone in Derry [in 1969]?” What indeed? What, indeed. I think that questions answers itself, quite frankly.
Another commenter makes a totally wild assertion that the Ulster Scots are like the Jews (who is that group with diasporas all around the West pushing for left wing causes. again? Sounds like the Irish to me!). This is just totally insane. Yes, some Loyalists do fly Israel flags but only to wind up the (Third World obsessed) Irish Nats, who fly Palestine flags because they love the color of brown skin so much.
Another Irish nat on this page claims they necessarily had to adopt a Third Worldist, postcolonial approach : ” The republican/nationalist tradition here with its postcolonial outlook was the only logical approach “. The only logical approach. Huh, and here was me just thinking you’ve just read a 5,000 word essay laying out what the logical approach would have been. The only logical approach was bombing civilians for 50 years, aligning ourselves with Third World and USSR, and then turning on the tap market “rampant liberalism” and also replacing ourselves with brown people! That was the only logical approach in the face of big bad mean Brits, who are so much bigger and badder and meaner than we are.
As for the economy of Ireland – are you actually serious? Eire’s economy is propped up on stilts, which are made of jelly. Ulster was hit by postindustrialism – as was basically all of the West – but Ulster will be fine and the Ulster Scots will be fine, for they are a remarkable people. Try harder next time, Paddy. Ulster is British clay – deal with it. Once more to reiterate – if you want the Brits out of Ireland, you *necessarily* *must also* want Whites out of North America, South Africa and Australasia. The exact same criteria and logic applies. To be entirely fair, most [left-wing] Irish nats are actually consistent in their approach and do actually want Whites out of the New World as well as Ireland. Why can’t you be as consistent as the Left? Or are you just butthurt.
We Are The People
‘Just like all the Irish Republicans on this page, your answer is just mealy-mouthed waffle, amounting to nothing and pointing wild-eyed accusations my way’
Project much?
Tut tut.
Try actually quoting my answer and dealing with my points. I was kind enough to do that with your answer. Oh yeah you cannot actually refute them so you resort to epithets.
Hell what do I know I am just a ‘wild eyed’ ‘paddy’
If you have to resort to name calling…
And by the way this extreme narcissism, bad faith and over the top hostility is exactly why people do not like the protestants from Northern Ireland.
‘but Ulster will be fine and the Ulster Scots will be fine, for they are a remarkable people’
Good luck with that. Eventually London is going to get tired of bailing you out to the tune of eight billion pounds a year (including your much vaunted shipbuilding industry which was dead as far back as the late 1960s) and Brexit had made your statelet unviable. By the way middle class protestants are escaping to mainland Britain and Catholics will be a majority in one generation. British clay indeed.
You might try working on your reading comprehension. I am the commenter who said Ulster protestants identify with Jews. This can be seen in their symbols dating to long before the identification of Irish nationalists with non-white peoples. I also mentioned British Israelitism which runs through Ulster protestant identity like a main artery but of course you cannot refute my point and so you carefully avoid mentioning it.
‘if you want the Brits out of Ireland, you *necessarily* *must also* want Whites out of North America, South Africa and Australasia. The exact same criteria and logic applies.’
Once more to reiterate this is nonsense. As I have demonstrated and you ignore the exact same criteria and logic does not apply. This is just a person arguing in bad faith desperately trying to tie Ulster protestant sectarianism with genuine ethno-nationalism. Try answering my point and not just spewing invective my way.
‘Ulster Scots will be fine, for they are a remarkable people. Try harder next time, Paddy. Ulster is British clay – deal with it.’
Jesus. The narcissism. The aggression. My comments here are conciliatory and express regret for the conflict between two White groups who are brothers facing a genocidal future. Do you have anything to say about replacement level non-white immigration into Northern Ireland that is just starting? What makes your wonderful tribe so exempt from the fate of thousands of other European sub-ethnicities? Apart from your own blind faith in your wonderfulness of course?
Goodness. Why am I arguing with a commenter whose name is an ant-Irish slur? Well on second thoughts I am just demonstrating for other readers here how bankrupt his ideas are.
Anyway it is always nice to be proven right. Never met a nice one.
What a loon.
Great post brother. NOT because you are Irish, but because you care about ALL White gentiles. It comes through in your posts. The guy you are debating is likely one of those loyalist cucks that loves brown scum like the Shoukri brothers…..who murdered an Irish Catholic in Ireland and said “he had no problem killing (WHITE Irish) Catholics, continuing that it had no effect on him).
Loyalists like this guy will do NOTHING about the brown wave currently taking over city after city in the UK. In fact, he will gladly give these mandingos to run a train on his daughter as long as said mandingos “help us kill some taigs.” Guy is a mental zero….or a mole.
He’s just as worthless and retarded as lefttard Irish republicans that whine about colonialism but have literally ZERO problem with the Irish being made a minority due to replacement level third world immigration to the Republic.
BTW
Erin Go Bragh
Great post. I think that rat you replied to must be a fed trying to create hostility in our thing.
I don’t know any true White advocate that has hatred for any group of White gentiles. So I don’t think he is one of ours. I think he’s a mole.
Are you literally retarded? Do the loyalists not want the Irish Catholics out of Northern Ireland?
Given your “logic” that must mean that the loyalists also MUST “necessarily must also want Whites out of the New World (America, South Africa, Australia)”
Try being consistent next time.
The gdp per capita of Northern Ireland is $30,000 USD. The gdp per capita of the Republic of Ireland is $80,000 USD.
Suck on that, planter.
Miserably unfair, anti nationalist, anti Irish, and extremely pro loyalist article.
The author whines that the Irish didn’t have the education, etc as the british settlers in Northern Ireland, but conveniently forgets about things like the anti Irish Catholic Penal Laws, etc.
He claims that the Irish Nationalists did most of the killings during the so called “troubles”, but conveniently omits the fact that the majority of those killed by Irish nationalists were British military, the British paramilitary police (RUC), and anti Irish loyalist death squad rats like “lenny murphy” who took great pleasure in literally butchering random WHITE Irish Catholics with meat cleavers and the like. While the Provos and nationalists were killing legitimate targets (IE, ethnic British military occupiers on IRISH soil), the brits-loyaltards were murdering random Irish Catholics in order to intimidate the native Irish of northern Ireland.
Unlike this author, CAIN CORRECTLY maintains information on who did the killing and who died.
https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/sutton/book/
As you you can from the link, of around 1,800 people killed by the Provisional IRA, well over 50% were British military occupiers. On the other and, around 1,000 people were murdered by british loyalists, and over 700 of those were Irish Catholic civilians (70% civilian kill ratio).
BTW, the current six counties in northern Ireland are not “Ulster”. Using that term also shows the extreme anti Irish, pro british views of this author. ULSTER is composed on 9 Irish counties, 3 of which are part of the Republic of Ireland, and 6 of which are in british controlled northern Ireland.
Having said all of that, this article is extremely unhelpful. This author and I probably agree on 95% of things with our pro White world view, but bringing up the fresh wound of Northern Ireland just causes intra-White hostility….just read my angry words.
My great grandfather fought against british rule in Ireland in 1916. I was extremely anti british after graduating from university. Of course I was brainwashed to be a far lefttard by my professors, and I fell into the trap. It was over 10 years after graduating from university that I started to see a change. A huge change. The hostile elites that run hollywood, academia, and the msm were becoming extremely anti White, and the mass of people in the west were victims of this brainwashing. I then began to see the British, and the British Loyalists of northern Ireland even, as my brothers and sisters. It was no longer a war in my mind between my Irish people and the Brits, it was a war against ALL White gentiles. This is how I see the world today. I have met Gerry Adams twice, and used to be an Irish nationalist. Now I see both Irish nationalists and British nationalists (loyalists) as brainwashed monkies. Most of them are total victims. Victims of the brainwashing we have all been exposed to.
THIS needs to be our focus….bringing OUR people….Irish, British, Russian, German, French, Italian, Spaniard ALL to see that the war against Whites that they sense, and feel, and suspect is REAL. Bringing up past…even current brotherly conflicts just distracts us from the real problem we all face.
Sorry for this crummy post, but it was kind of rushed….
Thank you for your supportive comments. I am pretty sure the commenter is not a fed just an Ulster protestant with ethnic blinders on. I have met many of them that see the conflict in an entirely one-sided way and almost all of those people really believed protestants to be the (sole) victims. I put it down to their Calvinist heritage which is remarkably Jewish.
I too was a petty nationalist not an ethno-nationalist and now I have a more balanced view of the conflict.
Like I said not worth a White man’s fingernail.
“Like I said not worth a White man’s fingernail.”
Agreed.
I see paki scum raping and murdering British White girls, and I am literally shaking in anger. Ever hear about Charlene Downes? When I see White British people being abused by foreign interlopers, and I become homicidal. I now consider the White gentile British…MY PEOPLE.
I think all White gentiles SHOULD feel the same. White gentiles have been killing White gentiles for too long. We need to realize who our (((true enemy))) is and has always been.
BTW, did you ever read the book “The Myth Of German Villainy” by Bradberry? Great stuff.
Fine essay. Timely.
The core tenet of the American civic creed is “equality”, and participation in any kind of pro-White organization is seen—not incorrectly—as being against “equality”. In the minds of the normies, that amounts to lack of patriotism and even treason. However, if the United States were to disintegrate or reach a level of dysfunction comparable to that of Zimbabwe or Venezuela, its underlying ideologies, “equality” and “democracy”, would be discredited. For better or for worse, that is where we are headed, especially now that the execrable duo of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have apparently been elected.
White nationalists should have no emotional attachment to the United States. This country has become our worst enemy.
A very timely article, especially since any civil conflict in the modern US i much more likely to resemble Ulster 1972 than Spain 1936 or America 1861. And I agree, our loyalty is to America, not the United States. Confusing these two is understandable, but fatal
Interesting read – I wrote up a tactical look at The Troubles – Part 1 is here https://theamericansun.com/2019/07/22/the-tactics-of-the-troubles-part-i/ Part 2 continues an examination of the tactics that each side employed and Part 3 on any American lessons.
It’s a tragic conflict in many regards but demonstrates well how the three way split happens. Once the State abandons those who support it most it becomes the enemy of all.
Thank you, very interesting.
I’m not sure if there has been a review of the movie ‘Hunger ‘(2008) (which suddenly came to mind) by Greg Johnson, or your experience of it, but I would be interested in your thoughts. … I still remember clearly the day Bobby Sands died when I was 11 years old.
I was 11 years old at the time as well. We Gen X kids experienced some important news events at the turn of that decade. At my Catholic grammar school, we were always saying prayers for one conflict or another-the conflict in N. Ireland after the death of Bobby Sands, the Solidarity movement and martial law in Poland, the hostage crisis in Tehran, the shootings of Reagan, PJP II, and even John Lennon.
In 1981 Glasgow Rangers crowds used to sing: to the tune of “She’ll Be Coming Round the Mountain”:
Could you go a chicken supper Bobby Sands?/
Could you go a chicken supper Bobby Sands?/
Could you go a chicken supper/
You dirty Fenian fucker/
Could you go a chicken supper Bobby Sands?
For Americans who don’t know, “[fish/sausage/chicken] supper” refers to a deep fried meal of the meat in question plus chips (or fries, as you call ’em). You get “fish and chip” shops (or “the chippy”, as in, “I’ll just pop down the chippy and get us all fish suppers for tonight, how does that sound?”) all over the UK and it is most common to have a fish supper (battered and fried fish, haddock in better places, cod/whiting in cheaper ones) but sausage and chicken suppers also exist (all battered and fried).
In England they also have mushy peas alongside it, and everywhere offers salt and vinegar. The great Glasgow/Edinburgh divide is between vinegar (Glasgow) and brown sauce (Edinburgh).
Just a lil’ tidbit for all you yanks out there.
Very interesting. I have just got done watching the excellent Scottish series “Still Game” which details life in a down and out Glasgow suburb. I hear even other Scots have trouble understanding “Weegies.”
Also, I have heard that Glasgow is heavily Irish like Liverpool. Is there any trouble any more between Irish and Scots or have they all more or less blended into “Weegie” culture?
Finally, I vote for the brown sauce over vinegar!
Yes, like Liverpool and Manchester, Glasgow is heavily Irish (unfortunately). The main Catholic cathedral in Liverpool is known as Paddy’s Wigwam. The Protestant/Catholic isn’t quite so noticeable nowadays in England or Scotland but it’s there under the surface, in attitudes and so on. But yes for a long time Glasgow and areas of Scotland were almost as into the sectarian divide as Ireland was. Catholics in Scotland were/are the backbone of the Labour Party, for example. Like any outgroup, they subvert.
As for accents, there are dozens of accents in the UK and strong variants of each are hard for anyone unfamiliar with them to understand. West Coast Scots can be difficult if you aren’t familiar, but I suggest you type into Youtube “Doric accent” (Aberdeenshire) and you definitely won’t understand a word.
Yann Demange’s 2014 film “71” is set during the height of the Troubles in Ulster and the director specifically stated he wanted the main character to be English, since he said “A Scottish lad would already be familiar with the Catholic/Protestant situation”. It’s a decent enough film but it’s just an action flick, really.
Glasgow chippies will still offer “salt n sauce” but you may get funny looks and asked what you’re all about. I don’t know if Italian immigrants were the first to open chippies, but many were ran by Italians. The Italians were Catholics, of course, but largely stayed out of the sectarian stuff. They weren’t here in large enough numbers and didn’t really understand the history enough to get involved. The divide now is less stark, but noticeable in politics. For example, Rangers-supporting, Scottish Protestants are likely to be against Scottish independence, and Catholic-supporting, Irish Catholics are likely to be in favor of independence. This also translates into the Protestants being pro-Brexit and the Catholics being pro-Remain (and various other left wing causes). This is all quite broad brush because hardly anybody is actually religious anymore, except for the Polish immigrants who are practicing Catholics but again mostly stay away from the sectarian stuff, but they will support Celtic.
‘For example, Rangers-supporting, Scottish Protestants are likely to be against Scottish independence, and Catholic-supporting, Irish Catholics are likely to be in favor of independence.’
freudian slip?
You meant Celtic.
Nothing like insulting your fellow White Irish people to bring “solidarity”. Amirite?
With “friends” like you in the “pro White” movement, who needs feds starting up their divide and conquer bs?
I was going to write a very long comment but it got to the point that there were so many things wrong to point out in this article that my reply would be so long that no one would read it.
First of all I understand the author is clearly Scots-Irish himself and being on the other side I will attempt to remain polite and even handed.
The author is clearly a person who has a very limited understanding of Irish history particularly of Irish republicanism and makes several mistakes that would get this article laughed out of the room in any serious historical publication. Irish history is not something to be taken lightly and is very complicated-this particularly shallow treatment does a disservice to this fine website
To wit the author offers us a potted history of the Northern Ireland conflict and makes no mention of:
1.Bloody Sunday- the time when heroic British soldiers (not like the murdering IRA eh ?) Killed 13 civilians including a child (with some having their hands in the air running away from the soldiers) and whose officers then proceeded to lie about it. Particularly absurd was the fact that at the time the IRA did not actually exist and so testimony that said the paratroopers had been shot at was clearly invented out of whole cloth. Indeed bloody Sunday was the reason the provisional IRA gained so much support. The British army and government went to great lengths to slander the innocent civilians as having carried explosives and ammunition in their pockets until one- and only one- brave army coroner testified that this was flagrantly impossible. The Army would go on for decades to slander these innocent victims of the British military’s toughest regiment (the paratroopers had been sent in to show the marchers their place by roughing them up) until a public enquiry admitted they were murdered.
2. The Sunningdale agreement. Essentially power sharing and almost the exact same ideas as the good Friday agreement in 1998 (minus the subsidies etc.) this was tragically torpedoed by unionist intransigence. Particularly interesting is the role played by Ian Paisley who supported/ covertly helped undertake several terrorist bombings of Ulster’s infrastructure to blame the nationalists and help undermine the talks. Who knows this may make Paisley a hero to the author but it is just a shame about the three decades of bloodshed that took so many lives. How any halfway sane person could see Ian Paisley as a wise leader is simply beyond me (by the way he was a laughing stock in Britain and most people rightly viewed him as a horrible bigot at best)
3.Loyalist collusion. It is now a widely acknowledged fact that loyalist death squads were armed, trained and given targeting instructions by the British security services. This would be a shocking and horrifying development in any other part of the former British empire but in Ireland evidently rules of ordinary British decency do not apply. While the IRA inadvertently killed many innocent people (and did unfortunately deliberately kill many innocent people on an individual basis) the loyalist death squads killed innocents on purpose- they would quite literally walk into the nearest catholic area and shoot the first likely person they saw. In doing so they killed many protestants. The Ulster death squads talked tough but in the end they had the support of the British government and army behind them- something that the Irish republican army most emphatically did not have.
4 Oppression of Catholics. In an ethnic conflict riven with people playing victim one has to be careful not to over egg the pudding. It remains a fact however that Catholic people in Northern Ireland were in the 1950s easily the poorest and most oppressed people in western Europe. The Ulster protestants were determined to gerrymander and impoverish the Catholics and did so ruthlessly. While the supposed oppression of protestants in independent Ireland is mainly a myth (look it up- they left because Ireland was poor after the trade war with Britain in the 1930s) the oppression of Catholics in Northern Ireland led to the unfortunate name of ‘Europe’s Alabama’. Of course living standards in the United States being so much higher than they were in Europe you can imagine how wretched things were for Northern Irish Catholics. Despite what the author posits it was this very real oppression which led to the ‘civil rights movement’ which was never a stalking horse for Irish republicanism untill after bloody sunday. Weeks after bloody Sunday there was graffiti in Catholic areas saying that the only thing the letters IRA stood for were ‘I ran away’. Generations of Catholics could not get work in the heavy industries that the author so laments the passing away of, and this continued into the 1990s when a catholic who dared accept a job at Harland and Wolff the Belfast shipyard was murdered in broad daylight for his impudence.
5. Changing IRA tactics. The traditional tactics the IRA used had largely played themselves out by the end of the 1970s. In the early 1980s for lack of support and arms the IRA kept its war local but by the early 1990s explosives shipments from Libya meant that the IRA could now target the financial centres in Britain. From then on the British elite decided to come to the negotiating table much more quickly. Painting the IRA,one of the most successful terrorist organisations of modern times,as having no strategy is simply absurd when they were blowing up bombs with minimal civilian casualties right where it hurt the British- in their pocket book.
I believe it was Harold Covington who saw the IRA as a potential successful model for White separatists despite rightly hating them for being Marxists.
Comparing the Irish republican army to the Israeli military is also ludicrous in the extreme. The IRA’s goal was to make the status quo in Northern Ireland untenable. The Israeli military’s goal is to ethnically cleanse at least Palestine and eventually everywhere between the Sinai and the Tigris. One group gave warnings about its bombs another drops illegal cluster munitions (which end up becoming improvised unmarked minefields) in the last half an hour before a ceasefire so that they can keep on killing even after a supposed peace.
Personally I have always found the Ulster protestants to have more in common with Jews/Israelis. It was once said of Ulster that it is the only place left in Europe that embraced Calvinism but had not yet reached the enlightenment making their religiosity extra vicious. I have always found the bizarre mixture of narcissism, bad faith apologetics, victim posturing and ethnic aggression amongst the Ulster protestants distinctly Hebraic. The link between the two tribes is one that they publicly celebrate- see the stars of David painted on their murals and their absurd tradition of British israeliteism’.
I happen to think that the Ulster protestants are just another privileged colonial caste much like the inhabitants of Hong Kong who want things both ways. They wish to have their little fiefdom but also want big brother to pick up the bills and back them up when their posturing gets too out of hand. While Irish republicanism wanted to make an Ireland fit for all of its inhabitants Ulster protestants wanted to have their own little statelet ‘a protestant state for a protestant people’ despite the fact that (at the time) one third of the population was catholic. As for Ulster protestants having ‘won the conflict for now’ the actual truth is that Catholic children are already a majority in Northern Ireland and protestants having a hinterland to escape to (mainland Britain) means that there is a massive brain drain with middle class protestants going to university in England or Scotland and never coming back.
Most English people see the Ulster Protestants as backwards freaks and want nothing to do with them (much like with their cousins in Appalachia) being utterly unsympathetic to them. This has now been proven with Brexit- a hard border being essentially impossible means that the border will be where it should naturally be- in the Irish sea. The truth is that Northern Ireland as a statelet will not survive very long.
Personally I think the Northern Ireland conflict should never have happened. I think it was Britain’s fault- Protestants should never have been given the power to carve out their own little statelet as they were always going to discriminate against Catholics. Britain should have used direct rule from the get go at least as long as the Catholic minority was there.
It was ultimately not a conflict worth one White man’s fingernail and large scale proposals to resettle Chinese people and black Africans in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland have shown just how urgent it is for Europeans to realise who their true enemy is and to let issues of irredentism be settled at another time. Truly the third world peoples that Irish nationalists sympathise with (‘one struggle’) or the Israelis that the protestants idolise would at the drop of a hat ethnically cleanse every inch of either Britain or Ireland given the chance.
Kind of puts things in perspective doesn’t it?
Another point not mentioned in the article is the (admittedly minor) position of Ulster nationalism.
This position recognises Ulster as a nation separate from both the UK and Eire – and was the policy of the Official National Front in Britain during the 1980’s.
Exactly. A united Ireland for the Irish has to be the basis of future resistance.
Having fought so long to cast off the British yoke it would be tragic for that fair island (or indeed its neighbour) to be whelmed in the incoming green tide of Islam
“I believe it was Harold Covington who saw the IRA as a potential successful model for White separatists despite rightly hating them for being Marxists.”
Yes, sir, you are correct. Harold built his fictional military arm, the NVA, of the Northwest Republic on what he learned about the IRA when he lived in Ireland for many years. He admired the Irish for their spunk and said later in his life that Ireland was a great country, until they decided to turn it over to Nigeria.
Harold’s NVA fictional guerrilla army although modeled on the IRA, sought to avoid their mistakes, hence the NVA was forbidden from attacking civilian targets and local police.
Covington said that at the peak of IRA activity they had less than 100 trigger pullers. The IRA’s most effective activity according to Harold were beat-downs of t*rds rather than assassinations. In the NVA, he called such tactics ‘tickles’.
Harold’s novels about the coming Northwest Republic were not too bad, although his romance angles were rather poor and clumsy. A few things he got correct I think:
1. Some three thousand effective fighters could bring the whole system down.
2. Accountants would cause the US to come to the negotiating table. There was no need to defeat the US military, just like the Vietnamese learned.
3. Voting for gutless politicians is no salvation (RepubliCONs). Republicans in power can only buy time at best.
4. The US military will become so infested with mulitikults, it will be largely ineffective. I believe the count now is 40 percent minority in the ranks. American general officers have never been known for genius and great leadership, with notable exceptions of course. Harold’s assessment of the future US military I believe spot on.
“I have always found the bizarre mixture of narcissism, bad faith apologetics, victim posturing and ethnic aggression amongst the Ulster protestants distinctly Hebraic.”
ROFL. How very true.
Excellent post. Probably the best I have read on this thread so far. Thank you from a former Irish nationalist……now a White gentile advocate.
>Professor Steve Bruce called the Loyalist paramilitaries “pro-state terrorists.”
>This meant that their goals were in line with government policy.
Ha! Sounds like the George Floyd rioters.
On a second note, I don’t know where you are from but some of the words you used were confusing. If it wasn’t for the fact that I was reading on a computer I never would have figured out what you meant by being “plussed up” or “rolled up”
Despite his stated impartiality, its quite obvious where the author’s sympathies in this conflict lie. Being an Irish Nationalist myself, I was going to make a lengthy comment addressing each point I disagree with in order, but honestly that could get a bit pedantic (inb4 this comment turned into a pedantic essay anyway).
Many Irish people take foreign sympathy for our national cause so for granted that any time a non-Irish person chimes in with support for the Loyalist cause they’re completely incensed. I’d be lying if I said it didn’t grind my gears but objectively its not exactly surprising that people generally aligned with Anglo-Saxon identity would naturally feel sympathy with the Ulster Protestant community when uninhibited by liberal xenophilia. Still, this is a good example of why White nationalist type politics have completely failed to find an audience in Ireland and the limits of white identity as a uniting force.
I see people on the dissident right get frustrated from time to time at why “Ireland is so cucked”, why Irish nationalists/republicans tend towards the left and how Irish people could have fought so long and hard for independence only to adopt a liberal stance towards immigration or at least not be highly concerned with it while being indifferent or outright hostile to white racial nationalism. I hope that even, perhaps especially, after reading this pro-Unionist article that people might come to understand that in the context of Irish history and politics. What on earth could “White identity” possibly mean to a Derry Catholic in 1969? How would that possibly resonate with him above anti-colonial struggle? At least some White nationalists seem to imply that the “based” path for the Irish people would have been to eschew “marxist Irish nationalism” and identity in favor of a right wing British identity. There couldn’t possibly be a suggestion more out of touch with Ireland or the nature of ethnic identity in general. Gaelic Ireland as an ethno-cultural entity predates the Migration Era and thus most other nations in Europe. That’s just not something a people can drop willy nilly. Some people, the eternal “West Brit”, always did, but they have always been fundamentally rootless sorts of people who would have gravitated in any direction where cosmopolitan power was located. The Irish “volk” never would and never could have abandoned literally thousands of years of very intimate and tangible blood and soil, embattled for centuries against a foreign invader (far longer than the “civilised Anglo-Saxons” withstood their Norman conquerors it might be noted), for a concept as abstract and irrelevant as “the White race”. Maybe this should be a lesson people on the dissident right who advocate for doing away with historical European ethnic distinctions in favor of a pan-White ethnostate somewhere in the world.
A year or two ago, I might have defended the White nationalist pedigree of the Irish republican tradition until some communist bad actors usurped it. But really, this is a cope. The fact of the matter is that as bad as politics of modern Sinn Fein and smaller left republican groups are, they are not inauthentic usurpers of the republican tradition. If anything, that’s a problem /ourguys/ in Ireland face when they try to frame themselves as the true heirs of 1916. I was not politicised through the nationalist tradition of Ireland. My parents were liberals who are at best indifferent to that tradition. I was redpilled by the international alt-right online. In my experiences with the National Party, the same seemed to hold true for most of its younger members, memelord “nationalists” for whom the actual nation in question is basically irrelevant so long as its inhabitants pass muster as White. Safe to say, the NP has failed to find any electoral success in the Irish political landscape leaving many of its member scratching their heads at how decent, flag-waving Irish people could repudiate “true” nationalism so thoroughly but it wasn’t that surprising. Right wing nationalism is so obviously imported from countries with very different historical experiences to us Irish that it comes across a bit like a “how do you do fellow Irishmen” meme. Never the less, I still fully support the NP, even if its attempts to latch onto republican tradition can be a bit tryhard. The unease between White and Irish nationalism was something I struggled with during my redpilling years before I came to terms with Ireland Irishness as it really is. One of my more cringeworthy points in that process was even a brief “plastic Billy” phase wherein I tried to identify with Loyalism on account of having a whole 1/8th or so Ulster Scots ancestry before realising how fake and gay that was.
The point basically is that Ireland has a unique set of circumstances and problems to deal with. Maybe not entirely unique, I suspect they’re common to several small Atlantic nations like Wales, Brittany, Euskadi, Catalonia maybe, etc. but out of them we’re the only one with full statehood aside from the six counties. The republican/nationalist tradition here with its postcolonial outlook was the only logical approach to British colonialism in Ireland, but it definitely is completely unfit to deal with the threats modern liberalism and intersectional leftism pose to European nations, ours included. An imported alt-right-esque framework painted green will probably find little support, and British nationalists who hope the “Marxist Irish” will see the light and hoist the Union Jack in solidarity with our close genetic affinity or else might face a coercive push into a British mould should know they’re walking a path Britons at the height of their power also walked for centuries and failed. I really wish I could say Ireland’s path back to true self-realisation was as straightforward as our European brothers (and they don’t exactly have it easy) but its really not.
Thanks for this comment. I’m an Irish american, a “plastic paddy” as they say. I have no problem admitting Ireland is a totally alien country for me, and I would visit there as a tourist. Having said that, do you think Ireland is on the cusp of discarding Fianna Fáil and fianna Gael, or merging the two? Does it make sense in the 21st century to have two political parties representing the pro-treaty and anti-treaty stance of 100 years ago? This fascinates me. To be honest, if I were Irish I think I would be flat on my back in a state of total bewilderment. I can understand Sinn Féin, they have a solid platform which supports the oppressed anywhere – Palestine, and so forth. But it’s a stance of rebellion, not leadership. It’s a party that requires an oppressor/oppressed dichotomy. Take the oppressor away and the party collapses. So what is Ireland to do? What is Ireland “for” as opposed to “against”? In my limited understanding, I think there ought to be a basic left/right alignment just like there is in most countries. Sinn Fein ought to represent the left, and a new party of the right born out of the ashes of (what I consider) a defunct and redundant Fianna Fáil and fianna Gael. This party would be your basic center right party of normal middle class people. Still, none of this would solve the riddle of Ireland’s place in the world.
Minor factual error, but an easy one to make: Queen Mary II (of William and Mary) and her sister Queen Anne were the daughters of James II, Duke of York, not his sisters. It seems like Mary should be James’s sister but she was born in 1662 and her father in 1633.
So James was quite mature when he fathered a healthy son and heir in 1688, something that was unexpected and helped set in train the “Glorious Revolution.” Absent that son, the crown would presumably have passed on his death in 1701 to his eldest surviving child, either that selfsame Mary (who died in 1694) or Anne. Same outcome, pretty much; but no 1688 Revolution, no 1690 Battle of the Boyne, and—looking further into the distance—no 1746 Culloden.
I’ll publish a correction.
I never understood the origins of this conflict before. Now because of this wonderful synopsis I understand it better.
Every once in awhile Derbyshire pens a column about the Irish and how much better off they would have been had they stuck with Britain. It’s truly remarkable. I had no idea there were still british people who thought like this.
As for this column, it’s crystal clear the author is an Ulster scot. And I therefore begrudge him not one bit for taking his own side. I’m an Irish american, and therefore I take my own side, and yes, we want our island back – all of it. And I think we will succeed, but not by terrorism. We will just birth our way there by having more children. In fact, I think we are almost a majority. But I will tell you this. I do think the Ulster Scots are a distinct people, and I’m civilized enough to agree to grant them some sort of province on the island of Ireland. But I think the two communities should be separated and Northern Ireland repartitioned. The river Bann and the newry canal make natural borders.
Everyone east of the river bann should be loyalists and everyone west, catholic. In other words, the new province of Northern Ireland will simply be the present counties of Antrim and Down. Derry, Fermanagh, Tyrone and Armagh should go back to the Republic. Yes, it’s a much smaller Northern Ireland but it’s also catholic free.
Your “solution” would force the removal (ethnic cleansing) of Irish people who have lived in the glens and and on Rathlin Island for thousands of years. Thanks but no thanks.
I didn’t think it would be received well. ultimately then the unionists will have to get used to becoming a minority in their own statelet.
I generally agree with you as an American with about half Irish heritage, but just want to point out how funny it is that Irish Americans usually have more extreme responses to this topic than the Irish themselves.
Reminds me of a story I heard about some American Celtic punk band who played a gig in Ireland, and when they started singing lyrics about Michael Collins, Bernadette Devlin etc, the locals were like “gtfo with that shit”.
Very informative article. as are the couple of corrective comments.
I only have two minor points.
Burma (Myanmar if you like, it was a political thing years ago, Burmese don’t generally care about it now) had the same status in the Brit. Empire as Aus., N.Z., Candidia as an independent Dominion. I gather that the Irish Free State had a different arrangement.
The reason that the Burmese upper class and many of the people supported the Japanese Empire was that the British had appointed too many Indians (dot, not feather) to high civil service and legal positions.
Those were mainly upper-class Hindus, nothing to do with the slow invasion of Moslem Bengalis calling themselves ‘Rohingya’.
Burma or Myanmar’s handling of that problem is inspiring, and it is noteworthy that this is accompanied by peace with smaller groups in the nth. east of the place, who had long been used by the U.S. govt., and much longer dwelt in those places.
Finally, it is not set in Ireland, and only has an indirect connection with ‘the Troubles’, but I would recommend Doris Lessing’s The Good Terrorist to readers of CC. It has so much accurate characterisation and dark humour.
She won a Nobel for literature, but I would guess the committee members had not read much of her work.
Best of all, she decided not to go and receive it, and wrote an article in scorn.
A little humor for the CC crowd:
An American visited Belfast in the early 1980s. He stayed out a bit too late drinking at the pub and got lost walking back to his hotel. Soon, he was accosted by 4-5 armed tough guys in masks on a dark and lonely street. “Catholic or Prod” they demanded.
Not missing a beat – for he had made a plan in advance – the American replied “neither – Jewish.”
The 4-5 lads looked blankly at each other for a few seconds. As the American was about to happily continue on his way the gang yelled out “We are the luckiest PLO chapter in the world tonight!”
Haha, good one.
I agree there are valuable lessons for White Nationalists in studying Bleeding Ulster, but the author missed three of the most important:
1) Segregation is good and it works. The people of Northern Ireland love the peace walls and their system of self-imposed apartheid. It keeps violence to a minimum and also allows for controlled contact and mingling for those members of the communities who desire it. As an American I am so jealous of this; imagine if there was a 25 foot high wall across every negro section in the USA.
2) White Unity. The Protestants of Northern Ireland may be primarily derived from Reiver stock but there were also other groups present who at times had been in social or economic conflict with them. Huguenots, Quakers, Gallowglass, English Anglicans. It was only when they all felt economically threatened by the Irish that they unified, and became one people.
Perhaps the ongoing racial spoils system will bring about White Unity in the USA in a similar way.
3) Controlling the Narrative. Both sides have done an excellent job of imparting the beliefs, memes, and values of their respective communities. Each never lost control of education or its religious institutions.
4) Historical development of Holocaustianity. The British invented modern atrocity propaganda with the millions of Protestants “skinned alive” during the 1641 Rebellion. Some of this was re-utilised during WW1 with ‘Belgian nun atrocity stories’ as well as gas chambahz. This was redeveloped into the 6milyn lampshades of post WW2.
I would also have to disagree there is any significant affinity or connection between the NI Protestants and the Scots Irish in the USA. Here they intermarried with all groups including Negroes, Indians, Palatines, Dutch, English, Huguenot and Irish; they are no longer distinct, they are completely blended. There is no such thing as a Lallans study group in Appalachia nor cookery books for farls and fries.
The religious connection is tenuous as well. Originally they were Presbyterians after Knox. This has morphed into monstrosities like Mormonism, The Witness Cult, the snake and rat poison cult, and the babbling cult.
I noticed this a few months ago when I saw a map of opioid overdoses in the US and realized that it correlated strongly with areas settled heavily by the Scots-Irish and Catholic Irish. As an example, there is a noticeably low rate of opioid addiction deaths in the rural upper Midwest farm belt. It’s the least Celtic area of the US. In the nearby pan-White MN Iron Range there are more opioid issues than similarly rural areas of northwest MN that have worse economic prospects.
Obviously ethnicity doesn’t fully explain the opioid crisis but there does appear to be a connection. I’d guess that for various reasons Celts are more prone to addictiveness than Germanics.
I might have missed it, but where did that lead photo come from? I’m guessing posed for an album cover, but real or not, please tell me.
Mmmm. It looks as though it could be a young man dressed as a woman (?!).
Would not think anything other from a man supporting Russian terrorists in Ukraine.
Ulster Protestants have pledged their allegiance to a (((system))) that hates them and only uses them as tools to advance their political agenda.
Some bombings attributed to the IRA, before they were properly active, were actually done by the Protestant UVF. Ask Gusty Spence.
‘Some bombings attributed to the IRA, before they were properly active, were actually done by the Protestant UVF. Ask Gusty Spence’
Yes indeed. The Irish version of ‘kill arabs and cry antisemitism’. See what I mean about the connections between the two tribes?
Kerdasi says:
“Ulster Protestants have pledged their allegiance to a (((system))) that hates them and only uses them as tools to advance their political agenda.”
Me: Hey, I get it, I get it. But Irish nationalists have the same issue. I don’t see any Sinn Feiners objecting to the judeo open border globohomo pseudo leftist agenda. Irish nationalists haven’t quite figured out the high verbal IQ jews (like Shatter and ronit lentin) want Irish people in Ireland completely replaced by nonwhite third world interlopers.
British protestants have been jewed, and so have we Irish catholics. We are ALL in this together.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment