Ireland’s Abortion Referendum: a Move to Halal Irish Stew

Sixty six per cent of the Irish people voted in May’s referendum to ‘Repeal the Eighth’. They have emphatically overturned the Eighth Amendment to the Irish constitution which declares that the life of the unborn child is equal to that of the mother, so outlawing abortion in almost all circumstances. The Catholic Church in Ireland made a point of keeping out of the acrimonious national debate. But the symbolism of this couldn’t be more obvious. Ireland is no longer a Catholic country. And this is crucial, because religious countries stand up for themselves against the enemies at the gate; secular countries let themselves get invaded.

The research on this is quite clear. People in countries that are religious are prepared to make huge sacrifices for the country they see as divinely-ordained while the same time repelling the Devil-inspired invader. When religiousness collapses, ethnocentrism has no religious underpinning and it collapses as well . . . and the floodgates open. May’s vote was as clear as symbol as there could be that the famous Irish craic will be giving way to ghettos and division.

Abortion, far more so than gay marriage, is a ‘Catholic’ issue. Long before gay marriage was even thought of, opposing abortion was a sign of being a committed Catholic. But Ireland’s break-neck secularization means that these devotees are bullied into silence. Ireland’s expatriate young have been flying home just to vote against the Church’s teaching. For them, in particular, Rome is part of the Ireland of the shameful past, not of the vibrant future.  

Since gaining formal independence in 1922, Catholicism has been at the heart of the Irish state. When the Irish guerrilla leaders negotiated a treaty with the British forces, Ulster remained part of the UK precisely because it was around two thirds Protestant. The so-called Free State of Eire — which had a similar relationship with UK as Canada does now — was about 90% Catholic, rising to 95% as Protestants increasingly left. Catholicism was integral to Ireland’s sense of difference from the coloniser and its resentment against it.

No matter how hard they tried, the sixteenth-century Protestant English simply could not persuade the Irish to reject the Pope. At first they left the Irish alone, wanting to avoid any of more the rebellions by the Irish Earls — the clan chiefs, who were regional kings — against English interference. However, in 1605 the Gunpowder Plot, in which a group of Catholics tried to overthrow James I with a scheme to blow up parliament during its state opening, forced the English to intervene. In 1607, the Penal Laws, which already existed in mainly Protestant England, were imposed on Catholic Ireland. Catholic nobles, failing to attend Anglican Church, had their lands confiscated and sold to Scottish settlers. Catholics were barred from holding any public office, meaning the country would be run by its tiny Anglican minority, though Catholic churches were barely tolerated. Over the next century, the Catholics often rebelled, most notably in 1641 when declared independence, a situation that was later savagely reversed by Oliver Cromwell.

Well into the nineteenth century, Ireland was ruled by its miniscule ‘Protestant Ascendancy.’ Among numerous other restrictions, Catholics could not hold public office, be MPs, vote, attend university, be lawyers or teachers, inherit an estate (it had to be divided between all the brothers), hold a lease of more than 31 years length, own a weapon, or own an expensive horse. Many of these restrictions were abolished in 1829 but some remained in place until 1920. For these reasons, the struggle of the Irish for independence from the English and Catholicism became fused. In 1971, when contraception was legalised in Ireland, one Irish bishop declared that ‘never before, and certainly not since penal times was the Catholic heritage of Ireland subjected to so many insidious onslaughts on the pretext of conscience, civil rights and women’s liberation.’

So, when the Free State was declared (it was followed by a civil war lost by those who wanted a united Ireland) the Catholic Church was effectively the law. Ireland was a de facto theocracy. Ireland’s constitution of 1937, which was declared after a national referendum, was drawn up by its Prime Minister, Eamon de Valera. However, there was considerable input from the future Archbishop of Dublin, John Charles McQuaid (1895–1973), with the constitution asserting that Ireland was ‘Catholic.’ Indeed, between 1940, when he was enthroned, and his death in 1973, McQuaid pretty much ruled Ireland, which remained neutral in World War II and became a republic in 1949. McQuaid’s vigilante gangs ensured that whatever the law said about freedom of speech and association, the reality was that the Church was untouchable (see John Cooney. (2009). John Charles McQuaid: Ruler of Catholic Ireland).

As recently as 1983, the Church, fearing Ireland would go the same way as the UK, spearheaded a successful plebiscite to have abortion constitutionally banned in Ireland, requiring a referendum to reverse it. The Eighth Amendment specifically asserted that the right to life of the mother and her unborn child were equal, thus tightening the ban which had always been in place. The Irish sense of identity was that ‘We are poor but at least we obey the Holy Father’. Campaigners’ slogans included, ‘The abortion mills of England grind Irish babies into blood that cries out to heaven for vengeance’. Irish girls had to fly or sail to England for abortions (as they’re also banned in Ulster), with 170,000 of them having done so since 1983  and many more prior to 1983. Or, as the internet arrived, they had to risk 14 years in jail by ordering abortion pills online; 2000 Irish women underwent abortions this way annually.

However, in the 1990s, the formerly poverty-stricken country got rich, becoming known as the ‘Celtic Tiger. As it did so, the Church could more safely be criticised or ignored. In 1997, just over 50% of Irish people voted to overturn the constitutional ban on divorce, with 63% having voted to keep the ban just nine years before.

And around this time, the Church’s past abuses back when Ireland was poor but devout started to come to light:  Unwed young mothers had been effectively imprisoned in Nunnery-run mother-and-baby homes (Magdalene Laundries) where they could work away their sins and be physically and psychologically abused; their babies were forcibly taken away from them and adopted, sometimes by infertile Catholic couples in the USA. Sometimes the records were destroyed so they could never see their children again. In some cases, the children were separated from the mothers and would duly die, failing to get the nutrients with which breast milk would provide them. In one such sister-run home in Tuam, it was found in 2013 that 796 children, aged between 10 minutes and 9 years, had simply been buried in the home’s sewers between 1925 and 1960. In almost all cases, their deaths were never formally recorded. They were bastards; stained by the sinfulness of their conception.

The incredible reverence accorded to priests meant that the Church was a safe haven for paedophiles. The extent of the sexual and physical abuse of young boys in Ireland’s boarding schools and children’s homes simply beggars belief. Father Brendan Smyth raped at least 20 children between 1949 and 1989. The Church had investigated him years earlier and never told the police, allowing him to abuse anew. Father Sean Fortune (1954–1999) had abused around 30 boys in his career. It was revealed in 2002 that whenever allegations were made they were hushed up and Father Fortune was moved to a different parish. In the same year a Dublin Cardinal was accused of turning a blind eye to clerical child abuse on his watch. A commission in 2009 heard testimony from around 2000 people who’d been abused by priests in Irish children’s home. Ireland began to fall out of love with the Catholic Church.

And as this happened, Savita Halappanavar, a pretty 31-year-old Indian dentist living in Galway, went to hospital, on 21st October 2012, having an agonizing miscarriage. Requesting an abortion, a doctor told her, ‘This is Ireland.’ Unable to act, due to the fetus’s life being constitutionally just as valid as the mother’s, the doctors were helpless; afraid they would risk life imprisonment if the fetus was killed to save the mother. Savita developed sepsis and died on 28th October.

The tragic death of this photogenic symbol of ‘modern Ireland’ became a totem for those who wanted to reject the Ireland of the past, reject the Catholic church, reject Irish nationalism, and so legalise abortion. For them, Ireland was a backward country and the twin forces of the Church and Irish nationalism had slain this beautiful image of Ireland’s future. And with it’s new, young, liberal, homosexual Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Leo Varadkar, himself half-Indian, this issue was to be put to the people. The Irish lower house, the Dail, voted for the referendum by 97 votes to 25, with all major parties officially favouring the referendum. One Sinn Fein (socialist-nationalist) legislator who voted against the referendum was suspended by her party. However, 21 members of Fianna Fáil, populist conservatives who lead the official Opposition to the liberal-conservative Fianna Gael, voted against the referendum. The government deliberately held the vote in May so that students would not be on holiday yet, meaning they could be more effectively mobilized.

Anti-Abortion campaigners felt under huge social pressure to keep their heads down. Facebook, Google and Twitter acted to shut down adverts which tried to persuade people to vote to keep the abortion ban, Twitter began hiding ‘disruptive’ tweets and Irish politicians condemned that, in essence, the anti-Abortion campaign had the intelligence to take full advantage of social media. Restricted on social media and facing an anti-Abortion press, the No campaign even resorted to putting a large ‘No’ sign on a mountain.  

But the Irish Zeitgeist was against these dissenters. The plebiscite seems to have overwhelmingly overturned ‘the Eighth,’ meaning that Ireland will soon legalise abortion. In doing so, this small country, of just 4.7 million, seems to have emphatically rejected an institution which has held it together in the face of aggressors for centuries. Clearly, some terrible things have happened under the rule of that institution. We can only wait and see what will happen under the new ‘Modern Ascendancy.’ If the latest research is correct, it will be a turning point towards an Ireland where Irish stew is increasingly Halal.

67 replies
  1. George Kocan
    George Kocan says:

    I believe that the legalization of abortion in Ireland has some relationship to the issue in the U.S. Back in 2017, Sen. Dianne Feinstein grilled a Catholic nominee to the U.S. Court of appeals, Amy Coney Barrett, over her religious beliefs, especially, her views on abortion. According to Democrats such as Feinstein, religious beliefs are not supposed to intrude into the law. But, wait! Feinstein follows the Judaic faith, and the Talmud permits abortion, calling the unborn baby a “pursuer.” So, what is the Senator doing but defending a Judaic intrusion into the law, and how did such an intrusion become the law in the first place?
    Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a founding member of the pro-abortion group NARAL(National Abortion Rights Action League) and a former abortionist himself, wrote in one of his books that Judaic leadership dominated the abortion movement. Not only that, but the strategy which the leadership devised included inciting hatred against the Catholic Church as a means of recruiting support from the general population for abortion. That is still true today, as Feinstein’s performance spectacularly demonstrates. Prominent Judaics in government, for example, Sen. Chuck Schumer, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sen. Bernie Sanders, support Roe v. Wade. To emphasize my point, abortion on demand is a Judaic issue, and that issue has become the law of the land here and apparently in Ireland.

    • Paul Bustion
      Paul Bustion says:

      George, Kocan,
      You wrote: ‘Feinstein follows the Judaic faith, and the Talmud permits abortion, calling the unborn baby a “pursuer.” So, what is the Senator doing but defending a Judaic intrusion into the law, and how did such an intrusion become the law in the first place?’
      Jared Taylor has stated that he believes abortion should be legal. Richard Spencer has also stated that. I agree with them. Do you also believed Jared Taylor and Richard Spencer are promoting a Jewish agenda because they want abortion to be legal? The countries where abortion is a crime are usually backward, Third World countries, especially extremist Muslim societies in the Middle East and some conservative Sub-Saharan African countries. The countries where abortion is legal tend to be the more advanced societies, ones like the majority of Western European countries and Western European derived countries like the USA and Canada, and also in China and Israel. Abortion has eugenic value, those pregnant women who either have themselves or the man they mated with who is the father of the baby they are pregnant has, genetic disabilities such as a genetically caused IQ below 70, or have genetically caused mental disorders such as autism, ADHD or schizophrenia, could be encouraged to get abortions, and that would reduce the number of people with genetically caused sub-70 IQs, autistic people and people with schizophrenia or ADHD being born. That would reduce the number of people being brought into existence who will suffer and be a burden. I believe it is not a bad idea to not bring people into this world who will suffer and be a burden, and abortion could be a means of preventing that.

        • Paul Bustion
          Paul Bustion says:

          Michael Adkins,
          Most people getting abortions are people of low intelligence. And more Blacks, Hispanics and even Ashkenazi Jews in the USA get abortions than NonJewish/NonHispanic Whites. I think youre trying to argue abortion is ‘White Genocide’ but if thats true why are most abortions either Non-White, Jewish or Hispanic? I know that its not genocide against Blacks, Hispanics Jews or anyone else either, but its also not White Genocide. Im not saying I want these groups members to get abortions, but Blacks and Hispanics getting abortions has reduced the likelihood of their becoming a majority of the population. And in general those who get abortions, whether White or Black, have lower intelligent than those who do not, whether White or Black, so abortion probably does have some eugenic results.

          • Michael Adkins
            Michael Adkins says:

            Paul Bustion,

            “Most people getting abortions are people of low intelligence. And more Blacks, Hispanics”

            That’s an Abrahamic cover story promoted in recent years.

            As George Kocan posted:

            “various techniques of birth control, the strategy serves to depopulate and demoralize. What makes this so obvious is the low fertility rates of Americans and Europeans, to the extent that they are facing a “demographic winter.”

            I suggest reading Bernard Nathanson’s book, Aborting America (1979), as well as, researching the development of birth control and ask “who did it benefit?”

          • George Kocan
            George Kocan says:

            Years ago, George Gilder wrote a book, “Men and Marriage,” in which he argued that lower class people had a lower fertility rate than did upper and middle class people. This may have changed over the years. Whatever the case, certainly, those of European descent have abandoned the traditional moral system. As I like to point out, Muslim women make babies, American women make money.

      • George Kocan
        George Kocan says:

        As I noted, Bernard Nathanson wrote plainly that the leadership of the abortion movement in the US was and is Jewish. This strategically fits in with MacDonald’s theory of Jewish group evolutionary strategy. Along with various techniques of birth control, the strategy serves to depopulate and demoralize the Christian majority. What makes this so obvious is the low fertility rates of Americans and Europeans, to the extent that they are facing a “demographic winter.” English, Italians, Spanish, Polish and so on are not replacing themselves and the trend cannot be reversed, according to the demographers I have read. One result is a labor shortage which puts pressure on the politicians to allow immigrants from hostile countries to settle in the US and Europe, thus, promoting social instability, rape, murder and other crimes. Legalized abortion also attacks the moral basis of Western Culture, the culture which allowed Europeans to flourish and exert worldwide influence, the moral basis being that every human has a right to life.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        Jared Taylor has stated that he believes abortion should be legal. Richard Spencer has also stated that. I agree with them.

        Jared Taylor? Richard Spencer?? The argumentum ad verecundiam frequently misfires and in so doing betrays the weakness of the arguer’s rationale or moral foundation. It most egregiously does so here, the chosen figures having no authority whatsoever in the matter of abortion and enjoying rather less than unanimous acclaim among those concerned with white interests.

        I think you’re trying to argue abortion is ‘White Genocide’ but if thats true why are most abortions either Non-White, Jewish or Hispanic?

        This tactic—telling others what they mean as substitute for actually reading what they have written and addressing it head-on—is becoming a regular fallback for Paul Bustion. Surely his rhetorical and informational sources could offer a more substantive answer to Mr. Adkins’s plainly expressed “Cui bono?”!

        • Paul Bustion
          Paul Bustion says:

          ‘I think you’re trying to argue abortion is ‘White Genocide’ but if thats true why are most abortions either Non-White, Jewish or Hispanic?

          This tactic—telling others what they mean as substitute for actually reading what they have written and addressing it head-on—is becoming a regular fallback for Paul Bustion. Surely his rhetorical and informational sources could offer a more substantive answer to Mr. Adkins’s plainly expressed “Cui bono?”!’

          I wrote ‘I think you’re trying to argue abortion is ‘White Genocide’ but if thats true why are most abortions either Non-White, Jewish or Hispanic?’ in response to this:
          ‘Michael Adkins
          June 9, 2018 – 1:04 pm | Permalink
          Paul Bustion,

          What has happened in the West isn’t eugenics it’s genocide.’
          Adkins directly stated it was genocide. I wasnt reading between the lines what I thought he meant. He directly stated it.
          He also said ‘That’s an Abrahamic cover story promoted in recent years.’ in reply to my statement that women getting abortions were disproportionately Blacks, Hispanics, Jews or in the case of Non-Jewish Caucasians mentally handicapped women. Some of what I said would be difficult for me to prove, but the part about Blacks and Hispanics is easy to prove. The Guttmacher Institute, an abortion research group originally founded by Planned Parenthood, stated ‘White patients accounted for 39% of abortion procedures in 2014, blacks for 28%, Hispanics for 25%’ in its report Induced Abortion in the United States
          published in January 2018 https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states Blacks are only 12% of the USA population and Hispanics are only 16% of the USA population, so Blacks and Hispanics are very overrepresented in getting abortions. So the part about Blacks and Hispanics getting abortions more than Whites on a per capita basis is true. Im not saying that abortion is a racist genocide program against Blacks and Hispanics, that would be tin foil lunacy, and Im not saying that I want them to get abortions either, all Im saying is the fact that Blacks and Hispanics are overrepresented in abortion disproves the claim that abortion is a Jewish conspiracy to reduce Non-Jewish European Americans to a minority in the USA. Adkins was exactly making that claim, his words prove it, and the facts Ive presented disprove that claim.

          • George Kocan
            George Kocan says:

            Abortion and birth control may very well impact blacks and Hispanics at a greater rate that that of the European diaspora in the US, but the policy of anti-white genocide does not stop there. The policy includes aggressive immigration from hostile nations to render the white majority into a helpless minority. However, I disagree with the assertion that high rates of abortions for black and Hispanic women do not represent genocide. Certainly, that was implied in the original literature surrounding the founding of Planned Parenthood (as the Birth Control League) by Margaret Sanger and her friends. Certainly, as a group evolutionary strategy, such genocide would not hurt Jewish interests at all and partly explains their leadership in the movement.

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            … all Im saying is the fact that Blacks and Hispanics are overrepresented in abortion disproves the claim that abortion is a Jewish conspiracy to reduce Non-Jewish European Americans to a minority in the USA.

            Your time in the classroom has imparted precious little about establishment of proof (or its contrary) if you think that this isolated “fact” disproves anything!

            Here’s the bottom line. You are an avowed abortion advocate. So be it; many others here are. Your attempts to “justify” an abortion-friendly agenda writ large by an ill-supported and highly selective resort to uncontextualized data—and data from a notably (((partisan))) source—may have persuaded you of the “moral” soundness of your view, but beyond the authoritarian confines of the classroom, these are elephants that won’t fly.*
            _______________
            *OK, I’m a Dumbo fan. Anyone want to make something of it?

          • Paul Bustion
            Paul Bustion says:

            George Kocan,
            ‘The policy includes aggressive immigration from hostile nations to render the white majority into a helpless minority. ‘ ‘I disagree with the assertion that high rates of abortions for black and Hispanic women do not represent genocide. Certainly, that was implied in the original literature surrounding the founding of Planned Parenthood (as the Birth Control League) by Margaret Sanger and her friends.’ Only cucks, Jewish Leftists and Black extremists have ever taken seriously the claim that Margaret Sanger intended to use birth control to eliminate Non-Caucasians. Theres no evidence for this anywhere. Lana Lokteff of Red Ice TV did a video on youtube refuting this claim https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jswvL36w2-M It is a contradiction to claim certain Jewish American want to use Third World immigration to reduce Non-Jewish Caucasian while the same Jewish Americans want to use abortion/birth control to genocide Blacks and Hispanics. Abortion/birth control perhaps has slowed down the process of Europeans being reduced to a minority, its either slowed it down or been neutral, it certainly has not helped it. Margaret Sanger was not particularly a philo-Semite. She was influenced by Theosophy, which has AntiJewish tendencies, and she was friends with Upton Sinclair, who included mildly derogatory stereotypes about Jews in his novel The Jungle. Also, abortion has, I believe, been used more by Jewish women than Non-Jewish Caucasian women. This is much more difficult to prove than the statistics about Blacks and Hispanics, but Patrick Buchanan made the claim in his book Suicide of a Superpower, he stated: ‘Israel became home to the largest Jewish population only because the number of American Jews plummeted in the 1990s from 5.5 to 5.2 million. Six percent of the U,S, Jewish population, 300,000 Jews, vanished in a decade. By 2050, the U.S. Jewish population will shrink another 50 percent to 2.5 million. American Jews appear to be an endangered species.

            Why is this happening? It is a result of the collective decision of Jews themselves. From Betty Friedan to Gloria Steinem in the 1970s to Ruth Bader Ginsburg today, Jewish women have led the battle for abortion rights. The community followed. A survey in 2000 by the Center for Jewish Community Studies in Baltimore found 88 percent of the Jewish public agreeing that “Abortion should be generally available to those who want it.’ So viewing abortion and contraception as being Jewish conspiracies is absurd.

          • George Kocan
            George Kocan says:

            Margaret Sanger, who founded the Birth Control League, applied Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution to social problems. “More children from the fit; less from the unfit—that is the chief issue of birth control,” is the way the Birth Control Review, a journal edited by Margaret Sanger put it.
            In a letter, Margaret Sanger said, “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” From my readings, Theosophy has roots in the Kabbalah, the Jewish system of mysticism. I interpret Jewish feminists in terms of group evolutionary strategy. Many of them come from a socialist, atheist tradition. Certainly, Gloria Steinem does not look Middle-Easter. Yet they function as a buffer between gentile Europeans and the hard-core, genetically pure sects like the Lubivatchers and Hasidim, who carry on the Jewish bloodlines. These have large families and exert great influence in Israel. The social, political goal is to eliminate European gentile competition for resources and political power, a strategy which so far seems to be working well.

        • Paul Bustion
          Paul Bustion says:

          Pierre de Craon,
          You stated in criticism of me: ‘Jared Taylor? Richard Spencer?? The argumentum ad verecundiam frequently misfires and in so doing betrays the weakness of the arguer’s rationale or moral foundation. ‘
          You also stated that I used ‘ data from a notably (((partisan))) source’. I know that the echo marks are a derogatory/ironic way of claiming someone is Jewish, so youre claiming my source was Jewish. Well, thats the ad hominem fallacy, because those statistics are objective, and theres tons of data showing Blacks and Hispanics get abortions more than Whites on a per capita basis. The Occidental Observer itself has stated this: ‘Compared to 10 per 1,000 women for Whites, Hispanics nearly double the White abortion rate at 18.1 per 1,000 women, with Blacks at 27.1 per 1,000 women.’ ‘They have abortions and raise children in single-parent homes at a rate closer to that of Blacks than of Whites.’ These quotes are from the article ‘“Hispanics are natural conservatives” — The Dangerous Myth’ by R. Houck on The Occidental Observer published on March 30, 2018 https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2018/03/30/hispanics-are-natural-conservatives-the-dangerous-myth/ The article uses as its source The Guttmacher Institute, the citation is 13 “Abortion Rates by Race and Ethnicity.” Guttmacher Institute, 23 Oct. 2017, http://www.guttmacher.org/infographic/2017/abortion-rates-race-and-ethnicity. So it appears Houck agreed with me that Guttmacher is a reliable source for abortion statistics and considered the issue of Jewish background you raised irrelevant. Theres no dispute that Blacks and Hispanics use abortion more on a per capita basis than NonHispanic Caucasians do. Im not sure if I was correct that Jewish women use it on a per capita basis more than Non-Jewish Caucasian women or that mentally handicapped women use it more on a per capita basis than women of normal intelligence but the part about Blacks and Hispanics disproportionately using it is certainly true. If abortions and birth controls purpose were to help reduce Europeans to a minority and help the Third World colonization and multiculturalism agendas then this would not be the case or at the very least if it that had been the original purpose of abortion rights promotion by the Left and the Jewish Lobbies such as the AntiDefamation League/Bnai Brith and the Southern Poverty Law Center they would have stopped promoting it once that happened.

          • Paul Bustion
            Paul Bustion says:

            George Kocan,
            You said Margaret Sanger was a Social Darwinist. Thats not true. She was friends with Upton Sinclair, the far left author who wrote The Jungle, and was more far left than Sinclair initially. She openly called for the murder of either John D Rockefeller or John D Rockefeller Jr in one of her newsletters. Later she became more friendly with the Rockefeller family, but that was only because the Rockefeller family adopted more Social Democratic politics.
            You quote Sanger as stating ‘We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.’ Sanger in that quote was NOT saying she wanted to eliminate Negroes. She was stating she did not want Negroes to get the false impression that she wanted to exterminate them and that an African American minister could help correct that mistaken impression if it occurred to them. Lana Lokteff made a video explaining that Sanger never advocated exterminating Blacks and in this case Lokteff is correct.

          • George Kocan
            George Kocan says:

            That blacks and Hispanics have higher rates of abortion than white women and that PP targets such communities is consistent with the hypothesis that the Birth Control League (the precursor to PP) was founded on Darwinian principles and that certain populations needed to be eliminated because they created excessive costs for the WASP population. After all, Jews are not the only people on earth who follow an evolutionary group strategy, even though they might not use such terminology and recognize it as a Darwinian concept.

          • Paul Bustion
            Paul Bustion says:

            ‘That blacks and Hispanics have higher rates of abortion than white women and that PP targets such communities is consistent with the hypothesis that the Birth Control League (the precursor to PP) was founded on Darwinian principles and that certain populations needed to be eliminated because they created excessive costs for the WASP population.’ I never said Planned Parenthood targets those groups, I said they use its services more. Planned Parenthood does not have a WASP agenda, its founder Margaret Sanger was not a WASP, she was racially Irish. Sanger was friends with Upton Sinclair and liked his socialist themed novel The Jungle. That novel is against social Darwinism. She also was an enemy of the Rockefeller family at first, calling for there murder at one point. Its true later she got funding from the Rockefeller family but that was only after the family started moving to the left politically. Sanger was not a Darwinian. Sanger did advocate eugenics but her eugenic philosophy advocated using eugenics to reduce the number of mentally handicapped people being born rather than to create racial purity or reduce the amount of Blacks or other NonWhites. Planned Parenthood specifically wanting to reduce Blacks today would be insane on there part, because if Blacks were majority of the population the USA would probably become a one party state ruled by the Democratic Party in a similar way to how the USSR was a one party state ruled by the Communist Party, because the Republicans would no longer have enough voters to even compete electorally, and that would remove any chance abortion would ever be outlawed again. So it makes zero sense to think abortion is a racist genocide program or that Planned Parenthood is pursuing a racist agenda.

      • Franks&Beans
        Franks&Beans says:

        George Kocan, I do not mind if white women carrying non white especially negro babies abort, and also if negroes and hispanics ad jews abort, but if it is a pure white baby healthy and intelligent then it should be a crime. Also, I do agree that if the baby is severely disabled and cannot take care of itself and just sit in a chair and it has to be cleaned even as an adult should be aborted. It is better for the baby because i would not want to be like a vegetable and wallow in my own filth.

  2. Paul Bustion
    Paul Bustion says:

    James Andrewes wrote: ‘Among numerous other restrictions, Catholics could not hold public office, be MPs, vote, attend university, be lawyers or teachers, inherit an estate (it had to be divided between all the brothers), hold a lease of more than 31 years length, own a weapon, or own an expensive horse. Many of these restrictions were abolished in 1829 but some remained in place until 1920.’ Most of these restrictions were abolished in the 1770s,1780s and 1790s. The law prohibiting Roman Catholics from inheriting an estate and dividing estates where the heir would be Roman Catholic amongst his Protestant brothers was repealed in 1778 with the Catholic Relief Act passed by the Irish Parliament, http://members.pcug.org.au/~ppmay/acts/relief_act_1778.htm . Roman Catholics in Ireland were given the right to vote by another Roman Catholic Relief Act passed in 1793 http://members.pcug.org.au/~ppmay/acts/relief_act_1793.htm The last of the restrictions the author mentioned on Roman Catholics, denying them the right to sit in Parliament, was abolished in 1829 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Relief_Act_1829. The restriction that continued until 1920 was a prohibition on Roman Catholics being Lord Lieutenants of Ireland, that restriction was abolished in 1920 so that the English Roman Catholic Lord Fitzalan could be appointed Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and in order to appease Irish nationalist Roman Catholics.
    Also, its not true Irish nationalism was an exclusively Roman Catholic movement. Until the 1900s its leaders were mostly Protestant. The leaders of the 1798 Rebellion were almost all either Protestants or Deists, and a substantial amount of the popular support for the rebellion, perhaps even a majority of it came from Protestant nationalists, not Roman Catholics. Most Roman Catholics in Ireland opposed the rebellion because they associated it with the leftist politics of the French Revolution. The leader of moderate, parliamentary Irish nationalism in the 1800s were also mostly Protestants. Isaac Butt, the founder of the Irish Home Rule Party, and Charles Stewart Parnell who succeeded him as its leaders and the later leader of the party John Redmond were all Protestants. Its not until the late 1800s and early 1900s that Irish nationalism became an almost exclusively Catholic movement.

    • puritans are great
      puritans are great says:

      The Irish ( and other) Catholics have hurt my country too along with your Jews and now we don’t have a country either. So enjoy.

      • Franks&Beans
        Franks&Beans says:

        Puritans are Great. Hey, where do you think the Puritans got their Christian values, from? From the Catholics? Now, the Catholics have opened schools, colleges and also other institutions that greatly benefited many Americans. I do admit that there are some rotten apples in the Catholic diaspora like Ted Kennedy, but they were all shabboz goys to the jews. Even your WASPS and puritans have had liberal ideas that have hurt America. So do some research before you throw dirt at Catholics. With regard to jews, i agree. They are mostly bad.

    • Nick Dean
      Nick Dean says:

      Paul Bustion, the still extant problem with Irish nationalism is that was never just Irish and just nationalistic.

      Sinn Fein today leading the fight for race-replacing the Irish inevitably follows the introduction of ideas for ideas’ sake debatable considerations (religion, language, fairies, poetry, class, history) into a straightforward race and nation issue.

      Ideas as such are not needed to bolster a race or nation argument, every people naturally and instinctively is self-preservationist – all the chit chat is extraneous, the ideas only ever divide and diffuse, so it’s reasonable to suppose they are usually introduced by hostiles.

      Ireland may have suffered from an early run-out of the ‘archaic revival’ program one of the allied empires later was explicit about. It has certainly suffered for having so many non-Irish people inexplicably prominent in its supposedly ‘nationalist’ struggle.

    • Earl Oill
      Earl Oill says:

      Good points. James Connolly, leader of the 1916 Easter Rising, though nominally Catholic was a Marxist and saw the church as an undependable ally. I suspect one is not going to find an ‘objective’ discussion of the background on this epochal event. In the 20th century Irish nationalism was indeed closely tied to animosity between Catholic Ireland and Protestant England, perhaps because the sectarian struggle in Ulster dominated events. As G.M. Trevelyan put it, the English hated the Irish because they were Catholic [the burnings-at-the-stake ordered by Queen Mary having been a miniature Holocaust, memorialized in Foxe’s Book of Martyrs] and the Irish hated the Protestants because they were English. For many years the Pope was burned in effigy by Protestants on the anniversary of the Battle of the Boyne. In the 1960s the IRA was torn by internal division between Marxist parvenus hoping to emulate American student radicals and old-school Catholics whose first concern was cleaning the guns. The Catholics won out, and Provo leader Sean Macstiofain hinted that his more cosmopolitan rival Cathal Goulding was a Jew. Later, a Jewish girl, Kristin ni Elias, nearly seized control of the group from alleged chief Gerry Adams, but fled after she got the impression he was arranging for her to be murdered.
      I predicted that the hostilities in Northern Ireland would fade out as religion itself faded, which has turned out to be true. I am not happy to see it — if fact it makes me very sad to see Ireland go the way of western Europe and perhaps the entire west. It also makes me sad to hear such an unsympathetic recital of the facts in a nominally far-right venue like TOO. Perhaps there is no way to sugar-coat them, but the behavior of Google and Facebook suggests to me that the usual suspects are up to their usual mischief and have seen to it that the public information flow favors the anti-clerical side. It seems that Ireland’s economic miracle was largely smoke and mirrors and it has faded leaving behind the destruction of another chunk of Christendom. I’d like to know who owns all those nice stone cottages once belonging to fishermen. Probably foreign movie stars and oligarchs.
      I don’t think a secular racialist movement is going to get anywhere because it is too easy to caricature it as purely hateful, but I suppose the days when the ‘right’ defended church and family against atheism and libertinism are gone.

      • Nick Dean
        Nick Dean says:

        You are right to be concerned about an article here at TOO about Ireland that is not pro-Irish, or even pro-White, but that concerns itself rather with extranea. But then you invite debate on that point by saying TOO should properly be concerned with rightism and religion and personal liberty, in other words just such extranea.

        Race and nation issues are critical today. Let the matter of local library closures etc. wait until we’ve secured our existence!

    • Jacobite
      Jacobite says:

      And Oliver Cromwell rode around the country handing out rosaries to the ladies. But the Irish survived, and by allowing the Jews to re-enter England in 1655, he did more harm to the Brits than the RA with nukes could’ve done.

    • British Nationalist
      British Nationalist says:

      The leaders of the 1798 Rebellion were almost all either Protestants or Deists, and a substantial amount of the popular support for the rebellion, perhaps even a majority of it came from Protestant nationalists, not Roman Catholics. Most Roman Catholics in Ireland opposed the rebellion because they associated it with the leftist politics of the French Revolution.

      You are correct about the leaders, but the popular support for the uprising did come almost exclusively from Catholic peasants, as in Wexford, Kildare and Wicklow. These people generally had no idea that the French Revolution had even happened, as Humbert’s rather bemused account of their reaction shows.

  3. puritans are great
    puritans are great says:

    So they turned a case of medical mal-practice into a referendum on abortion on demand up to 5.5 months?

  4. Curmudgeon
    Curmudgeon says:

    I find it ironic that the feminist mantra for being abortion is “it’s my body”, yet there were no complaints when all Irish were allowed to vote in the referendum. I suspect there would have been had the results of the referendum were the opposite.
    With today’s population, both male or female, unable (or unwilling) to accept the consequences of their actions. My guess is that it was the young’uns that swung the vote.
    Abortion will always be a divisive topic. I am acquainted with people on both sides of the issue, and can say that it is not as clean as RC vs Proddy vs atheist/agnostic.
    As I have posted previously, abortion on demand has been legal in Scandinavia since the 1930s. The approach taken was that abortion should not be for an economic reason, therefore, a high level of social services would be available. Additionally, the general attitude of most of the population was that a child born out of wedlock cannot be blamed for the actions of its biological parents. With their homogeneous populations until the mid 1970s, this worked rather well, and while abortion was available, there was also a replacement rate population growth. However, as in any country, industrialization and an increasing number of women in the work force, birth rates began to fall. Multiculturalism, with its side shows of White guilt, and overpopulation, kicked into turbo mode for Scandinavia, like the rest of the (((West))), and birth rates really began to plummet.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      … today’s population, both male and female, [are] unable (or unwilling) to accept the consequences of their actions.

      This statement of yours epitomizes the fundamental consequence of successful Judaeo-Enlightened subversion of Western Christianity as well as anything I have ever read. Surely only a movement whose leaders insist that having one’s cake and eating it too (1) is impossible and (2) would be morally repellent if it were possible will be able to effect the reconquest of the white West that this site and its honorable proprietor advocate and work toward.

      I am acquainted with people on both sides of the [abortion] issue, and can say that it is not as clean as RC vs Proddy vs atheist/agnostic.

      Just so, my friend, and I write as someone who devoutly wishes you were wrong about this.

      In the late eighties I finally began to recognize that tacit, subversive pro-abortion lobbying was up and running even as I started college in September 1962, mere days before the first session of Vatican II was formally opened. A close friend of mine—a man who, to his credit, had been much more attentive than I to inner sanctum intrigues—pointed out to me then (i.e., the eighties) that none of the Protestant observers invited to the Council by John XXIII or Paul VI were theological, liturgical, or moral (= anti-abortion) hard-liners. That in itself is highly revealing, n’est-ce pas?

    • Ingrid B
      Ingrid B says:

      “a child born out of wedlock cannot be blamed for the actions of its biological parents.” :
      Here in Norway,after WW2, children born of Norwegian mothers, and German fathers, were very badly treated..

      I have observed abortion from several angles. In the 70`s, I had an Irish friend, who got pregnant with her boyfriends child, travelled to England, where she gave birth to a baby boy, and gave him up for adoption. It must have been tough..
      Another friend, married, was catholic, she had a heart condition, and risked her life to have two children. She was not allowed to practice prevention, and so her husband had a vasectomy.
      I myself, was persuaded by my partner to abort our child, and have regretted it ever since.. Abortion is murder, pure and simple..

  5. Clem Goodbar
    Clem Goodbar says:

    Nothing in the constitution prevents a judge or legislator from having religious beliefs or acting on them subject to limitations imposed by the Establishment clause. Morality is a terrain shared by religious and secular thought, and if someone wants to advocate a law on religious grounds that is just as permissible as advocating it on secular grounds. Moreover, the 94% who are pro-choice according to Pew are surely motivated in part by the desire to strike a blow on behalf of their faith community against the Christian majority.

  6. Dave
    Dave says:

    Mark Steyn once said, based on Ireland’s current fertility rates, that if Belfast is still a hotbed of sectarian violence in the year 2100, it will be between Sunni and Shiite!

    The Catholic Church had to treat single mothers badly and do everything to their bastard spawn short of killing them outright. Ireland was a very poor country back then; allowing unwed sluts to raise children on the government’s, or the church’s, non-existent dime was not an option.

    If the Church ever allowed priests to marry, they would use the church as a jobs program for their sons, and all doctrinal coherence would be lost. Pedophilia was a by-product of this policy, but even today, pedophilia is not regarded as a serious problem in countries where people are literally starving to death.

  7. Paul Bustion
    Paul Bustion says:

    ‘when the Free State was declared (it was followed by a civil war lost by those who wanted a united Ireland)’ Thats not what the Irish Civil War was about. It was between the supporters of Michael Collins, who pragmatically accepted the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1922 as the best way to avoid further bloodshed and make Southern Ireland as independent of Great Britain as realistically possible, and supporters of Eamon de Valera, who wanted complete independence from Great Britain. The Anglo-Irish Treaty required members of the Irish Free States government to swear an oath of allegiance to the British King/Queen and gave the Irish Free State the same status in relation to Great Britain that Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa had, basically a status of almost complete independence from Great Britain in internal affairs, but with some external/foreign policy affairs still controlled by London. De Valera wanted full independence and found the compromise unacceptable, Collins was pragmatic enough to accept the compromise. Northern Ireland was not a major issue in the Civil War, Collins also had been very reluctant to let Northern Ireland remain part of the United Kingdom and stay out of the Irish Free State, and his biographer/apologist Tim Pat Coogan has stated Collins may have been involved in the murder of a British administrator in Northern Ireland, Sir Henry Wilson, and was involved in Irish Republican Army terrorism designed to force the British out of Northern Ireland. There was no particular disagreement between Collins and Valera about Northern Ireland.

  8. Franklin Ryckaert
    Franklin Ryckaert says:

    Besides to the effects of rapid moral degeneration due to rapid wealth and to rancor against the Catholic Church due to scandals, the Irish vote in favor of abortion could also partly be ascribed to good ol’ vote rigging. The article Another Big Rig in Ireland in Fitzpatrick Informer has the story. Some excerpts :

    “…Last week’s Irish abortion referendum was rigged.

    The official result was—get this—a preposterous 22 points—yes 22 points!—out of step with one of the final opinion polls of the campaign.[1] And that was no rogue poll—other surveys put the anti-abortion side even higher…”

    “…Pro-life rallies in the run up to the referendum numbered over 100,000; whereas, their pro-abortion counterparts mustered derisory turnouts of two or three thousand hardcore lefties and embittered cat ladies…”

    Vote rigging in Ireland happened before :

    “…To call modern Ireland a banana republic is a gross insult—to banana republics. The electoral system is rife with liberal (in both senses of the term) fraud. A University of Cork study found that 600,000 extra voting cards had been issued in the 2007 Irish general election, 488,000 in the 2016 election[3]. On a good day, that’s enough fake votes to swing the presidential election in America, never mind referendums in a small country like Ireland…”

    Read more at : https://www.fitzinfo.wordpress.com/2018/05/…/another-big-rig-in-irelan…

    • Nick Dean
      Nick Dean says:

      Yep. I wouldn’t ever think of gauging public opinion in a Western country on the basis of a government run vote. The scale of the outsize win for the pro-abortion camp might be a reflection on recent miscalculations by vote-fixers in the US and UK that allowed the wrong voters to win despite attempted vote-rigging. “If we’re gonna rig it let’s bloody win it, guaranteed!”

  9. Pierre de Craon
    Pierre de Craon says:

    As the Tuam story, another triumph for (((Establishment))) journalism, is a farrago of exaggeration and a healthy dose of misrepresentation, it’s a shame that Mr. Andrewes seems content to swallow it whole.

    Take, for instance, this sentence: “In almost all cases, their deaths were never formally recorded.” But the plain fact is that the deaths were recorded! They were reported to appropriate local officials, and those records subsequently became available for public inspection at the county Galway registrar’s office. Even the newspaper report Andrewes links to admits as much.

    So much for suppression of evidence.

    Furthermore, during much of the 36-year period in question, many rural Irish were in a situation of truly dire poverty; many were actually or nearly starving to death. For this same period I do not have ready access to the death count for legitimate children and infants living with their parents in rural Galway, but I do know that life expectancy for all but the prosperous few, whatever their age, was far below what was to be found then in the UK or the USA.

    What is more, there were several serious tuberculosis epidemics in Ireland during this period, one of which happened during the World War II years, when food was pretty scarce everywhere in Ireland. Part of the blame may legitimately lie with the Anglo-Irish landlords and property owners of the former Ascendancy, who were far more inclined to sell their animal and agricultural products to their fellow British combatants than to the neutral Irish.* The fact that, even taking these matters into account (at least, as he should have), Andrewes is content to pin responsibility on the nuns, Archbishop McQuaid, and Roman Catholicism for these sad deaths demonstrates yet again that our Jewish masters’ program of brainwashing has penetrated even many otherwise awakened white minds and colored almost everyone’s perception of matters grave and minor, large and small.

    All things considered, an infant death count of roughly 22 a year during this period ought to be anything but an indicator of a horrendous situation—save perhaps to those who are shocked, shocked, by the ejection of a pair of freeloading black layabouts from a Starbucks store.
    ________________
    *Incidentally, Ireland’s neutrality during World War II had more to do with De Valera (then the prime minister) than with Archbishop McQuaid. As anyone familiar with his conduct during the teens and twenties knows, Dev was as much rat and weasel as he was patriot, but in defying Churchill and refusing to bring Ireland into the war, he had his finest hour.

  10. Paul Harris
    Paul Harris says:

    It makes me very sad to see Ireland lose its Catholic identity and I am a Protestant! Still, it is hard to see what we are headed for. Each decade, conservatives die off and people reared in a climate of liberalism take their place. Perhaps a Muslim influence in Ireland and elsewhere will ultimately make it easier to be a Christian. All the world’s religions agree more on morals than any of them agrees with secular humanism. The Alt Right seems to have no consensus view on sex and family issues.

    • Lou
      Lou says:

      Muslims breed like rats. Inviting them into any land is suicide for that land, eventually.
      ‘Cat Stevens’–aka Rat Stevens has 6? mussie kids.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      Perhaps a Muslim influence in Ireland and elsewhere will ultimately make it easier to be a Christian. All the world’s religions agree more on morals than any of them agrees with secular humanism.

      With respect, Mr. Harris, if you truly believe what you wrote, I urge you to consider looking more closely into the body of self-serving rationalizations that pass for a moral code among the tribal adherents of Judaism and its downmarket spinoff, Islam.

    • Paul Bustion
      Paul Bustion says:

      Paul Harris,

      You wrote ‘Perhaps a Muslim influence in Ireland and elsewhere will ultimately make it easier to be a Christian. All the world’s religions agree more on morals than any of them agrees with secular humanism.’
      That is a ridiculous statement. There is an idea in logic called the Law of NonContradiction, that holds that its not possible for two contradictory propositions to both be true, those who reject this idea known as the dialetheists still accept a weaker version of it called the Law of Non-Triviality that holds not all contradictory propositions can be true. There are other rules of logic like the Law of the Excluded Middle that every proposition is either true or false and the Law of Identity that everything is identical to itself and all propositions equate to themselves. These rules of logic make it impossible for all religions to be correct, if all religions were true that would violate all these laws of logic and would result in trivialism, the idea all propositions are true. Islam itself may not in its theology be radically contradictory to Christianity, but you said all of the worlds religions are compatible, and that is a ridiculous statement. Mormonism is certainly not compatible with Christianity, Hinduism and the religion of the Greek pagans also certainly are not. There are many religions that are incompatible with Christianity and also with each other. Saying all the worlds religions have a lot in common is a bizarre and ridiculous statement. It would be like saying all the worlds political ideologies basically agree with each other. That would be absurd. Saying Christianity, Mormonism, paganism, Wiccanism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism and Hinduism all teach the same thing would be like saying that Nazism, Bolshevism, Marxism, Tsarism, libertarianism, capitalism, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party all believe the same thing. Its a logical impossibility for all the worlds religions to be correct. Either only one of them is correct, and all the others are false, or at best several very similar religions (such as for example Christianity, Judaism and Islam) are correct, and all the others are false or no religion is correct. There is no logical way both Christianity and Mormonism could be correct religions, Mr. Harris. Mr. Harris, you should try to learn basic logic before writing statements about these topics in the future.

  11. JM
    JM says:

    Not just “flying home”, but having their air fares paid to do so. From the article: “One group on Facebook, ‘Abroad for Yes’, continues to link Irish people with sponsors to fund their trip home to vote ‘Yes’.” Sinister.

  12. Rich
    Rich says:

    Ireland was lost when they allowed a homosexual Indian to be their Prime Minister. A tiny country with a small population, as well as a liberal immigration system and generous welfare system, in a hundred years I doubt there’ll be a red haired or blue eyed native on the island. Turns out they should have knelt before the Protestant king. Maybe united, the people of the British Isles could have prevented the genocide of their race.

    • T. J.
      T. J. says:

      “They allowed-”

      Do you think that the Irish are in charge of (((their))) government?

      (((Who))) is in charge of the world money system?

      They do all the “allowing. . .”

      • Rich
        Rich says:

        There was a time when men would stand up to those who would destroy their cultures, make whores out of their women and put foreigners in charge of their countries. Many Irishmen went to prison, or the gallows, or the New World because they refused to kneel to a Protestant King who was at least the same race as them. We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children.

  13. Ritual
    Ritual says:

    I think political commentator Patrick Buchanan should write about Kevin MacDonald’s research.

  14. Lou
    Lou says:

    It is imp to note, Eire, like USA has ‘anchor baby law.’
    USA and Ireland are the only 2 lands w this suicidal law.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      Could be. If such is the case, the person probably got his job with the assistance of (((Alan Shatter))), a Fine Gael politician who has survived as many scandals as Hillary or Bill Clinton and who is for the moment out of office—doubtless due to virulent anti-semitism!

  15. T
    T says:

    The Irish at present are in a poor state of affairs indeed. They got an early dose of multi-culturalism with the 16th century Plantatation and have been choking on it ever since.

    The below excerpts of a ballad/song called Ourselves Alone was published in Dublin, Ireland in 1844. The entirety of it linked below, and reflective of a long poisonous relationship that was bad for both Irish and English, does contain a couple of jabs at the English. Even so, and irrespective of that, it’s got quite a lot of inspiration and truth in its message.

    If ills at others’ hands ye bear,
    ⁠The cure is in your own.

    Ourselves Alone – 1843

    Aye! bitter hate, or cold neglect,
    ⁠Or lukewarm love at best,
    Is all we’ve found, or can expect,
    ⁠We aliens of the west.
    No friend beyond her own green shore,
    ⁠Can Erin truly own;
    Yet stronger is her trust, therefore,
    ⁠In her brave sons alone.

    Oh, let its memory be enshrined
    ⁠In Ireland’s heart for ever:
    It proves a banded people’s mind
    ⁠Must win in just endeavour;
    It shows how wicked to despair,
    ⁠How weak to idly groan—
    If ills at others’ hands ye bear,
    ⁠The cure is in your own.

    The “foolish word impossible”
    ⁠At once, for aye disdain;
    No power can bar a people’s will
    ⁠A people’s right to gain.
    Be bold, united, firmly set,
    ⁠Nor flinch in word or tone—
    We’ll be a glorious nation yet,
    ⁠Redeemed—erect—alone.

    https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Spirit_of_the_Nation/Ourselves_Alone

  16. Franklin Ryckaert
    Franklin Ryckaert says:

    Here are some pictures of what it is all about :

    1) Welcoming asylum seekers :

    http://img2.thejournal.ie/inline/2312447/original/?width=600&version=2312447

    2 ) “New Irish citizens” at citizen ceremony :

    https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/new-irish-citizens-rosemary-yeboah-from-ghana-virgina-oboh-from-and-picture-id851992936

    3) A “new Irish citizen” has gone into politics :

    https://irishelectionliterature.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/idowu1.jpg?w=350&h=429

    4) This Irish man and his Nigerian wife have produced a pair of “new Irish” children :

    http://hypenigeria.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/14727550_674899799346271_4840559100439822336_n-240×300.jpg

    5) Courtesy of Leo Varadkar, half-Indian, openly homosexual Prime Minister of the “New” Ireland :

    http://s18694.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Leo-Varadkar-e1496498013338.jpg

    In Ireland everything of the White Genocide Project seems to run on schedule.

    • T
      T says:

      Franklin Ryckaert says: In Ireland everything of the White Genocide Project seems to run on schedule.

      The Irish, along with everyone else, are not resisting these things as strongly as they once did, but amongst the European peoples, the Irish have historically been a particularly tough nut for the globalists to crack.

      As has been documented at this site, during the heighth of the Famine in 1847 the Irish were shooting members of the British aristocracy in Ireland who were promoting the enmasse predation of the Irish people as wage slaves to the United States, the London Times during this time period declaring the said predation would directly result in the Irish people being ‘known no more’; the Irish called it ‘extermination’. The Irish actions regarding the British aristocrats in Ireland in 1847 didn’t make it into the film The Gangs of New York as it does not fit the powers that be narrative of the violent half deranged ‘nativists’ in their ‘delusions’ about being physically, culturally, and economically displaced by the entirely harmless and grateful to their benefactors ‘immigrants’. How would you explain though to a no doubt intrigued audience that there was violent resistance to this 19th century mass immigration scheme by both the Anglo-Saxon ‘nativists’ on the receiving end of this largesse and the would be Irish mass ‘immigrant’ in Ireland (whom were shooting their ‘benefactors’ for this offered ‘help’) as both the Irish and the US Anglo-Saxon general public found it terribly destructive to them? The answer of course is you don’t tell the audience and the half of the story you do tell you greatly distort.

      WT Stead, a close associate of Cecil Rhodes of British Empire fame, in his 1901 book The Americanization of the World calculates on pgs 10 and 11 that the US and UK had between them in the then newly established ‘special relationship’ three times the wealth and economic resources of the combined French, Russian, and German Empires. He concludes ‘the lion’s share of the world is ours’. He also states in the book regarding the Irish that ‘they [the Irish people and nation] are our Achilles heal’.

      The Irish, as with the other European peoples, have been the subject of an intense psy-op campaign specifically designed for them. As part of that in the early 2000’s a program was designed in the US entitled Reimagining Ireland to condition people in Ireland, and its expats to accept multi-culturalism. PBS broadcast a video by the same name in the US accompanying this campaign which had the longterm chairman of Goldman Sachs Peter Sutherland narrating. While some in the US might have mistaken Sutherland as representing the everyday Irishman on the streets of Dublin, I suspect at least some in Ireland whom may have seen it knew better.

      http://www.upress.virginia.edu/title/2357

        • T
          T says:

          Franklin Ryckaert writes: This is the Globalists’ endgame for Ireland, and if the Irish don’t get their act together it is bound to happen :

          https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/ireland-map-multicultural-group-people-integration-immigratio-immigration-diversity-isolated-98133982.jpg

          If so, the vision set forth in 1851 for Ireland by the primordial multi-culturalists at the London Times will have come about. The Irish people will have been bred out of existance and Ireland repopulated with a race of slaves that are ‘more mixed, more docile’ and ‘which can submit to a master’.

          It [the Irish] will mix with the Anglo-American, and be known no more as a jealous and separate people.

          Its [the Irish people’s] present place [in Ireland] will be occupied by the more mixed, more docile, and more serviceable race, which has long borne the yoke of sturdy industry in this island, which can submit to a master and obey the law…

          The American Minister in Ireland

          pg 290 – 291 as republished on November 15, 1851, in Littell’s Living Age

          ‘The prosperity and happiness he [Lawrence] speaks of may some day reign over that beautiful island. It’s fertile soil, its water-power, its minerals, and other materials for the wants and luxuries of man, may one day be developed; but all apearances are against the belief that this will ever happen in the days of the Celt. That tribe will soon fulfill the great law of Providence which seems to enjoin and reward the union of races. It will mix with the Anglo-American, and be known no more as a jealous and separate people. Its present place will be occupied by the more mixed, more docile, and more serviceable race, which has long borne the yoke of sturdy industry in this island, which can submit to a master and obey the law…’

          https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=chi.55226263;view=1up;seq=302;skin=mobile

  17. Jessics
    Jessics says:

    Thank you for your honest comments about the Magdalene Homes and the sexual abuse. Many devout Catholics in the US refuse to acknowledge these crimes. They do a lot to explain the decline of Catholicism in Ireland.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      Your comments beg too many questions and assume too much matter not in evidence to be allowed to pass unnoted. Were the context a bit different, you might just as well have written the following:

      Thank you for your honest comments about Kevin MacDonald and his virulently anti-semitic books. Many nativists in the US refuse to acknowledge these thought crimes. They do a lot to explain the decline of the Alt-Right in the USA.

      Rather than explain the decline of Catholicism in Ireland, the various Magdalene hoaxes emblematize it. That is, the hoaxes would never have met with so little resistance had they not been preceded by forty to sixty years of thorough subversion by the (((traditional enemies))) of the Church and the white West.

      Precisely because the complete collapse of Irish patriotism, nationalism, and Catholicism came with such unportended speed, what has happened in Ireland is a striking indicator of the terrifying three-dimensionality of international Jewish power.

Comments are closed.