Return of the Troubles? The New IRA and Its Anti-Immigrant Focus

Anyone who grew up in the British Isles from the 1970s to the 1990s will understand what is meant by “The Troubles” in Northern Ireland, and will know that the IRA stands for the Irish Republican Army. From at least 1969 until 1998, this Catholic paramilitary organization was the leading cause of terrorism in the UK, using bombs, punishment beatings, and targeted assassinations. The IRA were backed by their political masters in Sinn Féin. The name “Sinn Féin” means “ourselves”, or “we ourselves”, and they had common cause with the IRA against the British, particularly in the 1970s. The IRA was routinely referred to as “the provisional wing of Sinn Féin”, often shortened to “the Provos”. Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness were the famous political figureheads of Sinn Féin, the Reverend Ian Paisley the loudest voice on the Loyalist side. It was a bad time for the Emerald Isle.

Then, this paramilitary outfit began to evolve. The Provisional IRA became the Continuity IRA, then the Real IRA, then broke from the old guard completely in 1997, merging with an organization called Republican Action Against Drugs in 2012 to form the New IRA. This in itself was an interesting merger, as the original IRA were known to raise funds by selling drugs. But the IRA under any name have been fairly quiet since the Good Friday Agreement (GFA) in 1998, at least compared with the height of The Troubles.

The GFA was partly political theater on the part of Tony Blair, keen to be viewed as a peacemaker early into his tenure as Prime Minister. Perhaps he had already planned his “sexed-up” Iraq document on Saddam’s non-existent WMD (which drew the UK into the Iraq War), gauged the likely effect on his legacy, and wished to pre-empt it. But that is for another day. The GFA was hailed as peace in our time but, true to Blair’s signature style of politicking, it is a slippery document.

The GFA knitted three political and geographical bodies together: The Northern Ireland Assembly, the North-South Ministerial Council, and the British-Irish Council. It has kept the peace, more or less, for over a quarter of a century, but that peace is theoretically a fragile one. No one policy instrument defines the role and status of Northern Ireland, but the aggregate legislation states that they have to live together with southern Ireland, or Éire, and the British, and any public disagreement is permissible under the terms of this union of political entities. The aim was union, of course, political if not geographical, but there was a sub-textual purpose to this new triumvirate; to take away the core mission of the IRA and stop the violence. And, despite isolated terrorist incidents, the peace has held. Until now, perhaps.

In July of this year, a 25-year-old law student called Isabella Perrie-Sullivan was arrested by police attempting to cross the Irish border northwards with 25 pounds of explosives in a bag in her car. The arrest was the culmination of intelligence which indicated dissident action following the pattern of that associated with the IRA. The IRA had some of the best bomb-makers in the world. These weren’t Muslims with backpacks that fizzle but fail to explode, or Baader-Meinhof clowns blowing themselves up. These were experts. A bombing campaign with this level of expertise could kill a lot of people. This year, the New IRA have already attacked two Northern Irish police stations with car-bombs. The old Republican mission statement to rid Ireland of the British, and thus to attack Loyalists, is assumed still to be in place, but a new theory as to the New IRA’s intentions in a changed world is slowly forming.

The New IRA may no longer have the British in their sights directly, but instead allegedly have a new target: immigrants. The statistics coming out of Ireland, despite the best efforts of the Irish government to hide or distort them, are sobering. It is estimated that 25% of the population of Éire, are now immigrants. Of the seven women murdered south of the border in the first half of this year, six were killed by migrants. These acts of violence are only part of the story. The Irish are becoming aware that their entire culture is being changed by design. It is becoming apparent with every new atrocity that the Irish are becoming more aware that they are a chapter of the Great Replacement. So, where does the New IRA come in?

The video which has kicked this wasps’ nest purports to be by the New IRA and features another aspect which will alert and alarm the Irish government in that it is not single-issue. The balaclava-clad speaker, flanked by armed comrades, makes it clear that the influx of migrants is their main driver:

 “To the people of Newry, Mourne and Down: we, the New Republican Movement, have watched our councillors and MLAs over the past 12 months.

​“The level of disrespect shown to the people who put you into power, this cannot be ignored any longer.

​“We are proud men of Ireland, we are patriots.

“Your policies and decision-making regards to flooding our communities with undocumented military-aged men is not acceptable.

​“We will not sit back any longer and watch our culture and religion destroyed by the people we put in power.

​“Also the sexual indoctrination of our children in schools has not went unnoticed either.

​“The New Republican Movement will take immediate action against anyone who threatens our way of life and the safety of our women and children.

​“We have your addresses and know your movements.

“Every one of you are legitimate targets as of today.

“The New Republican Movement, 28th of the 11th, 2025.”

It comes weeks after a video was circulated on X purporting to show a different Irish republican right-wing group, the Irish Citizen Army, which also depicted three men in front of a tricolour delivering a similar anti-immigration message.

“Andrew” posted a video on August 3. He is an ex-intelligence operative who speaks of the reputation the IRA had with the British Army, who saw them as “not just formidable, but unbeatable”. As with all major terrorist groups, the IRA were a many-headed hydra which presented the British Army with two major and paradoxical problems. Arrest or kill them and they create martyrs to the cause, powerful fuel for terrorists. Read the story of hunger-striker Bobby Sands, who died in 1981. Fail to stop the “Rah”, as the IRA were known colloquially, and the bombs keep going off. A top IRA operative once famously said that, while the British needed to get lucky every day to stop the Republicans, the IRA only had to get lucky once. The IRA’s soldiers were known to be efficient, ruthless, and incredibly violent. If they turn their attentions to migrants, it will be the worse for those who supposedly “just want a better life”.

Cynics might suggest that the IRA attempting to rid Ireland of migrants the way St. Patrick was said to have cast out the nation’s snake population serves a further purpose, and this concerns the British. Any migrants forced out of Ireland can only go to mainland Britain, unless the people-smuggling gangs have an inflatable which will make it across the Atlantic. They are likely to stay there. This will appeal to those in the New IRA who retain the animus of the old IRA, as it will put England in particular in the grip of a pincer movement of immigration. Events in the autonomous Spanish city of Ceuta, which has become a holding-pen for tens of thousands of immigrants wanting to enter mainland Europe, is another threat to the UK, as many of those migrants want to get to Britain. Recently, some would go on to Northern Ireland, walk across the porous and largely unguarded border to the south, and thus re-enter the Schengen Zone of the EU. If this border becomes manned by men in balaclavas carrying AK-47s, it would no longer be a viable route. These men would be unlikely to have had much DEI training, but they will know how to shoot to kill.

The return of the IRA would put the Irish government in a precarious position. Having shown themselves unwilling to take action against migrant criminals, if they suddenly took swift decisive action against actual Irishmen, they run the risk of starting a genuine civil war. But if they back off, they run a different type of risk, that age-old religious divisions might heal, or at least hostilities may be suspended. Then, if the wider populace sees that the IRA are expelling immigrants where the government clearly had no intention of doing so, that is a powerful win for the Republicans.

All of this could be a hoax, a ruse, or the work of mischief-makers. But the Irish government will know that it could be the real thing and, even if the New IRA is not planning to target migrants, it may inspire others to do so. The recent near-decapitation and blinding of a disabled man in Belfast, allegedly by a Sudanese immigrant, led to nights of rioting reminiscent of 1969, when Catholics and Protestants fought each other and the PSNI (Police Service Northern Ireland). Syndicated news sources wrote that “The New IRA are plotting to capitalize on tensions around migration and could use the anxieties to launch an intimidation campaign against vulnerable communities”. The way this is framed implies that these anxieties and tensions are somehow groundless but evades the obvious point that it is the native Irish who are currently feeling like a vulnerable community. Irish YouTubers such as No Risk No Reward, County Gains, Derek Domino, and Peter Dooley Dublin report on almost daily attacks and sexual assaults on Irish people.

The phrase “the fighting Irish” is well-founded. From the battles of 1916, Michael Collins and his colleagues, and The Irish Citizen Army, Irishmen — and women — will not simply roll over as the populations of Europe have done, and a possible knock-on effect of any anti-migrant action taken by the New IRA will be giving British government ministers sleepless nights. The British may be inspired by any Republican action and follow suit. Danny Tommo is an anti-immigration activist reportedly holding training camps for young, White, Englishmen, and is actively recruiting. Despite the government’s boast that it is moving immigrants out of hotels, these military-age men are actually being moved into disused army facilities. They are, quite literally, being barracked.

In many ways, parts of England are now under occupation every bit as real as that which inspired the Irish Republican Army. There may be no troops on the streets of London or Birmingham, and armored patrol vehicles are nowhere to be seen, at least not yet. But shops are filling high streets which are clearly being used to launder money, pubs and churches are closing, with many having been the subject of planning applications and intended to become mosques, and ever-increasing crime, particularly against women (almost unbelievably, an elderly was allegedly raped recently in the UK by a migrant). Occupation by an invading force creates resistance — a historical given. In middle-class areas, to which the government is turning to house illegal immigrants, many of whom no one knows anything about, the British government know that a few hundred residents in a leafy village will offer no resistance. They will be middle-class and probably voted Green or Liberal Democrat, so Labour are in no danger of losing votes by enraging the locals.

The new British Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, is already proving that, when it comes to word salad, he is a master-chef. The phrase “political rhetoric” is regularly misused in the UK media to mean “language” or “vocabulary”, but classical rhetoric was far more sophisticated than simply explaining how to use a dictionary. Rhetoric deals with how language is employed in order to obtain desired effects in the audience. Aristotle puts it most clearly in his Rhetoric:

It is clear, then, that rhetorical study, in its strict sense, is concerned with the modes of persuasion.

Burnham has so far managed to avoid serious press scrutiny, but on the rare occasions he is pinned down, what comes out of his mouth — apart from lyrics by The Smiths — is pure filler. The art of political speaking now is largely concerned with how to take up time while saying nothing of substance, and Burnham has this down to a fine art. Here is an excerpt from a recent interview, in which the PM is asked about the concerns of residents in a small English town called Piddington, population around 350, who are about to have a migrant camp housing 1,200 young Muslim men placed in the center of a town so small it still qualifies as a “hamlet”:

Well, I have begun to become aware of the campaign in Piddington, and I am absolutely prepared to meet Rex [a seven-year-old boy who wrote to the PM warning of the effects of the new camp].  I will listen to what people are saying and respond to the concerns they are putting forward. I don’t know the issue yet in detail, but in some ways, as I understand it, it is about creating a secure space. … It’s obviously going to be challenging, but I am prepared to listen…

On and on it goes, and I won’t subject you to all of it. It is meaningless drivel dressed up as managerial expertise. But there was one short section that repays inspection:

We cannot have a situation where it’s only the poorest communities in the country that receive all of the dispersal of refugees and asylum-seekers. I do believe all parts of the country need to work to play their part. It’s a challenging issue … and I will look into the issues for the good people of Piddington.

Play their part. It’s almost as though this was a dramatic production, complete with writer and director. Anna Turley is the Government Minister responsible for the invasion force still referred to as “asylum seekers”. As with almost all politicians, she is keen to tell us what her government’s policy is “about”, and Burnham’s stated intention to disperse immigrants to small rural areas is apparently “about fairness”. Small, tightly knit white communities must, she says, take their “fair share” of aggressive, military-age Muslim men, some of whom statistically will be rapists and murderers. We are all aware of what fairness is: equality of opportunity, where appropriate and conducive to the social good. Freedom for all, for example, seems fair, but if that extends to violent criminals, then it becomes unfair to those put at risk by the freedom of those with a predisposition to violence. That is another subject, and no less relevant than immigration, but the idea that there is a “fair share” in terms of violent invaders — often placed near children’s schools — will be difficult for the “good people of Piddington” to process.

Burnham also mentions that he will “address legitimate concerns”, implying that there will be illegitimate concerns. These will probably take the form of social media commentary for which even more White English people will be jailed. But although Burnham has buried his core message in meaningless verbal slop, what he has said is very important for its inevitable consequences. The peasants have revolted before in England, and I refer you to 1381. Now it may be time for a middle-class revolution, and it may be that violent action taken by an Irish band of men everyone thought had faded into history could convert an awful lot of people to the idea of direct action.

The British government has just extended contractual arrangements with various property companies which will ensure that immigration will continue until 2039. There are two important implications of this long-term plan. The first is the simple economic pledge. Immigration is costing the UK a fortune. Many fortunes. What will the compound be like 13 years hence? Secondly, this is more deliberate provocation. And the action of provocation often produces an equal and opposite reaction.

There might be a name for the toleration of illegal violence if it serves to protect ordinary people. London’s most notorious criminals, the Kray Twins, were loved by many residents in the east end of London because they kept peace on the streets and in the houses. They protected ordinary people from crime in a way the police could not do. A burglar today would not think twice today about breaking and entering, not with the state of British policing. But if they knew that Ron and Reg would staple their hands to a snooker table with kitchen knives if they caught them, it’s a lot more of a deterrent than a suspended jail sentence. If the New IRA can provide the same level of violent, ruthless protection to the ordinary, innocent white Irish, they may become just as revered. In Dublin, there are migrants in tents camped beneath statues of Irish rebel heroes who fought for Irish freedom, and these symbolic occupations are not going unnoticed.

One of many ironies about this simmering situation is the role of Sinn Féin. Affiliations have changed since the IRA were known as the “provisional wing” of the party. One nickname for the IRA was “the Provos”. Now, Sinn Féin are all for unlimited immigration, and they have gone from being the IRA’s effective employer to being the enemy. They will be nervous, as the IRA didn’t just blow up random civilians and kneecap informers with power-tools. They killed MP Airey Neave and Lord Mountbatten, then five more people in 1984 — including another MP — at Brighton Hotel in an attempt to kill Margaret Thatcher. Also in 1984, the IRA famously bombed Harrod’s, London’s famous department store in which I was working at the time the 80lb car-bomb went off, killing six (including three police officers) and wounding 86 others.

The Troubles were one of the ugliest chapters in Irish history, and there were violent and ruthless men both on the Republican side, and that of their Loyalist/British enemy. My father was a documentary filmmaker for The Ministry of Defence in the 1970s. Filming in Belfast, he was spoken to by an SAS commander and given clear rules as to what he could and could not record. He pointed at Dad’s cameraman’s equipment, then patted his own Armalite rifle. “If that goes off in my direction”, he said, “this goes off in yours”. What may be coming may not be The Troubles 2.0, but it may trigger something equally violent.