New Grange | Celtic cross | Glendalough | Jews in Ireland | wood sorrel | famine | market day in Connemara | Rising, Dublin debris | black and tan | Northern Ireland Catholic march | Jew museum  in Dublin | orange sash | immigrants Youtube by RealIreland | Scotland | Jacobites | Charlie | Adam Smith | Harry Lauder | Burns
Eire flag supposedly representing only Catholics and ProtestantsScotland

Ireland, Scotland, and Revisionism of Jews

• Cromwell, England, Ireland, Scotland
• France, Spain, Poland
• Roman Catholics, Protestants
• Jews, Freemasons

© Rae West. Ireland begun August 2013. Expanded update 2 June 2016, 21 August 2016, 3 Sept 2016, 23 Oct 2017

Revisionism of Ireland and Scotland   [Object is to investigate Jewish influence v. 2017-04-18] Eire flag Northern Ireland flag
Irish History   [800 years of English Oppression | Cromwell | Religious Battles | 19th Century Propaganda | the Easter Rising | Partition | Freedom at Last—Questions |The unspoken Jewish Question.]
  England: Tudors and Stuarts, and Jews   [Elizabethan era]
  Cromwell and the Colour Orange   [William of Orange, Jews | Cromwell Northern Ireland flag]
  Cromwell and English Translations of the Bible   [1382 - 'King James Bible' 1611 | English Civil Wars 1640 to 1651]
  'Images' of Cromwell   [Historians | Normal People | Jews - Opinions of Cromwell]
  The 'Commonwealth' and the Puritans   [Puritanism and poverty | Jewish destructiveness]
  Jonathan Swift
  Act of Union 1801   [Jews and 'French Revolution' | Distraction of 1798 rebellion Irish harp flag | 1801 Act of Union union flag | Catholic Emancipation]
  Secret Societies   [1823 Unlawful Oaths Bill selective bans | desperate Irish, indebted landlords, secretive Catholics]
  Famine ... or Holodomor?   [Interpretations of the Starvation]
  IRA part 1   [Sinn Fein | Jews and their influence on Irish in USA up to 1916]
  Jewish Activity Around 1900   [Jews in Ireland part of world-wide Jewish conspiracies]
  Ireland and the First World War   [Edward Grey's war | Irish 'leaders' volte face for war against Germany]
  The Easter Rising 1916   [1916 Easter Rising planned like other Jewish violences | Markieviecz | Pearse | Connolly | Ted Grant on divide-and-rule | Skeffington | de Valera]
  The Balfour Declaration   [World-wide significance of Balfour-Rothschild Declaration]
  Partition 1921   [1919-1921 War: Led by British or Jewish Agents?]
  Modern Ireland   [WW2, Jews, Ireland]
Scottish History   [] Scottish flag
  Scotland after the New World Discoveries   []
  Jewish Divisiveness
  Modern Scotland
  Surname Changes e.g. to Scottish Names   [Jews changing their names]
European History and the 'Celtic Fringe'
  Jewish Activity Fingerprints   []

Back to main site

Revisionism and Ireland.
I wrote this article partly as a long-delayed reaction to an incredulous remark by Hilaire Belloc ('I have heard Sinn Feiners called Jews!'); partly after work on Roman Catholicism, and Cromwell, and Jewish actions in the last few hundred years, up to the present day. Partly also to revelations about Shatter, a Jew politician in Ireland who worked for nonwhite invasion.
    It's clear that the influence of Jews in Ireland, as of course in other places, has been almost entirely ignored and suppressed. Many people, naturally enough, will feel history is quite complicated enough, without introducing yet more factors. However, a good hypothesis has the ultimate effect of simplifying explanations. I hope this essay and collection of illustrative excerpts will be helpful towards revisionism of Irish history to include Jewish issues; that's it's main purpose—apologies to those wanting a fully-detailed history of Ireland.
Back to top

Irish History

800 years of English Oppression; Cromwell; Religious Battles; 19th Century Propaganda; the Easter Rising; Partition; Freedom at Last—Questions. And the unspoken Jewish Question.

800 years: The 'Green Book' of the IRA (1977-ish? Quoted in Tim Pat Coogan's The IRA (1970; 1980 inc. Provisional IRA etc; 1987 inc. INLA etc. All emphases, punctuation his):-
The nationhood of all Ireland has been an accepted fact for more than 1,500 years and has been recognised internationally as a fact. Professor Edmund Curtis, writing of Ireland in 800 AD says 'she was the first nation North of the Alps to produce a whole body of literature in her own speech', and he is told how the Danes were driven out or assimilated by a people 'whose civilisation was a shining light throughout Europe', prior to the Norman invasion of 1169 with which there 'commenced more than 8 centuries of RELENTLESS AND UNREMITTING WARFARE that has lasted down to this very day'.
Note that the Book of Kells may be dated around 800 AD. H G Wells in 1921 remarked on Irish critics who complain that Ireland is not represented as a dominant force in the European civilisation in the early Middle Ages, suggesting that the Irish may have been overstating their case, perhaps for some time.

The Norman Invasion date (1169) is about a century after the event of the same name in England, and is clearly intended as the start of the 8 centuries. One has to ask whether, as with William the Bastard, Jews were imported along with Normans and the Lord of Ireland's men. Later, when Edward I expelled Jews from England (1290) one has to wonder whether Gaelic kingdoms (or whatever) and Norman-French overlords (or whatever) also expelled Jews. It's obviously possible they didn't. And it's possible the '800 years' story is a way to remove attention from covert malicious Jewish influence over the last 400 years, and pretend or claim that Jews made no difference.
    Now let's skip a few centuries nearer the present. Here's Joseph McCabe, a Jew-unaware 20th-century opponent of Roman Catholicism, in his Rationalist Encyclopaedia (1948):
The apparently stubborn attachment of the Irish people to the Roman Church has its roots not only in geography - like Poland, Ireland lies on the fringe of European civilization and is largely sheltered from the stimulating clash of cultures which is the main principle of progress - but also in history. It was remote from the ferment of Reformation days, and the fact that England, which it had learned to hate, accepted Protestantism hardened its religious isolation and caused it to lend an ear, until the latter part of the nineteenth century, to the grossest clerical libels of Protestants.

McCabe's full anti-Catholic, implicitly pro-Jew 'rationalist' article
Poland was backward, rural, impoverished, drunken, Roman Catholic, politically unstable, and with a rich minority; McCabe's comparison there, to modern eyes, looks accurate enough. But Poland had large numbers of Jews, whereas Ireland presumably didn't. However, it's clearly possible that unexpelled Jews damaged the Irish.

Back to top

England: Tudors, Stuarts. And Jews

Some comments by Oona Craig to a Youtube on Shakespeare (c. 1 Sept 2016) on Elizabeth I:
... de Vere's pain in hiding his authorship must have been much less than his pain at being deprived of his kingship and at seeing England infiltrated and controlled by Lord Cecil and his co-conspirators, such as John Dee. In "The Secret History of the West," Nicholas Hagger notes that William Cecil, Francis Walsingham and Lord Bacon did not wear doublet and hose but wore black, imitating the black Jewish attire of the Amsterdam Jewish bankers. The implication is that the Cecils were cryptoJews.

At age sixteen Elizabeth I had an illegitimate child by her guardian Thomas Seymour. Seymour was executed, and the birth was covered up by Lord Cecil who placed the child (de Vere) in several homes. In later life Elizabeth, who seems to have been traumatized into mental instability by the constant threat of beheading, seduced her own son, Edward de Vere. She bore his child. Elizabeth and her son entertained the idea of marrying....but not for long. Lord Cecil seems to have convinced Elizabeth that losing the negotiating card of her marriageability would damage the security of her crown (her head). Cecil blackmailed Elizabeth into marrying her son de Vere to his daughter Anne (Ophelia). To make the marriage appropriate for a royal son, Elizabeth raised Cecil's rank by making him Lord Burghley.

... Shakespeare's plays, and movies about Elizabeth I's alleged brilliance, have been a staple of Jewish Acting Propaganda for over 500 years. Because the Hollywood heirs of Polonius are celebrating their successful destruction of the Tudor line . . the same way they still celebrate Purim -- their successful attack on the Persian throne 2000 years ago. The same way they continue to celebrate their successful intrigues and scams against non-Jews by portraying them in Hollywood movies (The Aviator, JFK, Platoon, endless nazi movies....) By celebrating their crimes, the heirs of Polonius are "casting spells." Lord Cecil's Elizabeth I = Mordecai's Queen Esther. Elizabeth I and her "Virgin Queen" propaganda was developed into the sex goddess propaganda (Marilyn Monroe) of Hollywood. In 16th and 17th century England the Jews perfected their witches brew (propaganda, banking, civil war) that they would use subsequently to poison all nations.
Beauclerk's book frequently exposes Cecil's scheming to usurp the royal bloodline by marrying his daughter to de Vere. No doubt the hidden Jewish network throughout Europe was busily engaged in arranging similar intermarriages and infant "doubles." Elizabeth I was blackmailed by Cecil. Given her character, she must have hated him, as did de Vere. But she (unlike de Vere in his youthful impulsiveness) understood the depth of the hidden empire that Cecil represented. She rejected the ideas of marrying de Vere. Not only would it have revealed the lie of the "virgin" queen, but it would have exposed her as the incestuous queen. Telling the truth would have destroyed the Tudor monarchy as surely as Cecil's machinations. Elizabeth decided that her best option was to continue placating Cecil.. Cecil and his covert co-religionists abandoned the Tudors and threw their lot in with the Stuarts...until they abandoned the Stuarts and maneuvered Cromwell in place. Charles II seems to have made a deal with the Banksters to be allowed to be king. The Jews practiced their flair for regicide in England, starting with Elizabethan times.
Beauclerk's identification of de Vere as both Shakespeare and Elizabeth's son was a light bulb moment for me. The Jews are Kabbalists, black magicians who celebrate their victories over their enemies. By blackmailing Elizabeth I and imposing the Puritan mythology of the British aristocracy as the true Israelites, the Jews overthrew Britain from within.... when William Cecil died, the English treasury was empty. On the eve of the attack on the Twin Towers on 9-11 Donald Rumsfeld revealed that the Pentagon, under the budget management of the Jew Dov Zakheim, was missing 2 trillion dollars. Plus ca change....?
...the Flat Earth meme is mentioned by Jewlywood within the first few minutes of the 1953 propaganda movie "Young Bess" starring Jean Peters as Queen Bess, Stewart Granger as Thomas Seymour, and Charles Laughton as Henry VIII. "Bess" and "Charles" claim that whether the earth is Flat or Round is subject to their wishes. The (alleged) controversy of a Globe vs Flat Earth, we have been taught, proved the stupidity of the Roman Church. This (alleged) controversy was used to break the authority of the Roman Church in the propaganda war between the Jews and Catholics.
Perhaps... Charles II cannily sired as many bastards as possible to complicate the Cecils' efforts to replace the Stuarts' royal lineage with the Cecils' banking cuckoos.
It seems to me that the Cecils' Amsterdam co-religionists financed Puritanism, Cromwell, and the regicide of Charles I. Charles II manfully fought back but failed. Later, he struck a deal with the "Protestant" powers (Ersatz Judaism) to be allowed back into England. Charles II may have cultivated the appearance of a playboy as a ploy to lull the Cecils into letting their guard down. Charles II must have hated the Cecils and their network of shabez goyim. Charles did fight back stealthily. He married the Catholic infanta and negotiated secretly with Catholic France to counter the London-Amsterdam Nexus. Charles was hampered by lack of funds, too many traitors to the crown; he died relatively young ...he seems to have been poisoned. The story of Charles II's covert maneuvering with Catholic France to battle the Cecil Network (whose Amsterdam branch financed the regicide of Charles I) would make a great book.

Back to top

Cromwell and the Colour Orange

The next Jews-related piece of history is the advent of Cromwell, the execution of Charles I in 1649, and more or less immediately, the invasion of Ireland. In the revisionist interpretation, the Catholic Church, after the introduction of interest by Henry VIII, was both opposed to Jews for economic reasons, and for traditional religious and anti-Talmudic reasons; and, as is also traditional, the Christians were hated by the Jews. Cromwell's alliance with Dutch Jews, and the entire related 'Orange' connection, followed by the 'Bank of England', was horrifying to the Catholic 'greens'. They must have felt beleaguered after the cataclysm of the Reformation. As in England, and the Continent, the tradition of Roman Catholicism was flatly opposed to the 'orange' Protestant-Jewish elite alliance expressed typically in Freemasonry. No doubt there were money links in the wars 'of religion' which devastated central Europe. But back in Ireland, the financial link and Cromwell's replacement of Irish monarchist nobles led to the plantations. Whether these were economically sound is not known to me. This set the stage for for further Protestant incursions, including, later, industrialism in Belfast.
Note on atrocity stories: the Roman Catholics had the motivation to make up stories to fan hatred. Tom Reilly's Cromwell: An Honourable Enemy (1999) gives sound reasons to suppose the Drogheda massacres were made up by a single disgruntled man. Reilly shows no recognition (as far as I remember) of the Jewish connection. Incidentally, the supposed military genius of Cromwell seems implausible to me; he simply had lots and lots of cannon. The legend reminds me of another legend—that of Napoleon. While on the subject of Cromwell, as the supposed initiator of democracy, here's my unfavourable review of a fairly recent 'left wing' paperback on the Putney Debates.

Back to top

Cromwell and English Translations of the Bible

The importation of Jews, and in particular the unconstitutional founding of the Jewish 'Bank of England', suggest parallels with modern-day USA. Bible-belt fundamentalists and many other types are absurdly pro-Israel, and of course Jews fund many of these very silly fanatics. They seem to believe people calling themselves 'Jews' really are Jews, and that the Old Testament viciousness is a wonderful thing. But something similar must have happened before and in Cromwell's time.
    Here are a few dates (I've excluded earlier civil wars, and details of versions of books of the Bible, and used publication dates which of course understate lengths of time taken to influence people):–
1382, 1388 Full translation (English from Latin) attributed to Wycliffe
1516 Erasmus translates New Testament from Greek to Latin
1534 Luther's complete Bible in German, Jerome's Vulgate (from Latin) plus Old Testament (from Hebrew)
1526 Tyndale New Testament (from Greek into English). Printed in what's now Germany. Bishop of London burns most
1534 Henry VIII decides that there shall be an official English Bible
1535 Miles Coverdale's Bible dedicated to Henry VIII
1537 Matthew's Bible, a Protestant annotated version
1604-1611 King James Bible (also called the Authorized Version) by forty-seven scholars between 1604 and 1611

I haven't attempted to list disputes: how the original documents were selected, whether translations should be made at all, what should be done with words of uncertain meaning, what effects did the invention of printing have, who were burnt or otherwise prevented from studying, translation, and publishing. I'm just drawing attention to the obvious fact that popular views of 'Jews' must have switched, between 1516-1611 and beyond, from mediaeval attitudes to attitudes similar to those of Bible-belt Americans. Cromwell himself no doubt felt this, as witness his own wording of what he thought of as historical parallels.

First English Civil War 1640-1642
Second English Civil War 1648-1649
Third English Civil War 1650-1651 (My review of Gerrard Winstanley's writings).

Back to top

'Images' of Cromwell: Historians, Normal People, Jews
The Jewish part of the 'English Civil War' has been, and still is, ignored by most historians. The only exceptions seem to be popular historians, but even they seem only to be permitted to publish if the whole subject is disguised with unneeded complexities. One such popular historian was or is Hugh Ross Williamson: No English lawyer could be found to draw up the charge (against King Charles I), which was eventually entrusted to an accommodating alien, Isaac Dorislaus and descriptions of Cromwell utterly unlike the Puritan stern roundhead, as an actor, pleading and ranting to get his way. The full costs, in every sense, of the civil war are muted and romanticised and left unassessed; no doubt to pretend that the harm done, and wreckage caused, and censorship and lies enforced by Cromwell, and the debts left behind, were not very grave. As with the Holodomor, Jews will never acknowledge disasters. Probably the 'Civil War' was vastly more evil than usually realised; certainly Jews would not want Britons to say "never again!" to Jews. It appears that normal people, and not official historians, nor Jews, will have to separate out the covert Jew influences in Britain, and try to find accurate simplified ways to remove their power..

Back to top

The 'Commonwealth' and Cromwell as 'Protector' | The Puritans ...
From today's revisionist perspective, part of the process of interpretation is to decipher the 'useful idiots' supporting Cromwell for supposedly ideological reasons. The 'Puritans' (I'm not even attempting to separate out the various groups, their names and nicknames, and their ideologies); but Puritanism, a reaction against ostentation and display as attributed to Roman Catholicism, seems to be part of the drama. Churches, ornaments, glass, precious metal artefacts, church murals and so on were wrecked, damaged, and destroyed.
    As might be expected, when Cromwell had done his work and the Jewish 'Bank of England' in construction, these 'enthusiasts' seem to have been dropped, more or less discreetly, in exactly the same way that working class interests were dropped by the 'Labour' party in Britain.

    ... and the story of Cromwell's exhumation, and the display of his skull on a pole in London (from 1661) — obviously has to be reconsidered, especially in the light of subsequent events and experience with Jewish-backed dictators and their propagandist support mechanisms.

Back to top

Jonathan Swift
Swift (1667-1745) was born after the Civil Wars, Cromwell, auction of Ireland, and (((Bank of England))) and lived in Ireland most of his life, in Dublin. It seems possible some of his writing was an investigation, or protest, or complaint against events before and during his life. Including various 'Jewish' idiocies. Hence his reputation as a 'satirist': it's difficult to see how he might have clearly stated what he believed. For example:
  • A Tale of a Tub (1704), his satire of the development of Christianity must include contrasts between the professed aims of Christianity and actual behaviour. These of course must include the civil wars in England.
  • Gulliver's Travels (1726) has linguistic bits and pieces suggestive of Hebrew.
  • The scientists and projectors in Gulliver seem to have been taken from real-life projects, not just made up.
  • I suggest a reason for his popularity was simply the feeling among readers that here we have some secret truths. Conversely, as the hidden meanings become more remote, his popularity would be expected to transmute into a token appreciation. Probably 19th century collection of Swift's complete works mark the crossing-point; so probably the multi-volume Victorian works might prove the most rewarding for investigators.

Back to top

Act of Union 1801 between Ireland and England
From Miss Cecil Woodham-Smith's The Great Hunger (1962); she was an author of the old school, not an officially accredited historian; her sources were collections of letters, personal contacts with detailed information on fungus and blight, poor laws and so on, minute books, librarians, curators. But not on banking and finance. This is from her first chapter:-

    On January 1, 1801, an event of enormous importance had taken place—the Act of Union between Ireland and England became operative. The two countries were made one, the economy of Ireland was assimilated into the economy of England, the Irish Parliament at Dublin disappeared and the Parliament at Westminster henceforward legislated for both countries. ...
    Free Trade ... meant that the discrimination [not described - R]... against Irish industry would come to an end; ... Ireland would gain the capital she desperately needed for development, while the hundred Irish Members ... would give Ireland, for the first time, a voice in Imperial affairs. Further, an impression had been created that when the Union became law Catholic emancipation would immediately follow. [Woodham-Smith makes no attempt to distinguish the Catholic priestly hierarchy from their no doubt gullible followers] ...
    The reality, however, was very different. The primary object of the Union was not to assist and improve Ireland but to bring her more completely into subjection.
    Two years earlier, in 1798, the Irish had rebelled. England was in extreme danger, passing through the darkest days of her struggle with revolutionary France, and the rebels of '98 were assisted by French troops and with French money. [Note: in fact Napoleon was blockaded by the British Navy. As to the money, this is generally believed to have been provided by Jews] The rebellion was put down with savagery, the strength of the army in Ireland was increased to a hundred thousand men, and the Union followed. England tightened her hold over Ireland; rebellious action, it was hoped, would henceforth become impossible.
    ... after bribery on a scale which history has seldom witnessed, and a generous distribution of places of profit and titles, "Union titles," the Act of Union became law.
    As the years passed, however, no happiness resulted. [To the Irish, she means; she provides no clear estimates of rents from Ireland, or other economics] Free Trade ... enabled England to use Ireland as a market for surplus English goods; Irish industry collapsed, unemployment was widespread, and Dublin, now that an Irish Parliament sat no longer College Green, became a half-dead city. ... Catholic emancipation was only achieved, after a desperate struggle, in 1829.
    Ireland besought a repeal of the Union, and by 1843 the strength of the demand was seriously disquieting to the British Government. ...

[Then material on "Swaggering Dan" O'Connell. And on Catholicism; Woodham-Smith is entirely unaware of Jewish influence, as witness this passage: 'Freedom for Ireland meant Philip of Spain and the Inquisition in place of Elizabeth I, it meant James II instead of William III, it even meant, since misery and oppression make strange bedfellows, the victory of Napoleon. ... In Ireland the name of Elizabeth I stands only for the horrors of her Irish conquest; in the defeat of the Armada, Ireland's hopes of independence went down; above all, with the name of William III and the glorious revolution of 1688, the very foundation of British liberties, the Catholic Irishman associates only the final subjugation of his country and the degradation and injustice of the penal laws. ...' She doesn't see the links between Cromwell's funding by Dutch Jews to invade Ireland and kill Charles, the 'glorious revolution' meaning the importation of Jews and the Bank 'of England', the French Revolution as thefts funded by Jews, the "Union titles" (who got them?) and the rack renting of Ireland under absentee landlords. Nor does she seem aware of the move of Jews from Venice to what we call Holland now, then Holland to England, due to the possibilities of paper money and of the New World.]

Back to top

Secret Societies
Throughout the entire post-Reformation period, there's a sense that most people, 'ordinary' people, weren't interest in violence against their fellow-Irish, or the immigrants in the north-east. But there's also a sense that violence was continually being provoked. This is in odd contrast to the idea that England oppressed the Irish for eight hundred years. Just as (probably) Scottish clans killed more Scots than anyone else, and Alexander killed more Greeks than non-Greeks. The song She's the most distressful country that ever yet was seen/ For they're hanging men and women there for Wearing of the Green (dated around 1800) captures the rather paranoid self-important nationalism of the small island, rather inconsistently using the foreign language of English. Meanwhile the political manoeuvring went on; this is from the Jew-controlled Wikipedia. It obviously was an attempt target some secret societies: Jesuits perhaps rather than Freemasons, and the even more secret ones which might provide violent opposition:
On 19 July 1823 the Unlawful Oaths Bill was passed, banning all oath-bound societies in Ireland. This included the Orange Order, which had to be dissolved and reconstituted. In 1825 a bill banning unlawful associations - largely directed at Daniel O'Connell and his Catholic Association, compelled the Orangemen once more to dissolve their association. When Westminster finally granted Catholic Emancipation in 1829, Roman Catholics were free to take seats as MPs (and take up various other positions of influence and power from which they had been excluded) and play a part in framing the laws of the land.
Here's a possibly romanticised account; the assumption that 'revolution' must be the way forward is (arguably) a Jewish false intrusion:-
' ... a tradition of revolutionary activity which had flickered sporadically and unsuccessfully since Wolfe Tone's rebellion in 1798; during Robert Emmet's insurrection of 1803; the Young Irelanders' outbreak of 1848; and the abortive Fenian uprising of 1867. ..' [p 27 IRA]
'... The fact was that a large number of Irish landlords were hopelessly insolvent. The extravagance of their predecessors, the building of over-large mansions, reckless expenditure on horses, hounds and conviviality, followed by equally reckless borrowing, had brought very many landowners to a point where, however desperate the needs of their tenantry, they were powerless to give any help. ...' [The Great Hunger]
All Irish accounts seem to take it for granted that things were much better in England. However, revisionist material on (e.g.) press gangs and impressment, enclosures, slaves who were white, and so on might lead to different views.

Note also the natural resources argument. Italy had mineral water, said Mussolini. But Ireland arguably hasn't much: inevitable poverty of the country, which has almost no mineral resources was Joseph McCabe's comment. The Catholic Church played a part in keeping rebellions down:-
In the latter part of the [19th] century the British Government repeatedly and secretly made agreements - the official life of Leo XIII, by Mgr. T'Serclaes (1894), describes this - with the ecclesiastical authorities and the Vatican, by which the people were checked in their revolt against Great Britain as payment for concessions to the Church...

Back to top

Famine? Starvation? Holocaust? ... or Holodomor?
Miss Cecil Woodham-Smith's The Great Hunger (1962) is (probably) still the best-known book on the subject. But, in common with virtually all published histories, it has great limitations. For the sake of giving actual examples, the sorts of things missing are:-

  As an Amazon review put it, ' ... there is one significantly important issue which Woodham-Smith fails to answer: when the starving were selling their worldly possessions to get money for food, who was buying them? And how did those who did not die from starvation manage to survive? Were they able to obtain food from alternative sources? Did they grow their own foodstuffs? Was it only families with few children to feed who survived? ..'
  She treats Ireland in isolation. I've read claims that potato blight was in fact widespread in other countries n Europe.
  She mentions '... the indisputable fact that huge quantities of food were exported from Ireland to England ... when the people of Ireland were dying of starvation. "During all the famine years," wrote John Mitchel ... "Ireland was ... producing sufficient food, wool and flax, to feed and clothe not nine but eighteen millions of people"; ...' which contrasts weirdly with her comments on much of Ireland having nothing but potatoes as crops. I'd guess these were produced in farms, possibly modern by the standards of the times, with access to ports. (Ireland's west coast had I think only one good port). This suggests the exported produce was planned for sale in England. Unfortunately she's not very good on statistics and can't give accurate word-pictures.
  Her lack of historical perspective. There have been famines throughout history; possibly fewer than might be expected, in view of the number of things that can go wrong—herds and rustling, crops and theft, irrigation failure, ravages of rodents, locusts and other insect attacks, moulds and rots, failures in preservation, deliberate starvation... During the Second World War there was famine in Bengal, when crops were stolen to feed the important work of supporting Stalin and American Jewry. The Boers were subjected to famine. Vietnamese women were forced into prostitution to eat.
  There's an issue of farming competence: South America's climate makes soil dryish and stony; it seems likely enough the land wasn't drained well. Though I agree peasants with no land tenure, regarded by absentee landlords, who were probably simply given titles to land, as sources of rent, wouldn't have much motive to work hard.
    And there's a technology issue: much of Ireland had no roads; there was no infrastructure, not much in the way of containers, metal vessels, storage barns... Today, there are Hercules aircraft, tins and packages, cases of food, trucks, forklifts and so on. Not then.
    Worth mentioning the possibility that blight may have been spread deliberately.

The following extract comes from a website which includes details of English regiments which enforced the removal of food from Ireland. Some of the documents are public; some have 'gone missing'.
G B Shaw's quoted comment shows why The Great Starvation is the preferred version of many people; Irish-descended Americans for example.
Official British intent at the time is revealed by its actions and enactments. When the European potato crop failed in 1844 and food prices rose, Britain ordered regiments to Ireland. When blight hit the 1845 English potato crop, its food removal regiments were already in Ireland; ready to start. The Times editorial of September 30, 1845, warned; "In England the two main meals of a working man's day now consists of potatoes." England's potato-dependence was excessive; reckless. Grossly over-populated relative to its food supply, England faced famine unless it could import vast amounts of alternative food. But it didn't grab merely Ireland's surplus food; or enough Irish food to save England. It took more; for profit and to exterminate the people of Ireland. Queen Victoria's economist, Nassau Senior [Note: Jewish], expressed his fear that existing policies "will not kill more than one million Irish in 1848 and that will scarcely be enough to do much good." When an eye-witness urged a stop to the genocide-in-progress, Trevelyan replied: "We must not complain of what we really want to obtain." Trevelyan insisted that all reports of starvation were exaggerated, until 1847. He then declared it ended and refused entry to the American food relief ship Sorciére. Thomas Carlyle; influential British essayist, wrote; "Ireland is like a half-starved rat that crosses the path of an elephant. What must the elephant do? Squelch it - by heavens - squelch it." "Total Annihilation;" suggested The Times leader of September 2, 1846; and in 1848 its editorialists crowed "A Celt will soon be as rare on the banks of the Shannon as the red man on the banks of Manhattan." The immortal Society of Friends, the "Quakers," did all in their power to save lives. But in 1847 they despaired and quit, upon learning that the Crown planned to perpetuate the genocide's pretext; the British claim of "ownership" of Irish land. Quakers refused to facilitate the genocide by pretending (as Concern does re African genocides) it was an act of nature. In the 1870s; too late; British laws were enacted allowing the Irish to buy back the land of which Britain had robbed them. Twice-yearly payments were extracted from Ireland's farmers until that "debt" was paid off in the 1970s.     Ireland's diet, since pre-history, has been meat, dairy products, grains, fruit and vegetables; latterly supplemented by potatoes. Central to its ancient legends are its livestock, reaping hooks, flails, querns, and grain-kilns and -mills. The many Connacht grain-kilns and -mills shown on the Irish Ordnance Survey Map of 1837-1841 operated continually prior to, during the Starvation, and subsequent to it until the 1940s when I observed them still working. Local farmers dried and milled their grain - not potatoes - in them, and this oatmeal and flour were seized and exported by British forces.     The "potato famine" Big Lie was underway and already denounced by John Mitchel in his United Irishman in 1847 (he was soon sent in chains to a Tasmanian death camp; but escaped). Fifty years later G.B. Shaw wrote in Man and Superman: "Malone: 'My father died of starvation in Ireland in the Black '47. Maybe you've heard of it?' Violet: 'The Famine?' Malone: (with smoldering passion) 'No, the Starvation. When a country is full of food and exporting it, there can be no Famine.'" But he kept mum on the British army's role; Ireland's whole-truth-tellers don't receive Nobels. To date, the Big Lie prevails. ...
My point here is (of course) that the author accepts the Jewish mythology (and in effect disregards mass starvation by Jews in what was the Soviet Union). The Holodomor (and the Bengal famine; the Armenian genocide was more overtly violent) has similarities with Ireland: a relatively small area, neighbouring a larger area; a food growing place; and with food removed forcibly.

Back to top

IRA part 1
McCabe: The Sinn Fein Movement was at first an anti-clerical, mainly middle-class, organization, which the Church captured, and the Irish Republican Army was in large part Atheistic. In the Jewish vocabulary, this was 'bourgeois'.

Here's T P Coogan:-
.. Connolly .. succeeded Larkin as head of the Irish Transport and General Workers Union, and having himself founded in 1896 the Irish Socialist Republican Party. (In 1903, while living in America he was to become a co-founder of the International Workers League.) ... by 1916 Connolly's continual incitements to riot and rebellion were such an embarrassment to the I.R.B.'s plans that it co-opted him onto the Supreme Council, and he, with Joseph Plunkett, worked out the plans for the Rising of April 24.
Connolly, no doubt influenced by Americanised Jewish 'communists' and the Jewish-run unions when he was in the USA, appears to have been what is often called a 'Marxist'. Note that there seem to have been no plans found; and the funding and organisation and arming of 2,000 men in complete secrecy seems to be never described. I'd suggest it was a Jewish-promoted group. But of course trying to infer the plan is like trying to infer an atlas from interviews with sea captains, or trying to work out what legal code rules a country by looking at legal judgments. As we'll see, the Irish events bear a close similarity to many other events promoted in secret by Jews.
There is no need to go into the oft-told story of the events of that week. The insurgents fought with typical Irish gallantry, attacked by soldiers using artillery and outnumbering them twenty to one. Cut off from all possible support from the country, or from reinforcement of any kind, they held out for almost a week, during which Dublin was badly damaged and over three thousand people died. The leaders knew their rising was bound to fail, ... [p 15]
p 378 ... In 1956 .. fields ... in the South looked the way the countryside looks in childhood.. overgrown, bounded by enormous hedges and ditches and as likely to be occupied by rabbits, hares, ... crows, ... pigeons, or occasional foxes or badgers as by cattle and sheep. The fields in the north were neat trim agricultural units. ... The man on whose land I stood had memories of ... dances and card games, cups of tea in neighbours' houses, rabbit hunting, hay-making, bringing in the harvest ... Today ... it is two miles to the nearest shop and three to the local school. They have no car .. [he] is in the I.R.A. and 'immediate and violent revolution' is his solution... [1970 edition]

Back to top

Jewish Activity Around 1900
1904: the supposed 'Limerick Pogrom' illustrates that some of the Irish were Jews aware.
The founding of the Federal Reserve in 1913
is arguably the most important root of 20th century problems.
See the chronology at the start of that article if you are unfamiliar with Jewish-related events.

Back to top

Ireland and the First World War
There seems no doubt the 'Great War' had a unifying effect on England and Ireland, or at least appeared to; and probably complicated deals were done behind the scenes.
House of Commons Debate 22 August 1916
Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR Let me refer to the condition of Ireland in 1914. Everybody will remember that momentous night when Sir Edward Grey, now Viscount Grey, made what was practically a declaration of war. In the course of his speech the Foreign Secretary made the observation that the one bright spot in the situation was the condition of Ireland. That speech of the Foreign Secretary was immediately followed by what I may now call the historic speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond). I do not think anyone who is not acquainted, as I am, with the Irish race in the various parts of the world, including some of our own Dominions, 2559 can appreciate the momentous importance of that pronouncement of my hon. and learned Friend. It had immediate consequences all over the Irish world. In the United States there are many millions of our people, most of them, either through themselves or their ancestors, the victims of cruel wrong and enforced emigration. I venture to say that 80 or 90 per cent. of our race in the United States accepted the policy of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford and became the friends of the just cause of the Allies in this War. In Ireland there was a very remarkable and to me an astonishing state of things. I think even those who were formerly my political opponents will not question that I have devoted the greater part of my political career to an endeavour to bring about a reconciliation of the mass of the English and Irish races. I hoped to see them reconciled, but I must confess that I never anticipated that I should see more than a beginning of the reconciliation in my time. I thought it would require a generation or two after my generation had passed away to bring full and complete good will between the two countries. But I saw in Ireland a change of heart so deep, so wide, and so prompt as to make it a matter of surprise to me.

    Let me illustrate it by a few instances. I spoke of the Irish in America. In 1867 two Fenian prisoners were rescued by a body of Irishmen from a prison van. A police constable was killed in the course of the disturbance. I think he was killed accidentally. Five men were put on their trial for their lives. They were all convicted and sentenced to death. One of them was immediately released, three of of them were executed, and one spent nine years in penal servitude. This gave the impetus to the national movement in Ireland, and the memory of these men is still celebrated. The fourth man, who was reprieved because he was an American citizen, and who served ten years' penal servitude, was named Edward O'Megher Condon. If any man would have had bitter feelings against this country, one would have thought it would have been that man, but, marvellous to say, Edward O'Megher Condon, sentenced to death and a convict for ten years, brought up in a school of hatred of this country and its institutions, the child of evicted tenants driven out of Ireland, declared himself on the side of the Allies. ...

Back to top

The Easter Rising 1916
First of all, let's see a paragraph from the so-called Encyclopædia Britannica (15th edn, 1976; vol 3, section 'Britain and Ireland, History of'; all spelling and capitalisation retained):–

Encyclopædia Britannica

Meanwhile in Ireland, the revolutionary element gained support from those alienated by Redmond's pro-British attitude. Before the end of 1914 the Irish Republican Brotherhood had made full plans for a revolutionary outbreak. Sir Roger Casement went to Germany to solicit help; but he obtained only obsolete arms and was himself arrested on his return to Ireland on April 21, 1916. When the rising took place three days later, on Easter Monday, only about 2,000 of the small force available were actually engaged. A provisional Republic government was proclaimed. the General Post Office and other parts of Dublin were seized; street fighting continued for about a week until Patrick Pearse and other Republican leaders were forced to surrender. Their subsequent execution aroused Irish public opinion and led to the defeat and virtual extinction of Redmond's constitutional party at Westminster in the General Election of December 1918. Their successful opponents, calling themselves Sinn Féin but supporting the Republican program announced in 1916, were led by Eamon de Valera, a surviving leader of the Rising. Again the Republicans set up their provisional government, elected by the Irish members of Parliament at a meeting in Dublin called Dáil Éirann, the "Irish Assembly." This provided a constitutional facade when British government was rapidly breaking down except in the northeastern counties. Simultaneously, the Irish Republican Army (IRA) was organized to resist British Administration and to secure recognition for the Republican government. Its members soon engaged in widespread ambushes and attacks on barracks, while the government retaliated with ruthless reprisals. A large proportion of the Irish police resigned and were replaced by English recruits, known from their temporary uniforms as the Black and Tans.
Let's now look at a gung-ho adventure book account of this incident. The extracts are from the chapter 'Easter in Dublin' by W G C Shebbeare, from Fifty Mutinies, Rebellions and Revolutions published about 1938. I pick this because political correctness is possibly less to the forefront in a military adventure style account, even with Jewish publishers. Shebbeare contributed other chapters on Spain and Russia; the surname and outlook (and publisher) suggest Shebbeare was Jewish:–

Easter in Dublin by W G C Shebbeare

... Nobody took much notice as Sinn Fein Volunteers went in twos and threes through the streets of Dublin. They appeared to be walking aimlessly.
    They were not walking aimlessly. Every man had his post. He went to it. Noon was the zero hour. ... on the stroke of twelve the Sinn Feiners entered the buildings to which they had been appointed and took control of them. The occupants were bundled out: or offered the choice of being shot. ...
    ... The [rail] stations were naturally places that the rebels went for. ... Thew important thing was to stop trains carrying troops from reaching Dublin. ... And this was done. For a whole week ... Troops had to disembark from their trains several miles out of the city.
    Then, any big hotel or private house which had a commanding position ... was seized. ... specially ... in areas through which any Government reinforcements would have to pass. Bridges ... Workhouses, factories [including Jacobs Biscuit Factory] and newspaper offices, the Law Courts [this may be a typo for 'Four Courts'], were all attacked and armed rebels installed ... They had arms, they had vantage points—and they had the full sympathy of most citizens. [Note: probably a lie]. ... One part of the plan failed. That was the assault on Dublin Castle [which] ... typified the iron heel of British rule. [One policeman was shot by a rifle; but 'the gates' of the Castle were shut.] ... ... they decided to occupy ... the building of the Express newspaper. Many surrounding [shop] ... windows were broken and .. the rebels ... were able to climb to the roof-tops. From there they kept up a steady fire at the Castle and at any soldiers who happened to come in sight.
      ... Sinn Feiners ... at St Stephens Green Park ... They soon had a fully-fledged trench system. Their leader throughout the week's fighting was the courageous and beautiful Countess Markieviecz ...
      An attempt was made at the very beginning ... to blow up the magazine fort [in Phoenix Park] ... the explosion would have been terrific ...
      Of all attacks ... the most vital was that on the General Post Office. ... it remained the central fortress ... From the {Post Office came the proclamations of the "Provisional Government of the Irish Republic." The original ... was "We hereby proclaim the Irish Republic as a Sovereign Independent State. The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness of the whole nation, oblivious to the differences carefully fostered by as alien government, which have divided a minority from the majority in the past. We place the cause of the Irish Republic under the protection of Most High God."
      This proclamation was signed by seven man [not named; they appear to have been Patrick Pearse, James Connolly, Thomas Clarke, Sean MacDermott, Joseph Mary Plunkett, Eamonn Ceannt, and Thomas MacDonagh] ... The leader was P. H. Pearse, the "President."
      ... the Sinn Feiners had a very strong case. ... this right had been virtually recognised by the British Government. There was on the statute book a Home Rule Act. Yet this Act had not been brought into force ... Because the Orangemen had formed themselves into a rebellious army ... and had been supplied with arms by Germany and with leaders by the British Tory party. ... it was very exasperating for the Irish for whom Home Rule meant everything in life worth fighting for. They felt they were just being duped over again. And discontent grew very great. It was reinforced by the sending of large sums of money from America, where Ireland had many sympathisers. [Note: Casement is NOT mentioned anywhere] ...
      [Long account of British fighting back, which sounds ham fisted, and involved thousands of troops, martial law, gunboats shelling Dublin, maxim guns etc. Whether civilians were warned or advised or helped is not stated.] ... over 200 buildings had been burned and the extent of the damage was two and a half million pounds.
      On Wednesday ... something of a sensation [was afterwards created because] three Dublin journalists, the best known of whom was Mr. Francis Sheehy Skeffington ... had been captured the night before... Mr. Sheehy Skeffington said that he was in sympathy with Sinn Fein but that he was opposed to militarism. He therefore had no part in the rising. ... The three men were ... shot. ... [the commanding officer] was court-martialled ... and found insane ...
      ... The tactics of the [British] military were slowly to narrow the ring round the Post Office. Men .. crept up side-streets and alleys. They occupied houses, they drove rebels out of poorly defended buildings, they liquidated snipers perched on roofs. ... the great ring closed in on the rebel headquarters.
      Friday saw the bombardment grow fiercer. And by the evening the whole place was on fire again. ... The whole Post Office, still the rebel headquarters, was rapidly consumed in flames. ... The Hotel Metropole and great blocks of palatial buildings that formerly adorned the principal streets of Dublin were reduced to ruins. By Saturday morning the whole area was a wilderness. Here and there you could see a low naked wall jutting out among the debris. The rest was a shambles...
      [Connolly was shot] Some two thousand Sinn Feiners were taken over to England and interned there. Most were allowed to return .. after about six or eight months. Other[s] ... were released when a General Amnesty as proclaimed a year after the rising. [i.e. late October - December, 1916]
      One sentence [sic; only one?] is worth noticing. A handsome, hawk-faced young man came before the court-martial. ... who had been in supreme command of this vital area [Ringsend, by the waterfront] was sentenced to death. His name was Eamon de Valera. His sentence was commuted into one of penal servitude. ...
Let's look at some of the dramatis personae from that passage.

Countess Markieviecz: (1868-1927) A once-famous woman, the first female MP in the British House of Commons, though she never attended. She was (in her youth) the joint subject of a poem by Yeats. Born in Ireland a Gore-Booth, she went to the Slade in London, and then to Paris, Bohemian-style. She married Count Casimir Markievicz from a wealthy family. 'Markievicz' seems likely to be a Jewish name, judging by Polish surname databses. She was involved in Irish politics from about age 40 (her artistic achievements seem perhaps wisely undiscussed).

Patrick Pearse:- 'The Sinn Fein movement consisted of liberty-loving Irishmen who were brave enough and grand enough to offer up their lives to speed the day of freedom and self-government for their long-suffering fellow-countrymen. The leaders may have miscalculated in the making of their plans and been precipitate in executing them but they set the example of heroic self-sacrifice and paid the penalty with their lives. Pearse, the provisional president, was one of the most cultured of men and one of the bravest that ever gave his life to the cause of freedom. Skeffington was eminent as a humanitarian and though he had not even an active part in the outbreak, he was shot like a dog without even the semblance of a trial. ...' —or so at least wrote Eugene V. Debs, a Jew in America, in 1916.

Here's another much later view, post-1945, of Pearse (from the 'Dublin Tours' website) in which the post-1945 conventional vocabulary is used:-
Patrick Pearse & The Birth of Irish Fascism
When we look at the life of Patrick Pearse we focus on defining the man as the Irish teacher, barrister, poet, or writer, and the man who calmed nationhood. But few Irish historians will even touch upon Pearse as the Roman Catholic nationalist zealot. Or ask the question 'was 1916 rebellion the birth of Irish fascism'? The title of Ruth Dudley Edwards Book "Patrick Pearse: The Triumph of Failure" aptly describes the life and dead of Pearse, and the republicanism which he and his fellow rebel leaders advocated in 1916.
      Born into a lower middle class family Pearse was influenced by the Gaelic revival of the 1890's and very much a by-product of Celtic Nationalism which emanated from that revival. A resumption that defined Irishness on cultural and religious grounds; to be thoroughly Irish, one had to be thoroughly Roman Catholic and nationalist. There was no room for democracy, bearing in mind that in 1916 Ireland had a fully functional democracy. Nor was there room for diversity of national identity in Pearse's republic. As an "idealist psychopath" Pearse armed his generation to murder, mostly unarmed citizens and children, and by doing so he set in train the legacy of republican violence for political ends.

Plus lots on the blueshirts, Spain, Roman Catholics, and Franco.

Here's Frenchman Dominique Venner (1925-2013) on rebels, translated in :-
Just the opposite of Morand and Jünger, the Irish poet Patrick Pearse was an authentic rebel. He might even be described as a born rebel. When a child, he was drawn to Erin's long history of rebellion. Later, he associated with the Gaelic Revival, which laid the basis of the armed insurrection. A founding member of the first IRA, he was the real leader of the Easter Uprising in Dublin in 1916. This was why he was shot. He died without knowing that his sacrifice would spur the triumph of his cause.

A fourth, again very different example [of rebels] is Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Until his arrest in 1945, he had been a loyal Soviet, having rarely questioned the system into which he was born and having dutifully done his duty during the war as a reserve officer in the Red Army. His arrest and then his subsequent discovery of the Gulag and the horrors that occurred after 1917, provoked a total reversal, forcing him to challenge a system which he once blindly accepted. This is when he became a rebel—not just against Communist, but capitalist society, both of which he saw as destructive of tradition and opposed to superior life forms.

The reasons that made Pearse a rebel were not the same that made Solzhenitsyn a rebel. It was the shock of certain events, followed by a heroic internal struggle, that made the latter a rebel. What they both have in common, what they discovered through different ways, was the utter incompatibility between their being and the world in which they were thrown. This is the first trait of the rebel. The second is the rejection of fatalism. ...

James Connolly: (by Ted Grant, 1966) ... It is impossible to understand the Easter Rising without understanding the ideas of its leader, James Connolly, who considered himself a Marxist and based himself on the ideas of Internationalism and the class struggle. Like MacLean in Britain, Lenin and Trotsky, Liebknecht and Luxemburg and other Internationalists, Connolly regarded with horror the betrayal by the leaders of the Labour movement in all countries in supporting the Imperialist War. [i.e. First World War - the blood of the Easter Rising in 1916, undertaken by a couple of thousand Irish revolutionaries 'at a time when some 210,000 Irishmen from both north and south were fighting and dying in the trenches to save Europe from rampant German militarism'.] Dealing with the betrayal of the Second International, Connolly declared in his paper The Workers Republic: "If these men must die, would it not be better to die in their own country fighting for freedom for their class, and for the abolition of war, than to go forth to strange countries and die slaughtering and slaughtered by their brothers that tyrants and profiteers might live?"

Connolly clearly was Jewish-influenced, a gullible type, a useful idiot who died during the rising: no doubt a dispensable goy.

This is Ted Grant on divide-and-rule, an exit policy which he attributes to Britain: The deliberate sowing of national and religious hatred between Catholic and Protestant in Ireland was yet another crime of British imperialism. In order to defeat the revolutionary struggle of the Irish people, the British resorted to the same tactic of 'divide and rule' which they later used in India, Palestine and Cyprus. Yet there is nothing inevitable about this. The unity in struggle of the poor Protestants and Catholics at decisive moments runs like a red thread through the whole of Irish history. The first great war of Irish independence, the revolutionary movement of the 'United Irishmen' at the close of the 18th century was led by an ex-Protestant freethinker and revolutionary, Wolfe Tone. Only one of the leaders came from a Catholic background.

Note that Grant has no idea whether Jews and Jewish money played a part, for example at the time of Napoleon. He gives other examples of workers' activities, but has no idea that Jews were behind such activity in say 1905 in Russia: ... under the leadership of James Larkin, the Catholic and Protestant workers united in the great Belfast strike of 1907. The Dublin Lock-out in 1913 saw solidarity from Protestant workers, who collected food and aid to back the strike. In 1919, the predominantly Protestant workers of Belfast organised what was, in effect, a soviet. And in the 1930s, workers of both communities combined in the struggle against unemployment. ...

Finally, note this comment by Grant, which is strikingly similar to the idea that non-whites cannot be 'racist' and Jews are 'not racist': ... At bottom, it is a class question. The emancipation of the Irish people can only be won through the emancipation of the working class, which has no interest in any form of national or religious oppression.

Francis Sheehy Skeffington: His son, Owen, 1909-1970, was friendly with 'Tony Cliff' (Yigael Gluckstein, 1917-2000) who was in effect a religious Trotskyist as opposed to a religious Stalinist. Gluckstein's entire world revolved around inhuman Jewish-controlled faux 'socialism'. He was (for example) a believer in 'historical materialism', the truth of Stakhanov's coal cutting figures, and Stalinism as 'state capitalism'! I would guess Sheehy-Skeffington's father was a 'socialist' in the same phoney sense; maybe this explains the officer's impulse to shoot him in 1916.

Eamon de Valera: Born in New York (1882-1975) As noted in the passage above, de Valera was spared, despite supposedly being a dauntless fighter for the Sinn Feiners. Whether he really was needs research effort which I'm not willing to make. However de Valera is a Marrano Jew name (i.e. covert Jew in Spain) and of course generally in Jewish violence Jews are spared, and Christians/goyim are not. Note that all the main leaders of the rising were executed; why should this one have been spared? I'm tempted to point to a parallel here, between Fidel Castro and Che Guevara. One of them lived; one died. One is a Marrano Jew; the other wasn't. De Valera presumably would have been funded secretly and expected to follow supposed Jewish interests.

2009 book claims he was a British spy; this of course is consistent with being a Jew Orangemen: The 'Orange Order' is some sort of Freemasonry, with of course secret meetings and decisions. Named after William of Orange who brought Jews back into Britain after Cromwell and others killed Charles I; the so-called 'Glorious Revolution'. From 1921 to 1969, every Prime Minister of Northern Ireland was an Orangeman. It follows the Jewish policy of divide-and-rule, promoting Protestantism, although it's obvious enough most orange supporters have no theological ideas, and celebrating wars in which Protestants fought Catholics, and being anti-Irish nationalist, as opposing any other than Jewish cohesiveness is a Jewish preoccupation.

Back to top

Balfour Declaration
Selected from many comments, this is an attempt to situate the Balfour Declaration in ever-wider revisionism.

Back to top

1921 Partition and British Agents

Here is an article Were most of the Irish leaders of the 1919-21 War really British agents?
taken from Internet.

This, slightly tidied up, version is stored on this site, but is a bit long for inclusion within this article. The thesis is that these men: Michael Collins, de Valera, Mulcahy, Erskine Childers, O'Higgins, Dermot O'Hegarty, Bulmer Hobson, Dr Patrick McCartan, Denis McCullough, Sean T O'Kelly, Robert Brennan, Ernest Blythe, Cathal Brugha, Liam Lynch, Ernie O'Malley, Gavan Duffy, Duggan, Barton, Chartres, Sceilg and others were British agents. In my view the Jewish possibilities are suppressed, though whether this is deliberate or not I can't tell.
Notes on Were most of the Irish leaders of the 1919-21 War really British agents?

This article (and its endnotes) is copied from and (I think) written by Brian Nugent though this is not clear. It's long; I've tried to clarify it, putting emphases here and there.
Whoever the author is, 'this writer - ignores ... any anti-Jewish sentiments', rather oddly in view of the behind-the-scenes influence of Jews and the coincidences of the Balfour Declaration, US propaganda, and Jewish coup in Russia and elsewhere.
The article has absolutely nothing on the 'Fed' or the 'Bank of England'. But Freemasons and Jesuits are mentioned; there's deflection from Jews. Note also that newspapers are mentioned (slightly) but their ownership and ability to place stories is not.
The article is undated; but the latest date in the published sources is 2006.
The author's evidence includes 1. British Government dealings with guns, money, and 'intelligence' before, during, and after the 'Great War' with the (supposed, traditional) Irish leaders. 2 Newspaper propaganda compared over time, typically pro some man or other from nowhere selected as a future leader. 3 Most importantly, 1940s/ 1950s Witness Statements kept secret for (I'd guess) fifty years..
Speculative material includes the possibility of controlled political opponents, with artificial antagonistic viewpoints: either could be elected - it simply wouldn't matter.
Amazingly, there's little on bombings, kidnappings, murders and low level war generally.
The article's author makes no attempt at an overview, or to answer difficult questions: How many lives did it cost? How many people were killed secretly under cover of lies? Was the 'intelligence' of any value? Did these people matter at all? Was Eire ever free? Did these people have lots of money from unexplained sources, a usual sign of Jewish involvement? Did Jews benefit? British agents may have been given careers etc, but did they contribute to Britain? And ditto for the Irish? Did they prevent worse evils by their pretences?
The writer's conclusion is '.. they were a great generation.' I have to say they look like a bunch of shits, playing games, acting, telling lies, taking money, and caring nothing for the world, selling the Irish; compared with the real victims in the world, they seem about as heroic as corrupt civil servants collecting unearned pensions. Anyway, the author does not attempt an overview of the whole situation.
    – Rerevisionist
I'd like to suggest the movements in Ireland were also linked with official policy. Thus for example Gerry Adams favours mass immigration into Ireland, to erase Irish people and history. He also has been given de facto immunity to prosecutions for murder. Right back to 1916 ('Easter Rising' - the name is intended to suggest Irish religious tradition, rather than a connection with the Balfour Declaration) and before - there was a 'Jewish community' in Dublin since about 1300 given rights over and above Catholics - there were pressures. I'd expect the atrocity stories about Cromwell, only recently shown by Tom Reilly to be fake, may have had the same source.

1930s George Orwell wrote on the Spanish Civil War in Homage to Catalonia. He either suppressed his knowledge of Jews, or simply didn't notice it. This piece George Orwell as Useful Idiot contrasts Orwell's ignorance with published material on Jewish procedures.
ww2 and cold war and cuba 1945 and weapons and jews in control of usa IRA 2 troubles I'd like to suggest the movements in Ireland were also linked with official policy. Thus for example Gerry Adams favours mass immigration into Ireland, to erase Irish people and history. He also has been given de facto immunity to prosecutions for murder. Right back to 1916 ('Easter Rising' - the name is intended to suggest Irish religious tradition, rather than a connection with the Balfour Declaration) and before - there was a 'Jewish community' in Dublin since about 1300 given rights over and above Catholics - there were pressures. I'd expect the atrocity stories about Cromwell, only recently shown by Tom Reilly to be fake, may have had the same source.

Back to top

The Scot is the finest fighting man Scottish History

Vinny June 1, 2016 - 11:38 am Masonic Jacobites. Nothing good can come out of Britain.

Scotland is the mother of the Scottish Rite branch of freemasonry, the counterpart to the English York Rite.

Most of our [USA] presidents of Scottish origins are documented freemasons i.e. Monroe, Jackson, Polk, Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, McKinely, etc just like most of the WASP establishment.

Freemasonry is Judaism Lite.
Reply Seraphim June 1, 2016 - 4:27 pm
The origin of the "Scottish Rite" is rather American than 'Scottish'. "The Scottish Rite did not come into being until the formation of the Mother Supreme Council at Charleston, South Carolina, in May 1801. The Founding Fathers of the Scottish Rite who attended became known as "The Eleven Gentlemen of Charleston" (mostly Jews). Prior to that it was a "French trader, by the name of Estienne Morin (of Sephardi origin), who had been involved in high degree Masonry in Bordeaux since 1744 and, in 1747, founded an "Ecossais" lodge (Scots Masters Lodge) in the city of Le Cap Français, on the north coast of the French colony of Saint-Domingue (now Haiti). Over the next decade, high degree Freemasonry continued to spread to the Western hemisphere as the high degree lodge at Bordeaux warranted or recognized seven Ecossais lodges there. In Paris in the year 1761, a patent was issued to Estienne Morin, dated 27 August, creating him "Grand Inspector for all parts of the New World". This Patent was signed by officials of the Grand Lodge at Paris and appears to have originally granted him power over the craft lodges only, and not over the high, or "Ecossais", degree lodges. Later copies of this Patent appear to have been embellished, probably by Morin, to improve his position over the high degree lodges in the West Indies." The Jacobite origin of FM is a myth, debunked for long. Anyhow nothing is clear about the origins of FM, other than its Jewish origin.

Jake Grant June 1, 2016 - 2:06 am
Excellent article. As an aside, Jewish historian Geoffrey Alderman has written about the background Jewish role in the defeat of the Jacobite rebellion. Apparently when Bonnie Prince Charlie's army was heading south it was Jewish bankers who steadied the stock market and the Bank of England. He thinks the Queen should make a state visit to Israel as a reward to Jews for foiling the various Stuart attempts to recover the throne.

Rerevisionist June 1, 2016 - 10:36 am
The connections between Jews, Scotland, the Reformation, the English monarchy, Elizabethan times, Scottish Freemasonry and other issues are another fertile field for revisionists. I hope young historians and other academics can piece together an overview of Jewish activity. It's as though an entire nation's power struggles have been intentionally suppressed or ignored. Yes, Jews have had influence – PLEASE discuss it.
Reply PaleoAtlantid June 1, 2016 - 4:47 pm
The revisionist historian Michael Hoffman has done quite a bit of research in those topics and that historical period. He doesn't mention Jews specifically but infers their influence by way of Neo-Platonism and in particular Hermeticism.
Scotland did not expel Jews at any point.
'Ming' Campbell the Scottish Liberal delights in the fact that Scotland was the only European nation or kingdom that did not expel the Jews in the 12th century. King Ed the the English king on the other hand was the 1st king to do so at the time. The Jews have never forgotten it and hold all English people to account for it regardless what Cromwell did.

Charles Edward Stuart was our last chance of freedom from the jew bankers who had paid Cromwell to murder King Charles the First. Pity more English didn't join the Jacobite rebellion. ...
Aye, and a grand shame more people aren't aware of what it was all about. The best you can hope for from the people who have heard of the Jacobite Rebellion is some Braveheart bullshit about Scotland rebelling against England. There were a great deal of English supporters, whole regiments were recruited here and a network of sympathisers helped them.

[] Let’s start with the story of Bonnie Prince Charlie, famous and beloved by many, and also known as Prince Charles Edward Stuart. Not many people are aware that he was half Polish. We know his story well enough, so instead let’s say a few words about his Polish family. His mother was Maria Clementina Sobieska (Maria Klementyna Sobieska), one of the richest noble women in Europe of the seventeenth century. She was wife of James Francis Edward and the granddaughter of Jan III Sobieski – one of the greatest Polish kings, whose deeds changed the history of the continent. He led the famous Battle of Vienna against the Ottoman Empire in 1683. During two days in September, around 110,000 soldiers from different European countries fought under Sobieski’s command against the Ottoman Empire’s army which numbered about 200,000 – 300,000. This victory stopped the Turkish invasion of Europe and forced the Grand Vizier Kara Mustafa Pasha to step back.

----------------- Pierre de Craon August 4, 2015 - 10:07 am [Peter Sutherland] His Scots ancestry is well established. Recall that especially after Culloden, there was substantial movement of the unliquidated remnant of Scots Catholics out of the country. I have no way of knowing, of course, whether Sutherland’s story fits this bill. As to the evidence of one’s senses, however, we are on the same page. I see and smell marrano in that profoundly brutta faccia. Abe O’Foxman, perhaps? Curmudgeon August 4, 2015 - 11:03 am Scots never expelled “Jews”, because they believe they, like their Irish brothers, ARE Israel as put forth in the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320. As an aside, part of the Knoxian revolt was that that there had been no real Pope since 1190(?), the beginning of ornamental (containing graven images) cathedrals and monasteries. Presbyterian churches were stark. Culloden was more than religion, it was about bloodlines and the treachery of the auld enemy. Pierre de Craon August 4, 2015 - 2:00 pm "Culloden was more than religion, it was about bloodlines and the treachery of the auld enemy." Indeed. In one sense it was the starting point of the trial run for what we in the New World and in Europe are living through: the deliberate repeopling of our lands with aliens by an overlord that hates us. -------------- Possible New World connection - Glasgow West, Edinburgh East both ports and with fairly short distance between, though this seems underused, perhaps down to the present day

*Explains perhaps why Adam Smith omits finance in 1776 wealth of nations
*Some connection with 'Scottish renaissance'?
*Poss connection with George Galloway; see video at Oxford Union on Jews - he thought the 'greatest' people from c 18th century
*Must be some connection with violence and extortion

Scottish Raj
Lowland Scots and Jews have lots in common.
Scots also perfected the art of freemasonry.
Lots of Polish Jews also moved to Scotland.
I think many of the Scottish Raj at Westminster are in fact Jews or part.

Revisionism and Scotland 1956 booklet 'common errors in scottish history'
clans; highlands vs lowlands [poss football]
depop of highlands highland clearances started early 19th century - apparently not well thought out 'improvements' compare enclosures in england [cp lancashire low population], vietnam popn movements
=========== TEX June 2, 2016 - 4:58 am “I am sure that Strathallen, as he stood on the field at Culloden, knew in his heart that his chances of victory were slim.” Jews backed the English government during the period of the Rebellion. As a reward they were naturalized in the 1753 Jew Bill. A public outcry reversed the decision a few months later. =========== For Jason Zielsdorf, the decision to uproot his family from Calgary in Canada to rural Inverness-shire was about reconnecting with his cultural heritage and his Scottish family roots. ‘To Canadians, Scotland has always had the stronger pull than England,’ he says. His ancestors left these shores after the last Highland clearances in the early 19th century. He had a place studying the theological interpretation of scripture at St Andrews University, where Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge were students. After graduating, he and Christy decided to stay. In Laggan, 40 miles from Fort William, they thought they had found their idyll. The village shop had recently closed. They took it on and decided to make it their life’s work. ============= Occidental observer The so-called Mediterranean ‘look’ of some people who are otherwise Scottish or from South Wales (esp. in and around Cardiff) can be easily explained. Once upon a time, England was at war with Spain. You remember that from your school days? Well, during their decades long hostility the Spanish maintained close diplomatic relations with South Wales, Eire, and Scotland. If memory serves me well, there was also a marriage between the Scottish throne and Spanish throne. But I shall leave the task of confirming that to you. With the exception of Wales … the people of Spain, Eire, and Scotland were also united by the Catholic faith. Hence there were many marriages between the folk from those otherwise geographically disconnected places. Which explains the swarthy good looks of many Welsh, Irish, and Scots.

Jewish Divisiveness
• Many observers have noted that divisiveness in France (notably at the 'Revolution') and England (notably the Civil War, and the lead-in to the First World War) were Jewish. A good example is Disraeli's 'two nations'.
    Probably similar examples are Protestants and Catholics, and Irish and English, in Ireland. Which provided perfect opportunities for divide-and-rule, including deaths and explosions, both provoked and planted. One of the propaganda victories leading to the First World War was an arms shipment, used in Jewish fashion with constant repetition and exaggeration. Scotland had hatred between Highlanders and Lowlanders; to what extent this was encouraged is not known to me, but should be part of serious study of Scottish history. Another aspect of Scottish history was Jewish penetration; see below on name-changing from Jewish to apparently Scottish names, and no doubt in Ireland. Part of the failure of liberalism was the simple failure of elementary security, which of course Jews like, in other people's countries.

Modern Scotland

Scottish nationalists and cp with Irish
Scottish soldiers and cp with Irish

Surname Changes e.g. to Scottish Names
From Appendix IV of H A Lane's The Alien Menace (probably 1928):
One of the first moves of the Aliens that flocked to these too-hospitable shores in those days was to change their names—usually for Scotch names. Izzy Dizzy Imoffsky would quickly become Duncan Campbell MacGregor, or something of the kind, and all the little MacGregors (late Imoffskys) that were born in this country were returned in our census as British.
    I drew the attention of the Statistical Society to that iniquity. A census which returns the children of Aliens as British is misleading even if the children were born here. They should be returned under a special heading. Name-changing ought to be more strictly regulated. A good many of the Stewarts, Sinclairs, Gordons, and so forth in London originally came from Poland or Rumania, or their fathers did. When I meet in the street a man who has changed his name from Schwabacher to Shaw I feel like calling the police.
    The intention of name-changing is very often to deceive. In such cases it is essentially dishonest.

I'd heard 'Harry Lauder' (musical entertainer, regarded as Scotch) was in fact a Jew. And Robbie Burns was a Freemason. But it hadn't occurred to me that (for example) George Galloway might not be Scottish at all. Such is the success of censorship. Watching Galloway trying to block a talk at Oxford by David Irving (Galloway was an M.P., presumably able to employ people able to read and research, even if he couldn't); and talking about his secret dealings with Jews in South Africa; and promoting immigration into Bradford of simple Muslims; and posing as a middle east expert, without commenting on Jews in Saudi Arabia; suggests he's just another alien, genetically programmed to cause damage.
    Of course the same is true of the obscenely fat 'Peter Sutherland'.
    Another possibility is that Reith, appointed to the newly-monopolised BBC, was a Jew. Certainly the support for Jewish mass murders in the USSR, and secrecy over the 'Great War', point that way.
    In Ireland, Bob Geldof and Alan Shatter point similar messages. And it certainly seems possible that shadowy organisations like the I.R.A. were run by Jews.

similar events in Spain as per non-Orwell book
sorensen731 My suspicion is that "Terrorist groups" is an excuse to murder political opposition, journalist, courageous judges looking for corruption or treason or investigating the drug involvement of the police/government and of course to help advance control and police state. And a geo-political game of destabilizing foreign powers and murdering future presidents and direct therefore that country. For example, the murder of Carrero Blanco, future President was blamed on ETA, but it's a fact CIA knew it and allowed or helped it with their own explosives (there is documents of importing them in a NATO base in Spain).
A common enemy and distraction too, instead of looking at Gibraltar as a British Pirate Occupation (illegal by the way), the British Secret Service helped fund and train Basque radicals and therefore focus on the North, and weaken Spain.
Basques do have a unique culture and language, a fact, but participated happily in Spain giving great admirals, explorers, writers, scientists... it only became radicalized in the sixties, when Franco was weak and Gladio was all over Europe, with NATO death squads disguised as "communists".
the eu Manchester 1996 bomb

Back to top

Jewish Activity Fingerprints, Signs & Symptoms

HTML Rae West - First (incomplete) upload 2013-08-13; concluded so far 2014- (viewport added 2015-06-21).