Irish Blog Whacked

Friday, December 31, 2010


Former dupety commander  Watery McGuinness is reported to be enraged, after being removed from the Queen of England's New Year's honours list at the last moment, because he fecked up the water supply for the British in the occupied scum state of Ireland. As he muttered on beside his very uncomfortable looking colleague Murphy, a translator said, he said yesterday, that “heads should roll” for leaving 100,000 people without water for ages. Its not clear if Murphy is more disgusted with McGuinness or the privatized water merchants whom he gave a right ballicking last year..

“We can neither confirm nor deny, that the holding cells of every police station in the occupied province are crammed full of water workers, demanding protection,” said a spooksman for the British paramilitary  Police, the Paedo Service No-water Ireland. “Nor can we verify reports that every flight out of Belfast today was standing-room only.” said a spooksman for the Paedo Service No-water Ireland. The Paedo Service could not confirm either, a WakiLeak from one of their positively discriminated, KataLeak Paedo Officers, that a lot of the WateryLeaks were an inside job. A QueenyLick has confirmed that the bitch is not amused and her LooneyDerry lapdog has been taken off her New Year's Honours List. There are rumblings among leading huns that it is an MI-5 plot to flog holy water

WARNING this LINK has Rude Comments on Watery McGuinness


They rose in dark and evil days
to right their native land
And kindled here a living flame
That nothing can withstand.

Memorial in St. Tierney's graveyard

A monument to Fergal O'Hanlon and Sean South lies at the crossroads where they died, six miles from the nearest town every direction.The crossroads is bordered by local woodlands with signposts to Fivemiletown, Brookeborough, Roslea telling which are all six miles away.

On a New Year's Eve in 1957, a column of twelve IRA Volunteers crossed the border into Fermanagh to attack an RUC/B Specials barracks in Brookeborough. During a gun battle, Volunteers were injured, two died. Fergal O'Hanlon and Sean South died of their wounds.

The memorial Roll of Honour for volunteers from the area reads

John Treanor 24.April.1797
Bernard McMahon 12.October.1797
Patrick Smyth 12.October.1797
John Connolly 12.October.1797
Connie Green 26.November.1955
Tony Ahern 10.May.1973
Seamus McElwain 26.April.1986

Predominantly nationalist, Roslea stands on a peninsula of the River Finn. In the 17th century, local land was taken and given to an lord from England, William Flowerdew, who renamed it Roslea. Four centuries later it is still under British occupation, cut off from its natural hinterland by partition and the border.

Twelve years ago, a memorial was unveiled in the village of Roslea to mark the 1798 Rebellion, commemorating a continuity of resistance from the United Irishmen, to the border campaign of the 1950s, through to the present struggle. Two local members of the Black and Tans, led a sectarian pogrom against the village in the 1920s. The sectarian British criminals of the Black and Tans, set fire to every house, flattening the whole village and forcing its Catholic inhabitants to leave permanently.

A photograph in Roslea's historial journal shows the destruction on the village by the Black and Tans that night. The photo shows a row of terraced houses with only the stone shells of the gutted buildings. Years later the `local' chapter of the Royal Black Preceptory, proudly still bear the names Gordon and Nixon of the local Black and Tans militia, who attacked Roslea,

Every year in August after their County parade, members of the Royal Blacks travel to Roslea for another parade from the Orange Hall at the edge, through the village.To Roslea residents, this was inappropriate and simply an exercise in sectarianism. In 1996, the people of Roslea blocked the main road forcing the RUC to reroute the loyalists.

Early in the morning of 26 May 1986, two IRA Volunteers went across the fields to Mullaghglass. Seamus McElwaine, just 26 was a veteran of ten years and one of 38 Republicans to escape from Long Kesh in 1983. Seamus evaded capture while still operating on the border. His comrade also a veteran, Sean Lynch from Baltreagh, Lisnaskea was with him. As the two men climbed over a fence, Seamus voiced concerns, just then, there was sustained gunfire. Sean Lynch seriously wounded, ran for undergrowth from the SAS ambush, where he bled heavily. Meanwhile his comrade Seamus McElwaine who was seriously injured, was interrogated by his British captors. As he lay on the ground seriously injured, he was tortured for over half an hour, before being shot in the head, executed after capture by the British.

So Seamus McElwaine joined his comrades Seán Sabhat and Fergal O'Hanlon who were killed in action, almost forty years earlier, on the 1 January 1957 as part of an IRA column led by Sean Garland, in a raid on a Royal Ulster Constabulary barracks in Brookeborough, County Fermanagh in British Occupied Ireland. Sean Sabhat died of bullet wounds along with his comrade, Fergal O'Hanlon.

The local Unionist politician, an MP called Ferguson, who later became Crown Solicitor for Fermanagh, stated just nine years earlier in the Irish News of April 1948, that the Nationalist majority in Fermanagh stood at 3,684. "We must ultimately reduce and liquidate that majority. This county, I think it can be safely said, is a Unionist county. The atmosphere is Unionist. The Boards and properties are nearly all controlled by Unionists. But there is still this millstone around our necks."

Bernard McMahon, Patrick Smyth and John Connolly, United Irishmen also from the area were sentenced to be hanged, for their part in an arms raid in 1797. The United Irishmen from around the area in 1798 numbered several thousand. The three hangings in Enniskillen, were only part of a bloody and brutal repression by the British in the area.. In the local graveyard, stand the United Irishmen's graves, beside a monument erected in 1947.

Join the CAUSE for Justice & REAL Peace Ireland

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

The Demise of Revolutionary Irish Republicanism is Greatly Exaggerated

In contemporary British Occupied Ireland, there is much revision and censorship of traditional Irish republicanism. Indeed there are ex-republicans such as Anthony McIntyre from Belfast who spent years imprisoned in Long Kesh concentration camp, who co-authored a book titled, Good Friday, The Death of Irish Republicanism, in which Anthony, like many former republicans before him, has written prematurely of the death of Ireland's soul and the relevance in our modern world of the fight for Self-determination in small countries like Ireland. Rather than get involved in another of those many polemical squabbles, that are unfortunately all too frequent with revisionists, that divides resistance, I present an article by Chris Hedges demonstrating that the question of self-determination is certainly valid and relevant, along with being a matter of real urgency today. I also present some historical evidence as Mark Twain might have put it, that the rumour of the demise of Irish republicanism, has been greatly exaggerated, by persons who should know much better.


Was it for this the wild geese spread
The grey wing upon every tide;
For this that all that blood was shed,
For this Edward Fitzgerald died,
And Robert Emmet and Wolfe Tone,
All that delirium of the brave?
Romantic Ireland's dead and gone,
It's with O'Leary in the grave.
WB Yeats, "September 1913"

2011: A Brave New Dystopia

By Chris Hedges

December 27, 2010 "Truth Dig" -- The two greatest visions of a future dystopia were George Orwell’s “1984” and Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World.” The debate, between those who watched our descent towards corporate totalitarianism, was who was right. Would we be, as Orwell wrote, dominated by a repressive surveillance and security state that used crude and violent forms of control? Or would we be, as Huxley envisioned, entranced by entertainment and spectacle, captivated by technology and seduced by profligate consumption to embrace our own oppression? It turns out Orwell and Huxley were both right. Huxley saw the first stage of our enslavement. Orwell saw the second.

We have been gradually disempowered by a corporate state that, as Huxley foresaw, seduced and manipulated us through sensual gratification, cheap mass-produced goods, boundless credit, political theater and amusement. While we were entertained, the regulations that once kept predatory corporate power in check were dismantled, the laws that once protected us were rewritten and we were impoverished. Now that credit is drying up, good jobs for the working class are gone forever and mass-produced goods are unaffordable, we find ourselves transported from “Brave New World” to “1984.” The state, crippled by massive deficits, endless war and corporate malfeasance, is sliding toward bankruptcy. It is time for Big Brother to take over from Huxley’s feelies, the orgy-porgy and the centrifugal bumble-puppy. We are moving from a society where we are skillfully manipulated by lies and illusions to one where we are overtly controlled.

Orwell warned of a world where books were banned. Huxley warned of a world where no one wanted to read books. Orwell warned of a state of permanent war and fear. Huxley warned of a culture diverted by mindless pleasure. Orwell warned of a state where every conversation and thought was monitored and dissent was brutally punished. Huxley warned of a state where a population, preoccupied by trivia and gossip, no longer cared about truth or information. Orwell saw us frightened into submission. Huxley saw us seduced into submission. But Huxley, we are discovering, was merely the prelude to Orwell. Huxley understood the process by which we would be complicit in our own enslavement. Orwell understood the enslavement. Now that the corporate coup is over, we stand naked and defenseless. We are beginning to understand, as Karl Marx knew, that unfettered and unregulated capitalism is a brutal and revolutionary force that exploits human beings and the natural world until exhaustion or collapse.

“The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake,” Orwell wrote in “1984.” “We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.”

The political philosopher Sheldon Wolin uses the term “inverted totalitarianism” in his book “Democracy Incorporated” to describe our political system. It is a term that would make sense to Huxley. In inverted totalitarianism, the sophisticated technologies of corporate control, intimidation and mass manipulation, which far surpass those employed by previous totalitarian states, are effectively masked by the glitter, noise and abundance of a consumer society. Political participation and civil liberties are gradually surrendered. The corporation state, hiding behind the smokescreen of the public relations industry, the entertainment industry and the tawdry materialism of a consumer society, devours us from the inside out. It owes no allegiance to us or the nation. It feasts upon our carcass.

The corporate state does not find its expression in a demagogue or charismatic leader. It is defined by the anonymity and facelessness of the corporation. Corporations, who hire attractive spokespeople like Barack Obama, control the uses of science, technology, education and mass communication. They control the messages in movies and television. And, as in “Brave New World,” they use these tools of communication to bolster tyranny. Our systems of mass communication, as Wolin writes, “block out, eliminate whatever might introduce qualification, ambiguity, or dialogue, anything that might weaken or complicate the holistic force of their creation, to its total impression.”

The result is a monochromatic system of information. Celebrity courtiers, masquerading as journalists, experts and specialists, identify our problems and patiently explain the parameters. All those who argue outside the imposed parameters are dismissed as irrelevant cranks, extremists or members of a radical left. Prescient social critics, from Ralph Nader to Noam Chomsky, are banished. Acceptable opinions have a range of A to B. The culture, under the tutelage of these corporate courtiers, becomes, as Huxley noted, a world of cheerful conformity, as well as an endless and finally fatal optimism. We busy ourselves buying products that promise to change our lives, make us more beautiful, confident or successful as we are steadily stripped of rights, money and influence. All messages we receive through these systems of communication, whether on the nightly news or talk shows like “Oprah,” promise a brighter, happier tomorrow. And this, as Wolin points out, is “the same ideology that invites corporate executives to exaggerate profits and conceal losses, but always with a sunny face.” We have been entranced, as Wolin writes, by “continuous technological advances” that “encourage elaborate fantasies of individual prowess, eternal youthfulness, beauty through surgery, actions measured in nanoseconds: a dream-laden culture of ever-expanding control and possibility, whose denizens are prone to fantasies because the vast majority have imagination but little scientific knowledge.”

Our manufacturing base has been dismantled. Speculators and swindlers have looted the U.S. Treasury and stolen billions from small shareholders who had set aside money for retirement or college. Civil liberties, including habeas corpus and protection from warrantless wiretapping, have been taken away. Basic services, including public education and health care, have been handed over to the corporations to exploit for profit. The few who raise voices of dissent, who refuse to engage in the corporate happy talk, are derided by the corporate establishment as freaks.

Attitudes and temperament have been cleverly engineered by the corporate state, as with Huxley’s pliant characters in “Brave New World.” The book’s protagonist, Bernard Marx, turns in frustration to his girlfriend Lenina:

“Don’t you wish you were free, Lenina?” he asks.

“I don’t know that you mean. I am free, free to have the most wonderful time. Everybody’s happy nowadays.”

He laughed, “Yes, ‘Everybody’s happy nowadays.’ We have been giving the children that at five. But wouldn’t you like to be free to be happy in some other way, Lenina? In your own way, for example; not in everybody else’s way.”

“I don’t know what you mean,” she repeated.

The façade is crumbling. And as more and more people realize that they have been used and robbed, we will move swiftly from Huxley’s “Brave New World” to Orwell’s “1984.” The public, at some point, will have to face some very unpleasant truths. The good-paying jobs are not coming back. The largest deficits in human history mean that we are trapped in a debt peonage system that will be used by the corporate state to eradicate the last vestiges of social protection for citizens, including Social Security. The state has devolved from a capitalist democracy to neo-feudalism. And when these truths become apparent, anger will replace the corporate-imposed cheerful conformity. The bleakness of our post-industrial pockets, where some 40 million Americans live in a state of poverty and tens of millions in a category called “near poverty,” coupled with the lack of credit to save families from foreclosures, bank repossessions and bankruptcy from medical bills, means that inverted totalitarianism will no longer work.

We increasingly live in Orwell’s Oceania, not Huxley’s The World State. Osama bin Laden plays the role assumed by Emmanuel Goldstein in “1984.” Goldstein, in the novel, is the public face of terror. His evil machinations and clandestine acts of violence dominate the nightly news. Goldstein’s image appears each day on Oceania’s television screens as part of the nation’s “Two Minutes of Hate” daily ritual. And without the intervention of the state, Goldstein, like bin Laden, will kill you. All excesses are justified in the titanic fight against evil personified.

The psychological torture of Pvt. Bradley Manning—who has now been imprisoned for seven months without being convicted of any crime—mirrors the breaking of the dissident Winston Smith at the end of “1984.” Manning is being held as a “maximum custody detainee” in the brig at Marine Corps Base Quantico, in Virginia. He spends 23 of every 24 hours alone. He is denied exercise. He cannot have a pillow or sheets for his bed. Army doctors have been plying him with antidepressants. The cruder forms of torture of the Gestapo have been replaced with refined Orwellian techniques, largely developed by government psychologists, to turn dissidents like Manning into vegetables. We break souls as well as bodies. It is more effective. Now we can all be taken to Orwell’s dreaded Room 101 to become compliant and harmless. These “special administrative measures” are regularly imposed on our dissidents, including Syed Fahad Hashmi, who was imprisoned under similar conditions for three years before going to trial. The techniques have psychologically maimed thousands of detainees in our black sites around the globe. They are the staple form of control in our maximum security prisons where the corporate state makes war on our most politically astute underclass—African-Americans. It all presages the shift from Huxley to Orwell.

“Never again will you be capable of ordinary human feeling,” Winston Smith’s torturer tells him in “1984.” “Everything will be dead inside you. Never again will you be capable of love, or friendship, or joy of living, or laughter, or curiosity, or courage, or integrity. You will be hollow. We shall squeeze you empty and then we shall fill you with ourselves.”

The noose is tightening. The era of amusement is being replaced by the era of repression. Tens of millions of citizens have had their e-mails and phone records turned over to the government. We are the most monitored and spied-on citizenry in human history. Many of us have our daily routine caught on dozens of security cameras. Our proclivities and habits are recorded on the Internet. Our profiles are electronically generated. Our bodies are patted down at airports and filmed by scanners. And public service announcements, car inspection stickers, and public transportation posters constantly urge us to report suspicious activity. The enemy is everywhere.

Those who do not comply with the dictates of the war on terror, a war which, as Orwell noted, is endless, are brutally silenced. The draconian security measures used to cripple protests at the G-20 gatherings in Pittsburgh and Toronto were wildly disproportionate for the level of street activity. But they sent a clear message—DO NOT TRY THIS. The FBI’s targeting of antiwar and Palestinian activists, which in late September saw agents raid homes in Minneapolis and Chicago, is a harbinger of what is to come for all who dare defy the state’s official Newspeak. The agents—our Thought Police—seized phones, computers, documents and other personal belongings. Subpoenas to appear before a grand jury have since been served on 26 people. The subpoenas cite federal law prohibiting “providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations.” Terror, even for those who have nothing to do with terror, becomes the blunt instrument used by Big Brother to protect us from ourselves.

“Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating?” Orwell wrote. “It is the exact opposite of the stupid hedonistic Utopias that the old reformers imagined. A world of fear and treachery and torment, a world of trampling and being trampled upon, a world which will grow not less but more merciless as it refines itself.”


"We are going out to be slaughtered"

The fight in Ireland has been one for the soul of a race - that Irish race which with seven centuries of defeat behind it still battled for the sanctity of its dwelling place.
James Connolly, 1915

I have met them at close of day
Coming with vivid faces
From counter or desk among grey
Eighteenth-century houses.
I have passed with a nod of the head
Or polite meaningless words,
And thought before I had done
Of a mocking tale or a gibe
To please a companion
Around the fire at the club,
Being certain that they and I
But lived where motley is worn:
All changed, changed utterly:
A terrible beauty is born.
WB Yeats, "Easter 1916"

Join the CAUSE for Justice &; REAL Peace Ireland

Sunday, December 26, 2010





Provision 2 'Commitment by all parties to use "exclusively peaceful and democratic means";

 When peaceful change is impossible, 

violent revolution is inevitable."

--see Rebels YELL for details

Join the CAUSE for Justice & REAL Peace Ireland


Saturday, December 18, 2010


"Serious fuckwittage" Bridget said loudly. 
"Yeah" agreed Shaz, "that guy's buried himself in his own fuckwittage."

A couple of years ago the former director of the FBI Louis Freeh, attacked Britain's MI5 for its "long and painful history" in British Occupied Ireland. He told the Wall Street Journal that the spy agency's operations in Occupied Ireland had been decades of "secrecy and non-transparency" and he argued vehemently against any such agency being established in the States.

MI-5 which is officially known as the Security Service is based in appropriately named Holywood, in British Occupied Ireland, where they are supposed to be the intelligence gathering arm of the British paramilitary police the PSNI but are in fact the de-facto government of Occupied Ireland, with an elected filtered executive in the province, to rubber stamp their polices and create the illusion of a semi-democratic single party state, in what is in reality is Ireland's second British compliant scum statelet.

Mr Freeh openly criticised MI5, which worked with the FBI intimately in operations against the IRA while he was FBI director. The FBI published Freeh's comments in a Press release on its own FBI website. Freeh angrily in the strongest possible terms, rejected arguments by a neo-con federal court judge Posner, that the United States needs its own version of MI5. Mr Freeh described the idea as "dangerous and dumb".

He said "Judge Posner's citation to England's MI5 is romantic enough but needs to be qualified by the long and painful history of its operations in Northern Ireland, which are still unfolding after decades of secrecy and non-transparency." Warning that such an organisation could not in any way be trusted by the US public, he accused Judge Posner of giving a " long winded thesis" that had no bearing in reality.

Freeh argued incorrectly, post 9/11, that the American public opinion would never tolerate a CIA-type organisation working against its own US citizens or non-citizens "who live and work under our flag. I suppose that this secret-police agency would appear before Congress in closed sessions and operate with a black budget," 

Freeh who resigned in 2001 after ten years as FBI director, previously worked very closely with British spying agencies, such as MI-5 and MI-6 and obviously had an intimate knowledge of how British secret services really worked. He had serious confrontations with President Bill Clinton, because of his efforts at prosecuting US-based IRA members. President Clinton and the former FBI chief had fierce, shouting, exchanges over Bill Clinton's refusal, to allow the prosecution of four Miami-based IRA gun-runners.

If a hardliner such as Freeh, had such a poor opinion of MI-5, it begs the question of what kind of a fuckwittage junta, is really running British Occupied Ireland, presently.

Read more @

LINK - ‘The Guineapigs’ by John McGuffin

REBELLION ! - John Pilger Link

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

WASP Legacy of John Bullshoite's Butcher's Apron

England during the 16th century was involved in the settlement of
Ireland its first colony, drawing on its experience dating back to the
Norman invasion in 1171. Several people who helped with the
Plantations of Ireland were also key players in the early colonisation
of North America, particularly a gang known as the "West Country men",
including the infamous Humphrey Gilbert, Walter Raleigh, Francis
Drake, John Hawkins and Richard Grenville.

During the 15th and 16th centuries, Portugal and Spain who started
European exploration of the five continents, established large
overseas colonies. Jealous of this great wealth England, France and
the Netherlands began to establish colonies of their own in the
Americas and Asia. Wars in the 17th and 18th centuries with the
Netherlands and France left Britain as the dominant colonial power in
North America and India. The loss of colonies in North America in
1783, after a war of independence was a blow to the British but
despite this setback the British left their own kind the WASPs in
charge in North America and turned their attention towards Africa,
Asia and the Pacific. Following the defeat of Napoleon and France in
1815, Britain enjoyed almost total dominance and expanded its Empire
across the globe. Degrees of autonomy were granted to its white
settled colonies but generally it left its complaint WASP s in charge.

WASP - White Anglo-Saxon Protestant

The term's origins are from white Americans of Anglo-Saxon descent,
who were Protestant in religion. Initially WASP applied exclusively to
people of the upper class establishment, who formed a powerful elite.
Many people now referred to as "WASPs" are not necessarily Anglo-Saxon
or of English descendants. In modern U.S. usage, WASP may now include
Protestants from Holland, Germany, France, Scandinavia, Scottish,
Irish Royalist and Welsh.Dutch such as the Vanderbilt, Roosevelt.
German such as Rockefellers and Astor families.French such as the Du
Pont family.Scots such as Carnegie.

WASP has many meanings. In sociological terms it is that part of the
U.S. population that believe they founded the country. The term can
have negative connotations. About a quarter of the U.S. population is
WASP today but they continue to have a disproportionate influence over
American institutions. Usage of the term WASP is also prevalent in
other former British colonies such as Canada and Australia. The term
was popularized by Professor E. Digby Baltzell in his book, The
Protestant Establishment; Aristocracy & Caste in America but it was
first used by Andrew Hacker in 1957. The New England Yankee elite were
almost exclusively of English stock with some early German immigrants
all Protestant, who arrived in the Dutch colony of New Netherland. In
addition to being Protestant, WASPs were primarily Presbyterian.

Many U.S. North-easterners are "WASPs" who refer to themselves as
"Yankees". In the South, WASPs are less common.In the United States,
it is most widely used today to differentiate early arriving, Western
European, "old stock" Americans with the descendants of groups from
Southern, Eastern Europe, Ireland and other parts of the world. The
term WASP is often used alongside the word "The Establishment" or to
create an air of privilege, that white Protestants in America
apparently enjoy. It is also often used today as a derogatory term.
Many dictionaries warn that the term is "derogatory" or "insulting".

Culture attributed to WASPs

The original WASP establishment created and dominated the social
structure of the United States when it originally took shape in the
17th century. Many term America's elite institutions as WASP, when in
fact it was always a wider, more diverse group. This Upper Class would
claim to dominate American prep schools, older universities, Ivy
Leagues, liberal arts colleges, NESCAC schools. These elitist
institutions are still important to WASPs, who are taught skills,
habits, and attitudes, forming connections which carry over to
finance, culture, and politics. People labeled as "WASPs" still have
prominent families preserving an attitude toward marriage rom the
British aristocracy: A marriage is carefully scrutinized by both groom
and bride's families. Marriage is often about maintaining each party
in their social and cultural status.

WASP families generally pursue traditional British sports such as
squash, golf, tennis, horse riding, polo, yachting, pursuits that are
reserved as labels of affluence. Society pages list the privileged,who
mingle in the same private clubs, attend the same churches and live in
neighborhoods like Philadelphia's Main Line, Chestnut Hill, New York
City's Upper East Side, Boston's Beacon Hill are some examples with
unwritten rules to separate the well-bred from the wealthy peasants.

After World War II and the bankruptcy of British, the WASP networks
of privilege and power of the old Protestant establishment began to
lose influence. Nevertheless WASPs remain represented alongside
Zionism in the country's cultural, political, and economic élite.
While the WASP establishment is no longer the sole elite of America,
it remains significant. WASPs are now predominantly upper middle and
upper class, well educated inclusive of members of the elite. Some
WASP families now occasionally allow marriage with Jews or Catholics
and even other races occasionally are not always frowned upon.

WASP are still dominant in the Republican Party. Catholics in the
Northeast generally Irish or Italian immigrants, populate the
Democratic party. Catholic voters and politicians fail to find favor
among WASP voters. In 1952 the senate election for Massachusetts with
John F. Kennedy was clearly split along sectarian lines, quite similar
to the loyalist version of WASP in Occupied Ireland today. From being
Britain's first colony, many maintain British occupied Ireland will
also be her last, in what has been a bloody, ruthless holocaust, not
just for the millions of Irish who lost their lives to savage
invasions and occupation but Britisn's own cannon fodder of every
generation. The legacy of the British Empire can be found with the
U.S. today as demonstrated in the following article

llusions and Empire

By Charles Scaliger

November 09, 2010 "The New American" -- - On a bitterly cold day in
mid-January, 1842, British soldiers manning the garrison at Jalalabad
on the Afghan frontier saw a strange sight. Out of the snowy wasteland
rode a single man, badly wounded, on a dying horse. His name, he told
the soldiers, was William Brydon.

Brydon was a surgeon with the British East India Company and had
studied medicine at Edinburgh University. He showed the soldiers a
terrible wound on his head, where a sword had removed part of his
skull. He had survived only because a magazine he had stuffed under
his hat for extra warmth had cushioned the blow. Dr. Brydon was the
only survivor of a 4,500-man British army, commanded by General
William Elphinstone, to escape from the occupation of Kabul. The rest
lay massacred in the snowy Afghan passes or, in a few cases, in Afghan
prisons. General Elphinstone himself died a few months later in

Perhaps no Englishman in the 19th century had better firsthand
experience with the costs of empire than William Brydon. Fifteen years
after the inglorious conclusion of the First Anglo-Afghan War, Dr.
Brydon found himself trapped in the British Residency at Lucknow in
north central India during the infamous six-month siege that was the
most celebrated event of the 1857 Mutiny, a bloody uprising against
British authorities. Dr. Brydon sustained a serious leg injury during
the siege but, unlike hundreds of his fellow countrymen, survived.

It is impossible to say whether Dr. Brydon or others of the countless
thousands of British soldiers, bureaucrats, judges, engineers, and
others who sustained the British Empire in India — known informally as
the Raj — for almost 200 years were able to perceive the design for
which so many lives and fortunes, Indian and British, were squandered.
Certainly the world-engirding British Empire, of which the Raj was the
crown jewel, was widely regarded — by observers at a safe distance —
as the greatest civilizing force the world had ever seen. Yet this
alleged boon to humanity, which began as an exercise in unbridled
mercantilism, gradually transformed into a global crusade on behalf of
Anglo-Saxon civilization, before collapsing ignominiously in the
mid-20th century, leaving its mistress, Great Britain herself,
exhausted and virtually bankrupt. Nowhere was this tragic trajectory
plainer than in the long history of British involvement with South
Asia — today the nations of Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh,
and Burma, as well as Sri Lanka, formerly Ceylon, under a separate
British administration from the Raj itself, and Nepal and Bhutan,
which were never fully brought into subjection. In considering briefly
the history of this region, we would do well to enquire whether the
United States, the self-anointed heirs of the British Empire, are not
following a path similar to the one that the British once followed.

Gaining Ground in India
The peoples of the Indian subcontinent were certainly no strangers to
imperial domination at the time the British East India Company first
set up shop on the southwest coast of India in the early 1600s. The
dominant power in South Asia at the time, as it had been for
generations, was the Islamic Mughal Empire, administered by Turkic
peoples out of central Asia. But by the mid-1700s, the Mughal Empire
was crumbling, and the opportunistic British seized the moment.

The Battle of Plassey in 1757 is usually reckoned as the starting
point for the British Empire in India. Fought in the steamy jungles of
Bengal not far from modern-day Calcutta, Plassey was a total victory
for the British forces under Robert Clive, and left the British in
charge of much of the territory of Bengal. At first the East India
Company, not the British government per se, remained in charge of
British India to maintain a fiction of separateness from the British
Crown. The first Governor-General of India, Warren Hastings, was
appointed in 1773. Upon his resignation in 1784, he returned to
England and was impeached for corruption at the urging of Edmund Burke
— the same eloquent statesman who openly sympathized with the American
revolutionaries and later wrote a damning critique of the French
Revolution. By the time of Hastings’ impeachment the East India
Company, which was in charge of British commercial interests from
India to the East Indies, controlled, in Burke’s words, “an annual
territorial revenue of seven millions sterling, … an army of sixty
thousand men, and … the lives and fortunes of thirty millions of their
fellow-creatures.” India, Burke pointed out, was not some barbarous
backwater inhabited by savages in loincloths; it was instead an
ancient and comparatively civilized land, whose inhabitants were due
the same universal natural rights accorded Englishmen by the Magna
Carta. Instead, they were kept in subject by a corrupt, arbitrary
corporate regime with little accountability to British law with its
many protections. Hastings was ultimately acquitted, however, by a
Parliament less concerned with the abstract moral concerns of Burke
and his allies than with the naked expedience of profit-taking.

But profits needed to be defended, and the century that followed the
Battle of Plassey was a bloody one indeed. At the same time the
British were fighting the French and the Americans in Europe and the
Western Hemisphere, they were expanding their control over India.

In the late 1760s, as discontent simmered in the American colonies,
British forces on the other side of the globe launched the first of
four wars against the kingdom of Mysore, centered on the Deccan
plateau in southern India. The Anglo-Mysore wars lasted until 1799,
costing many thousands of lives and leaving the British in control of
most of the southern subcontinent. The third and most decisive of
these wars ended with the defeat of Mysore Prince Tippu Sultan by none
other than General Charles Cornwallis, who was Hastings’ successor as
Governor-General of India and was out for redemption after the
humiliation at Yorktown.

In 1777, the British launched the first of three costly wars against
the Maratha Empire, which controlled much of former Mughal territory
in central and northern India. The first war was a standoff, but the
second, fought from 1803-1805, and the third, from 1817-1818, left
Britain in charge of most of the rest of the subcontinent — this
during the period when Napoleonic France rose and fell.

The First Afghan War, of which William Brydon was the lone survivor,
was another major military event, the first of three Anglo-Afghan
wars, the last of which took place in 1919. British expansion into
Afghanistan was motivated by rivalry with Russia over control of
Central Asia in a drawn-out geopolitical chess match known to history
as “the Great Game,” the 19th-century analog of the Cold War.

Then, in 1857, on the centenary of the Battle of Plassey, came the
Mutiny. This horrific civil uprising, known in India as the First
Indian War of Independence, was prosecuted by rebellious sepoys —
Indian soldiers trained and employed by the British. Very nearly did
India succeed in wresting its independence from British overlords but,
in the end, the British prevailed, albeit at a terrible price, and the
tranquility of servitude was temporarily restored to the subcontinent.
In the wake of the Mutiny, the East India Company was relieved of its
colonial authority; thenceforth, India was to be an undisguised part
of the British Empire, and its Governor-General was the Queen’s

The latter half of the 19th century was a period of comparative
tranquility, during which the “swadeshi” or “home rule” movement in
India gradually gathered a head of steam. With the advent of World War
I, most Indians supported the British, in the hopes that they would be
rewarded with independence after the war. Instead, the British
government reacted with increasing severity toward pro-independence
Indians, including the celebrated Mohandas Gandhi and his movement. In
April 1919, British troops under the command of Brigadier General
Reginald Dyer opened fire on demonstrating crowds in Amritsar, the
holy city of the Sikh religion in Punjab, massacring hundreds of
innocents, including women and children. The unrepentant Dyer embodied
the worst of British imperialism, the armored fist under the velvet
glove. In addition to the massacre, he was proud of torturing
prisoners, sometimes publicly, and was never punished for his actions.

The Amritsar massacre was the last straw for Indians. During the
1920s, riots, strikes, and acts of terrorism soared, and desperate
British authorities reacted vigorously. By the 1930s, the British were
ready to grant independence to India. But for the Second World War,
which forced the British to put those plans on hold, India probably
would have achieved independence by 1940, so dire had the situation

By the time the Second World War was over, however, the entire British
Empire was in a shambles. The dramatic Japanese defeat of the British
at Singapore, and their lightning conquest of British Malaya that
followed, exploded forever the myth of British invincibility. At war’s
end Britain, exhausted and financially shattered, had no choice but to
accede to Indian -demands.

Broken Empire
Unfortunately, because Britain, like most powers afflicted with
imperial hubris, stubbornly held out until she had no other options,
Indian independence was hastily agreed to and clumsily executed.
Although Gandhi’s vision of a unified India with a secular government
was popular in Britain, Muslim leader Mohammed Ali Jinnah, taking
advantage of British weakness, insisted on the creation of a brand-new
Muslim state, Pakistan, to be carved out of portions of northwestern
and northeastern India. The result was apocalyptic. As the clock
ticked down to independence and partition in 1948, millions of Hindus,
fearing Muslim ill will, chose to evacuate what would become East and
West Pakistan, and huge numbers of Muslims fled India for the new
Islamic havens. Rioting and civil war ensued, and hundreds of
thousands were butchered in the chaos. Gandhi himself was assassinated
shortly after independence, and while the violence eventually
subsided, the enmity between India and Pakistan, which has now grown
into a full-blown nuclear rivalry, persists. Such were the
after-effects of the Raj.

The British Empire and the Raj never wanted for detractors among the
British public during its lifetime but, then as now, such people were
regarded as hopeless idealists. The empire, the prodigy of the age,
was a force for enlightenment, many argued. Indeed, starting with the
Governor-Generalship of William Bentinck, which ended in 1835, the
British began to actively work to Christianize India and to stamp out
practices associated with Hinduism that were inconsistent with
civilized society. Sati, or self-immolation by Brahmin widows, was
wiped out, as was the monstrous cult of Thugee, a secret society made
up of both Hindus and Muslims that committed ritual murder and
spoliation in the name of the Hindu goddess Kali. The British also
brought internal improvements like railroads and highways, and
instituted the English legal system to India.

But in the end, the “civilizing mission” probably accomplished far
less than believed. It is interesting to compare the woeful
post-colonial histories of Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka,
and Burma, with those portions of South Asia that were spared the rod
of imperialism. Nepal, the Himalayan kingdom where Everest and most of
the world’s highest mountains are found, never bowed beneath the
British yoke. The fierce Nepali Gurkhas fought the British to a
standstill in the Gurkha War of 1814-1816, and earned protectorate
status as a result. Aside from a brief civil war that was amicably
resolved a few years ago, multi-ethnic Nepal has largely been at
peace. Recently, and with little outside urging, the Nepalese, tired
of their royal family’s scandalous conduct, decided to abolish the
monarchy and replace it with popular government. Nearby Bhutan, a
remote Buddhist kingdom in a lush corner of the eastern Himalayas, has
also decided to peacefully abolish its -monarchy.

In mainland Southeast Asia, the only country to enjoy comparative
peace and the absence of despotism has been Thailand, the only nation
in that part of the world to escape colonial conquest. Wherever the
hand of empire imposed temporary order, misery has been the almost
inevitable result when it was withdrawn.

Many British believed (and still believe) that the era of Pax
Britannica — a period of supposed world peace enforced by the
formidable British armed forces from 1820 to 1914 — was justification
enough for empire. Her navies and armies kept the peace, it was
argued, where no one else could. According to historian John Keay, the
actual record is rather at variance with the mythology: “[Not] by any
reasonable construction could Pax Britannica be taken to mean actual
peace, either in India or in the wider British Empire…. By one
reckoning, there was not a single year between the Napoleonic Wars and
the First World War … when British-led forces were not engaged in
hostilities somewhere in the world.” These were not, for the most
part, the epic, set-piece wars and battles that thrill military
historians, but sordid, bloody, drawn-out insurgencies, the “savage
wars of peace” alluded to by Anglo-Indian author Rudyard Kipling and
familiar to the French in Algeria, the Russians in Chechnya, and, now,
the Americans in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Nor was the Raj, or the wider empire, justifiable in economic terms.
“The order and stability which British rule undeniably brought did not
come cheap,” Keay has pointed out. “In the experience of most Indians
Pax Britannica meant mainly ‘Tax Britannica.’” Simply put, the British
looted the subcontinent for what they could get, taxing the
inhabitants heavily and stripping away India’s valuable forests of
teak, mahogany, and other rare woods. The wealth thereby extracted
lined the pockets of the East India Company and subsequent mercantile
interests, but did little to improve the condition either of ordinary
English or the subject peoples of the empire. The British Empire, like
all such enterprises, was a project conceived and executed by and for
the benefit of the very few, laid on the shoulders of the many. It was
the latter whose taxes paid for Britain’s armies and navies and for
the civil servants and contractors whose livelihood depended on the
continuance of empire.

Finally, inasmuch as the British, much like Americans today, believed
passionately in their own benevolence, it was fashionable to assume
that the British Empire in general and the Raj in particular had come
about, not through calculated rapacity, but by historical accident.
“The British,” writes John Keay, “would often think of their conquests
in India as fortuitous. It gratified a cherished conceit about the
Englishman’s amateurish innocence and it obviated the need to confront
awkward questions.... [One British observer, Sir William Jones,
marveled] at how Bengal had, like an over-ripe mango, ‘fallen into
England’s lap while she was sleeping.’... [According to this version
of history], the Company was ‘sucked into’ the ‘power vacuum’ left by
the declining Mughal Empire,” captive to historical forces beyond her
control. Needless to say, this version of events does not square with
British and with East India Company machinations to create adversaries
and then play them off against each other in the chessboard of Asiatic
politics. The men who created the British Empire were neither stupid
nor haphazard. As Edmund Burke famously observed, “A great empire and
little minds go ill together.”

Today, of course, most of the exuviae of the former British Empire are
independent countries, if not altogether free. But now it is our own
country, or rather, a small gang of elites, that aims to pick up where
the British left off, in the Middle East, and in Central and Southern
Asia. The pieces have changed — instead of spices, lumber, and tea,
oil is the token of the realm — but the nature of the game remains the
same. As with the British, so with us: An overwhelming number of
Americans, while deploring American imperialism in practice, have been
conditioned to see ourselves as hostages to history. American aircraft
carriers instead of British battleships are now deemed indispensable
for keeping peace all over the world. American bases are found in most
countries in the Middle East and Central Asia. While it seems unlikely
that the American Empire will incorporate South Asia as it has the
Middle East, thanks to the war on terrorism Afghanistan and Pakistan,
at least, are rapidly evolving into house-trained regimes at the beck
and call of the U.S. government.

If there’s one thing certain about empire building, it is that such
projects cannot be sustained. Like the British, we seek to persuade
ourselves — or, more accurately, globalist elites seek to persuade us
— that empire building can be profitable, that the indefinite
occupation of countries like Iraq will pay for itself many times over
in oil revenues, and that militarism will open doors for enhanced
commerce. Now, of course, we are finding out in the Middle East and
Afghanistan, just as the British did in India, that only a few will
benefit at a cost to many. Who can possibly tout up the cost of
America’s enormous new “Residency” in Baghdad, the largest embassy
complex ever built, transparently designed to serve as the
headquarters for our newly minted Middle Eastern protectorates? The
contractors building the embassy, enriched by U.S. taxpayer dollars,
doubtless have few complaints. So likewise the security companies, the
weapons manufacturers, and, yes, the oil industry. For ordinary
Americans and Iraqis — the former burdened by spiraling oil prices and
a deepening economic crisis made worse by a trillion-dollar war, the
latter groaning under the yoke of terrorism, civil war, and an
ever-deteriorating standard of living — the war in the Middle East is
a bitter pill indeed. So also is proving to be the occupation of
Afghanistan, which soon will equal the duration of the Soviet Union’s
adventure in that unhappy land.

Where will it all end? If the verdict of history is any guide,
America, like Britain, may well continue to squander her strength and
blood waging “savage wars of peace” across the globe until her
resources are exhausted. Over the past two decades, America has
garrisoned most of the former Yugoslavia, the Middle East, and Central
Asia; we have yet to withdraw voluntarily from any of those places. As
with Britain, our empire has become bound up with our sense of
prestige; too many of us are invested in the status quo, such that
withdrawal — from Iraq and Afghanistan, especially — is seen by too
many as a betrayal rather than a corrective. In a word, it is not at
all certain that America will ever relinquish empire until she is
compelled to do so, by the brutal laws of economics, human behavior,
and history — “the gods of the copybook headings,” Rudyard Kipling
called them — which brook no defiance in the long run.

On the other hand, what might it take to steer America away from the
destructive, debilitating, potentially suicidal path of empire? A
return to constitutional government would be a tremendous start.
Merely reasserting the congressional prerogative to declare war would
greatly curtail American wars of pure aggression, like the invasion
and occupation of Iraq. Illegal wars and consequent occupations, like
those of Yugoslavia and the Korean Peninsula, would be nullified and
occupying forces brought home. The Koreans, the Japanese, the
Europeans, Turkey, the republics of Central Asia — all these would
become responsible for their own defense.

Of course, any proposal to withdraw from our many so-called
“obligations” overseas will provoke howls of protest from the
commentariat, as we have seen with the 2008 Ron Paul presidential
campaign. Yet ultimately we will have no choice in the matter.
American military hegemony will only last for a brief moment, indeed,
is already threatened by imperial overstretch combined with economic
malaise. We will not be the world’s only superpower forever.

Unfortunately, we have never been a particularly peaceful people. We
are quick to rise to anger against enemies real and perceived, and put
our trust in military force to have our way with the nations of the
world. This makes us vulnerable to those who would use war as an
excuse to enlarge the powers of government at home and abroad.

To return for a moment to Kipling, a man who was born in British India
and was intimately familiar with the workings of empire: On the
diamond jubilee of Queen Victoria’s reign in 1897, he composed a poem
that offended a lot of people in high places, because it dared to
state what few in Britain in those days were willing to acknowledge:
that empires are short-lived and that, because of pride, they usually
come to calamitous ends. The poem, now known as the hymn
“Recessional,” reads in part:

God of our fathers, known of old —
Lord of our far-flung battle line
Beneath whose awful hand we hold
Dominion over palm and pine —
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget — lest we forget!
The tumult and the shouting dies;
The captains and the kings depart:
Still stands Thine ancient sacrifice,
An humble and a contrite heart.
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget — lest we forget!
Far-called, our navies melt away;
On dune and headland sinks the fire:
Lo, all our pomp of yesterday
Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!
Judge of the Nations, spare us yet,
Lest we forget — lest we forget!
If, drunk with sight of power, we loose
Wild tongues that have not Thee in awe —
Such boasting as the Gentiles use
Or lesser breeds without the law —
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget — lest we forget!
For heathen heart that puts her trust
In reeking tube and iron shard —
All valiant dust that builds on dust,
And guarding, calls not Thee to guard —
For frantic boast and foolish word,
Thy mercy on Thy people, Lord!

May America find the humility to turn back from the path that so many
other nations, from Nineveh and Tyre to Ottoman Turkey and Britain,
have followed. May her citizens resolve to no more allow ourselves to
be seduced by imperialist insiders, who care not for the destiny of
our fair Republic but only for power and Self. May we return to the
restraint of Washington and Jefferson, and seek once more to be a
shining city on a hill for all the world to see, not a wrathful
military colossus for all the world to fear. May we put our trust in
God, rather than in the arm of the flesh — lest we forget.