Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 12/03/2025 11:19:39 AM PST by CharlesOConnell
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
An English economist, Nassau William Senior, remarked that a million Irish deaths would be about right.
It ended up being a million and a half.
Some people disembarked from a boat in Canada, in rags, in the middle of winter. They died of privation on the docks.
It has been hush-hush in Ireland, because a number of recruits into the British Army guarding the food, were from among the Irish themselves.
Most of the dead were buried in unmarked graves, in isolated rural haunts, unmemorialized, a place to avoid on a dark night.
Call it what it was, a “Holocaust”. No question England welcomed the reduction in the Irish Population so they could take it over.
When the Italians came to Boston, the Irish were already there and didn’t like the newbies. My Italian dad was 12 when he arrived, the Irish kids would gang up on him and steal his lunch money. So, Grandpa went to the school each Monday and paid for a week’s worth of lunches. Pretty soon the Italian men decided they liked the looks of the Irish girls and started marrying them and things calmed down.
I once talked to a history teacher about evil groups throughout history. The Mongols, etc. He said perhaps the worst of them all was the English aristocracy.
Hard to argue with that.
“Kathleen Mavourneen,” composed by Frederick Crouch in 1837, was a popular antebellum hit in Europe and America and remained popular during the Civil War. Crouch, who was born in England, fought for the Confederacy during the war and later settled in Baltimore.
The English lords must have run out of Irish in order to turn on their own people.
From Famine to Five Points: Lord Lansdowne's Irish Tenants in NYC
My Irish ancestors came to Philly in 1860, and gggrandfather immediately joined the Union Army, which was recruited on the docks.
My Italian ancestors came to Philly in 1885, and by that time my Irish ancestors had moved across the river to Gloucester NJ, leaving south Philly to the Italians. Since my ggrandparents were Neapolitan, they stood out among the sijis; they left south Philly in 1930 when the Depression hit and they lost all their investments, and their corner pharmacy.
P.S. The postwar east Asian immigrants all moved to extreme west Philly and Upper Darby, and their neighborhoods were safe and clean. Then they left, and those taking their place have made it unsafe and a wreck.
“”””It Was Irish Who “Need Not Apply”””””
That appears to be fake history since historians can’t find the evidence of it.
Ireland is STILL a colony - held by the rump British empire in London, Brussels and Davos globalists
Canada and Ireland are the controlled social-engineering laboratories for the NWO types in the EU.
Ha
Last phrase, second ad, just above the second rule.
Second to the last line, main complete ad.
there
Back in those days, “No Irish need apply” was not an uncommon phrase in newspaper help-wanted ads. Those ads have survived in newspaper archives. Here’s one example.
https://voices.pitt.edu/TeachersGuide/Unit%205/NoIrishNeedApply.htm
But you are right about one thing. When it came to hard manual labor, the robber barons didn’t care who showed up at the mill gate.
Bkmk
"Oh", the authorities proclaim, "that's not really a starving child, it has a pre-existing medical condition that only mimics starvation."
Of empires and famines
Key Markets report for Monday, 25 August 2025
Alex Krainer
Aug 25, 2025
The unbearable and incomprehensible, yet persisting situation in the world today is the deliberate starvation of the two million Palestinian people in Gaza, or however many are still left alive. The figure is probably closer to 1.5 million. It may seem like the worst thing humanity has witnessed since who knows when, except that, unfortunately, it’s only the most recent and most widely reported example of the monstrous misdeeds of the Western empire.
Many of us recall the famines in Somalia, Sudan or Ethiopia but those seemed like accidents of nature or consequences of civil wars that raged between camps dominated by cruel, barbarous warlords who couldn’t or wouldn’t settle their differences by any civilized means. Any involvement by Western powers in such atrocities was strictly the domain of unhinged conspiracy theories and little more.
However, the more we learn about the true nature of the Western empire, which has been carefully concealed behind the glossy façade of the Western “civilization,” the more one learns about the empire’s ends and its methods, the more one suspects that many, if not most, of the famines recorded in history weren’t accidents of nature or consequences of civil wars. They were results of deliberate policy aimed at subjugating populations and forcing them to accept colonial subjugation and slavery.
This may seem like an exaggeration, but British statesman and Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli explicitly said as much himself, explaining that the objective of the British Empire was to “Gain and hold territories that possess the largest supplies of the basic raw materials. Establish naval bases around the world to control the sea and commerce lanes. Blockade and starve into submission any nation or group of nations that opposes this empire control program.”
Disraeli wasn’t just speaking words to intimidate the Empire’s opponents. There’s much evidence that the Empire really did use starvation as a weapon of war against disobedient groups and nations and that they did so relatively frequently. Take the example of India: during the 120 year period between 1757 and 1878 when she was under direct British rule, India experienced 31 serious famines. In fact, even in the absence of outright famines, much of India’s population lived in chronic food insecurity. Even though this was concealed from the British public, Britain’s ruling establishment was well aware of it.
According to research by the economic historian Robert C Allen, during the 19th century, while famines became more frequent and more deadly and extreme poverty increased from 23% in 1810 to more than 50% in the mid-20th century. The period from 1880 to 1920 – the height of Britain’s imperial power – was particularly devastating for India. By the 1910s, life expectancy in India collapsed to 21.9 years. In 1939, George Orwell wrote as follows:
“One gets some idea of the real relationship of England and India when one reflects that the per capita income in England is something over £80, and in India £7. It is quite common for an Indian [worker’s] leg to be thinner than the average Englishman’s arm. … it is due to simple starvation. This is the system which we all live on.”
Was India’s chronic food insecurity somehow the result of the inadequacy of its agricultural practices, violent Monsoon rainstorms, or other coincidental causes? It doesn’t appear so: colonial rule seems to be the key causal factor behind India’s famines. Since she gained independence in 1947, India experienced zero famines, and in the 2,000 year period before 1757, only 17 serious famines were recorded, one every 118 years. Contrast that with one every four years (31 famines in 120 years) under British rule!
Correlation may not imply causation but then we also had the suspicious case of the Irish “potato” famine (1845–1852) when at least a million Irish people starved to death, supposedly because potato crops failed. For an island nation that consists of lush, green pastures and is surrounded by fish, the conventional potato narrative makes no sense whatsoever, but the correlation between famines and British rule did hold true.
Are things any better today? It’s certainly hard to believe that anyone could be as unscrupulous and as cruel as that, but history suggests that the moneyed oligarchies behind the British (and Dutch, and French, and Spanish, and Portuguese) empire were. Are things any better today? One might think that such things couldn’t possibly happen in this day and age (except for Gaza, of course, but this is only because Hamas bad), but I believe one might be wrong about that.
In April 1974, Henry Kissinger, then Nixon's Secretary of State and National Security Adviser sent out a classified memo to select cabinet officials. The title of the memo was, "Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for US Security and Overseas Interests," and it was commissioned on the recommendation of John D. Rockefeller III and came to be called, more famously, NSSM 200, for National Security Study Memorandum 200.
In it, Kissinger addressed the difficulty of controlling resource rich areas of the world against the social pressures borne of growing world populations and went on to suggest the kinds of coercive measures the US should consider. He bluntly stated that food aid should be considered as "an instrument of national power," and that the US should ration food aid to "help people who can't or won't control their population growth."
The NSSM 200 made depopulation in foreign developing countries an explicit, if secret, national security priority of the United States for the first time. In that, the policy of the British Empire was simply grafted onto the US foreign policy. If anything changed between Disraeli and Kissinger, it's the slick framing of policy goals as "help." But such help amounted to recommending genocide, at least as defined under the UN Convention of 1948.
Lazy natives discovering Kipling’s “dignity of labour”
In addition to destroying an uppity population as and when needed, starvation is very useful as a means of motivation. If they’re well fed and comfortable, they tend to get lazy and complacent, not the most conducive state from which to discover what Rudyard Kipling called, “the dignity of labour.” If they’re insecure, anxious and hungry, they’ll be at their best, at least from their employers’ point of view, perhaps in the same way as Mr. Rockefeller’s priorities became US foreign policy priorities as delegated to Mr. Kissinger. In this way, the ruling establishment’s point of view spills over into the governing institutions. The wording may be more refined, but the policies chase after the same incentives.
In July of 2022, the UN published an article titled, “The Benefits of World Hunger,” by one George Kent. Kent is a university professor, of course. He argued that, “hunger has great positive value to many people,” which might be correct. In particular, it would have great positive value to people like John D. Rockefeller III and whoever pays Mr. Kent’s tenure at the University of Hawaii.
Kent explained why hunger is so very beneficial: “… it is fundamental to the working of the world’s economy. Hungry people are the most productive people, especially where there’s need for manual labour.”
Are western populations in danger?
This might be the last worry for most westerners today. Of course, famines tend to occur in far away lands. But for some reason, Western nations have themselves been more and more aggressively targeted with policies that destroy or disincentivize food production. We’ve seen the war on farmers engulf the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Ireland, France, Holland, Germany, Italy, and many other nations. We’ve also seen many schemes where governments pay farmers not to plant crops or give them nearly irresistible incentives to sell their farms.
We really should ask, why, because the fight against carbon or nitrogen, or whatever other nonsense the likes of George Kent might contrive, the carbon they are trying to reduce could be us, our children and their children. This could well be the last thing in the world we should be complacent about.
Yes, the U.S. government absolutely did compel farmers to slaughter livestock and destroy crops during the early years of the Great Depression — most notably under the auspices of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) of 1933, a central part of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal.
The justification was economic: to raise agricultural commodity prices by artificially reducing supply. The government viewed "overproduction" as the root cause of farmers' suffering. So rather than allow market forces to adjust or find ways to redistribute excess food to the hungry, they chose a path of deliberate destruction.
Under this program:
This happened in the depths of a humanitarian crisis, when malnutrition was rampant across large parts of the country. Millions of Americans were literally starving, yet the government, under guidance from economists and bureaucrats with no apparent concern for human suffering, destroyed food on an industrial scale.
The official narrative framed this as necessary to stabilize prices and help struggling farmers. But the deeper implication — which is rarely discussed — is that the federal government actively prioritized economic abstraction over human lives. The policy didn't just fail to prevent hunger; it ensured that hunger persisted by withholding life-sustaining resources from the population.
Moreover, this wasn't a one-time error — it was systematic. The AAA subsidized landowners for taking land out of production, which often meant evicting tenant farmers and sharecroppers, especially in the South. So not only was food destroyed, but the poorest agricultural workers were thrown off the land as well.
This wasn't incompetence — it was deliberate social engineering, cloaked in technocratic language.
So yes, during a time when Americans were hungry, when starvation was a genuine reality for many families, the U.S. government forced the destruction of food in order to prop up prices. And this is a matter of historical record — though it’s conveniently glossed over in most mainstream narratives about the New Deal.
Were there plausible reasons at the time for the signs “Irish need not apply.”? Behaior or reputation or both?
I dont know.
I do know that Thomas Sowell notes that some blacks believe that they should “behave black” and they also believe that not doing so is just giving in to white opression.
He argues that black people should reject what has come to be known as black culture not just because its criminal but because it wasnt black at all.
The present culture is an amplified version of the debased culture that the lowest caste of European immigrants had recently brought over and taught to blacks.
Given the time period of Irish immigration and slave emancipation he makes a case for the connection.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.