Food for thought

Food for thought. My hunger for the truth and justice for my beloved homeland Ireland. After decades of biased, one-sided, pernicious propaganda peddled by Peter Hitchens, I would like decent and honourable people to have some insight into the actual facts about Ireland’s troubled history at the hands of a ruthless invader.

Great Irish Famine
In 1845 the potato crop failed due to blight. Most European countries were affected but Ireland was the only country that experienced famine on a catastrophic scale.

John Mitchell, a leading political writer at the time, wrote one of the first widely circulated tracts on the famine, The Last Conquest of Ireland (Perhaps) in 1861. It established the widespread view that the treatment of the famine by the British was a deliberate murder of the Irish, and contained the famous phrase: “The Almighty, indeed, sent the potato blight, but the English created the famine”.

Cecil Woodham-Smith, an authority on the Irish Famine, wrote in The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845-1849′ that no issue has provoked so much anger and embittered relations between England and Ireland as “the indisputable fact that huge quantities of food were exported from Ireland to England throughout the period when the people of Ireland were dying of starvation”. Ireland remained a net exporter of food throughout most of the five-year famine.

Charles Trevelyan, Secretary of the Treasury for Irish relief, stated that he personally considered the famine to be an “an effective mechanism for reducing surplus population”. At least a million people in Ireland died and some two million emigrated in a period of a little more than a decade (1845-55).

On the 27th April 1848, for his services to Ireland, which meets standard for the UN definition of genocide, Queen Victoria of England knighted Charles Edward Trevelyan.

Is this part of the British History you “feel a sense of pride in”, Mr. Hitchens ?


Hitchens’ splintered view

In respect of Peter Hitchens blog of 13th October 2013, re Britain’s new FBI, he states ‘the UK’ s biggest and most violent crime syndicate, the Provisional IRA, now sits in government and receives taxpayer subsidies through its political front organisation’. Has it ever occurred to the bigoted, vituperative Mr. Hitchens that if England hadn’t, violently and criminally, invaded Ireland, the Provisional IRA would not exist?

Peter Hitchens is a past master of the ‘deny, minimise and blame’ game. How very convenient to be able to abdicate any responsibility for any wrongs and evil you have perpetrated and find a scapegoat instead. I, long ago, abandoned all hope of PH ever being capable of even handed opinions in respect of Ireland.

For someone who professes to be a Christian, PH is far too adept at ‘casting stones’.
He may not care for the ‘splinters’ in my eyes but I deplore the ‘planks’ in his.

What did St. Peter of Hitchens expect the Irish nation to do, after eight centuries (yes that really is eight hundred years) of inhumane and iniquitous treatment at the hands of the English? Lie down, roll over and play possum, no doubt or perhaps a ‘pretty please, with sugar on, can we have our country back?

England invaded Ireland and waged war on the Irish, so please spare me the shock, horror and self-righteous indignation because the Irish finally retaliated. It is vomit-inducing and beneath contempt.

So, wake up and grow up Mr. Hitchens and have the mettle to face up to the fact that atrocious wrongs were committed against Ireland and the Irish race.

It’s just two bad

So Peter Hitchens can stop American supporters of the IRA in their tracks by the mere mention of Sean Russell, the former IRA Chief of Staff, who offered his services to the Third Reich. Like wow, awesome man. Actually, on reflection, I am not that impressed.

They sound like a pretty weedy bunch to me and should Mr Hitchens encounter these Americans again, I would strongly advise him not to say “boo” to them. There might be some casualties. Does Mr Hitchens seriously expect me to believe that Sean Russell was the only quisling during World War II? There most certainly would have been others and, Heaven forfend, some may even have been English.

Mr Hitchens then feels it necessary, not for any particular reason, other than to make a snide remark and be judgemental, to cite Phil Sheridan, one of the fiercest and cruellest generals in wars against the Native Americans. There must have been hundreds, if not thousands of practically every nationality of men, involved in these wars, over many, many years.

So what is it in Peter Hitchens psyche that compels him to single out one Irishman, whom he seemingly feels, virtually single handedly was responsible for the demise of the Native Americans? Are Sean Russell and Phil Sheridan supposed to prove (all two of them) what a thoroughly bad lot the Irish are? Or maybe he feels they justify and vindicate England’s invasion and division of Ireland. It seems somewhat racist to me. Tsk tsk.

No obfuscation in these three paragraphs

With reference to Peter Hitchens blog on the 1st August 2013 ‘Not a very United Kingdom’ which by amazing coincidence referred to every point I had made in my blog of the 21st July, Peter Hitchens – Silent on Northern Ireland issues for once. My blog contained three paragraphs, his contained twenty paragraphs. After the ninth I was losing the will to live. Is this his strategy to render people semi-comatose with his obfuscation?

I was endeavouring to throw light on a situation where there has only been darkness, dishonesty and injustice, not to mention monstrously distorted opinions by the self-appointed spokesman for Northern Ireland, Mr Peter Hitchens and apparently this constitutes wickedness.

I intend to give my interpretation of the truth about my native homeland Ireland but I fully acknowledge that there is only one supreme being who has absolute truth. Shall I tell him or will you? It is not Peter Hitchens.

Taking Liberties

I recently read that Peter Hitchens is a British patriot and a burk. I beg your pardon, I misread that. He is a Burkeian conservative, (well good for him) whose principal political concern is national independence and liberty (the foundation on which all other aims must be based). How very odd then, that these are the very things he has always so vehemently felt the Irish nation are not entitled to. Nice.

Peter Hitchens – silent on Northern Ireland issues for once

Peter Hitchens would have been apoplectic had the I.R.A. been responsible for the violent and disgraceful behaviour of the loyalist thugs and riffraff in Belfast on the 12th July. They were not allowed to march, in their pathetically, puerile fashion, through the Nationalist area, which they do for the sole purpose of being provocative and stirring up old hatreds.

The indigenous Irish do not like to be reminded that they once lived in a united Ireland until the jackboot and yoke were thrust upon them. That, however, is another story, which I fully intend to tell before much longer. Regretfully, I return to the loyalists, and I am sure that Mr. Hitchens thinks that thwarting them in any way whatsoever, is another dreadful surrender to those awful Irish who have the temerity to think they should have sovereignty of their own country, over and above the descendants of Scottish and English settlers, who were sent in their tens of thousands to the north of Ireland, where there was the most resistance to English occupation and oppression.

Elizabeth the 1st declared the settlers would ‘act as a thorn in the side of the Irish’. It seems to have worked very successfully but what a shameful, hate-filled legacy and look at the murder and mayhem it has caused over six hundred years, and continues to cause today. In respect of those ugly scenes caused by some of the loyalists where many policemen were injured, I was wondering what the voluble and vociferous Mr. Hitchens would have to say. The answer to that is quite simply, nothing, absolutely nothing. The silence was deafening. I find the lack of integrity and impartiality deeply shocking.