Discover more from John Waters Unchained
In the Crosshairs of the Combine
I am threatened by the Irish police with prosecution for 'incitement to hatred,' 'racism' and 'anti-semitism,' on the basis of an article containing nothing remotely resembling any such quantities.
[E]ach migrant abroad became as though a mobile force-field of ideological power, which neutralised many of the rights of those into whose former territories it sought to encroach.
— John Waters, ‘Bullied Towards Extinction’
On Tuesday last, October 17th, at 17.40, I received the following communication from ‘Don Griffin Detective Sergeant Dun Laoghaire Detective Unit’:
Reference to complaints relating to articles appearing in The Irish Light "The Uncensored Truth”
I am contacting you to let you know that the Gardaí at Dun Laoghaire have received complaints about the contents of two separate articles contained in The Irish Light Newspaper, of which I understand you are the Journalist. The first complaint relates to an article in Issue 16 with front page headline ‘Ireland is full.’ It is alleged by the complainant that the related contents are offensively racist and Anti-Semitic. A second and separate complaint relates to what is alleged to be an Anti-Semitic article on pages 22 and 23 of Issue 17.
It is envisaged that the articles will be submitted by file to DPP to make a direction on whether or not the said articles constitute a possible offence under Section 2 of the Prohibition of the Incitement to Hatred Act, 1989. Prior to the submission of this file I am inviting you to comment, if you wish to do so, on the articles’ potential to offend. For that purpose you can arrange to attend at Dun Laoghaire Garda Station where I could meet you on any date at your convenience. You can contact me by email [here he provides an email address and phone number, which I have omitted here to protect his privacy] if you should require any further information.
Don Griffin Detective Sergeant
Dun Laoghaire Detective Unit
I responded at 17.57:
Would you be so kind as to inform me as to the basis on which you 'understand' that I am the author of the articles you refer to, and also forward me copies of the articles in question so that I may ascertain what you are referring to.
Sergeant Griffin responded at 18.34:
As requested, I have attached a copy of the aforementioned Issue 16 for your information and perusal. I have also attached a copy of the aforementioned Issue 17 but this matter appears to relate to the Editor rather than you; if you could pass on contact details, please.
I have also attached a link to a copy of the “Prohibition of the Incitement to Hatred Act, 1989” for your information —
[Click here for link, JW]
Don Griffin D/Sgt
So: Within 45 minutes of my asking Detective Sergeant Griffin a rather fundamental question as to the basis of his evidence and proofs, he responded by (implicitly) admitting that at least half the charges he had levelled against me were false on their face. In fact, it is clear that, before excitedly rushing to despatch his intimidating email, he had not taken even the most rudimentary steps to examine the ‘evidence’ he had been given by a person or persons who is/are able to remain anonymous. Yet, far from retracting anything or apologising, in responding to my pointed query he bulls on as though virtually everything he has said is kosher. In a familiar weasel-worded fashion, referring to Issue 17 of the Irish Light, he admits that ‘this matter appears to relate to the Editor rather than you,’ and yet fails to concede that this means that, regardless of all the other corrupt and ludicrous aspects of this attack on my right to speak my mind (or the Editor of the Irish Light’s right to do likewise), at least several of his charges now stand as outright untruths. You will note also Detective Sergeant Griffin’s throwaway 'if you could pass on contact details, please.’ Who does he think I am — one of his touts?
Gemma O’Doherty, the Editor of the Irish Light, who was contacted by Detective Sergeant Griffin only on Thursday, has since expressed her belief that this attack was motivated by the fact that, on her livestream last Monday night, October 16th, she announced that she was preparing to deliver an exposé on the murder of Raonaid Murray, an Irish teenager who was stabbed to death near her home in Dun Laoghaire in 1999 (outline details here), and alleged actions of guards at Dun Laoghaire Garda station in covering up the truth about her death.
The article on the cover of Issue 16 of the Irish Light was indeed written by me, and is a dissection of the criminality of the Government’s mass migration policies and the spurious and mendacious arguments used to justify them. There is no mention of or allusion to Jews or Judaism. Nor is there a single sentence that could remotely be regarded as racist. The article is dissection of the Irish Government’s lies and gaslighting about mass migration, as well as a deconstruction of the spurious arguments used to promote it, and an exposition of the international legal framework that makes it possible for an Irish government to trample on its own citizens to promote the alleged ‘rights’ of foreigners to be allocated benefits that Irish people are denied. There is nothing remotely resembling incitement in my article, nor anything hateful in respect of anyone except, perhaps, the unspeakable traitors who are destroying our once beautiful country. I put my hands up to that.
I look forward to the opportunity to read the article in question in open court, briefly free from the mendacious noise of the evil monsters who are destroying our country. I look forward also to the opportunity to alert the outside world to what is now underway in Ireland, which is being strangled and suffocated in one concerted movement. Whatever grief and stress will be involved in such a prosecution, it will be worth it to ensure that the pressure is kept up to bring Ireland’s shame to the attention of everyone in the former Free World who professes a love for our country.
Irish readers may also note that Detective Sergeant Griffin proposes (or has been instructed) to prosecute me under The Prohibition of the Incitement to Hatred Act, 1989, a piece of legislation the Unspeakable Creeps have for many months been disparaging on the basis that it is inadequate to dealing with the problems of ‘hate in our society’ — hence, they claim, the urgency of introducing ‘hate speech’ legislation to enable them to deal adequately with whatever it is they seek to deal with (dissenting opinions, that would be).
A further interesting aspect of all this is that the editions of the Irish Light which feature in this complaint have both been in circulation for several months. I wrote that article in February last, and it was published in the March/April edition, roughly eight months ago. Whoever complained has most likely had it in their possession since around that time — long enough for anyone who was going to be incited to hatred by anything in it to show themselves and do their worst. In addition, Sergeant Griffin refers to ‘complaints’, conveying that there are more than one. Were these ‘complaints’ made at the same time, by different people, acting independently of each other, on the same day, six months after the article was published? An interesting possibility.
The article in issue 17 of the Irish Light, incidentally, comprises simply a factual list of Jewish persons in powerful positions in various sectors of public life and business in the world — it contains no intimation of ‘hatred’ or ‘anti-semitism’. These charges are not merely bogus — they are risible and transparently vexatious.
Something deeply odd is happening here. A few years ago, in the wake of the so-called ‘marriage referendum’ of 2015 (a smash-and-grab raid on the Irish Constitution), I had occasion to make a complaint to Dun Laoghaire Garda Station about a series of threatening tweets then spreading like a forest fire across the Twitter firmament. The tweets, emanating from squads of LGBTP goons, had a theme which was, precisely, ‘If you see John Waters, give him a punch from me!’ In other words, the tweets contained clear intimations of hatred, incitement and threats of violence. I gathered up the evidence and submitted my complaint. I heard nothing for two months when, out of the blue, I received a visit from two detectives from Dun Laoghaire, who called to tell me there was nothing they could do because ‘the law has not caught up on this form of harassment.’ Yet, an officer from the same station can now, immediately upon receiving a half-arsed and clearly vindictive complaint from a member (or members) of the public — which he clearly has not even taken the trouble to scrutinise — issue a formal communication informing me that I stand to be charged on the basis of an article that contains, contrary to his assertions, no ‘anti-semitism’, no ‘racism,’ no remote form of incitement and no threat of violence. Has the law ‘caught up,’ then? Apparently not, as the instrument Detective Sergeant Griffin proposes using is an Act that is now 34 years old, and which has been dismissed by the Unspeakable Creeps as unfit for purpose.
But let’s not be naïve about this. It is, of course, an example of ideological policing at its most cavalier, and an attempt at serious intimidation of two of the few remaining voices of opposition in Irish society. Moreover, it is quite clear from the optics that there is a higher power at work behind the actual complainant who appeared at the desk in Dun Laoghaire Garda Station on Tuesday last. We can, for the moment, merely speculate about the identity of that higher power, but we can so do so intelligently and indeed advisedly.
Reproduced below is the original full version of the article for which I am threatened with prosecution. The article as presented below is divided into two parts, replicating the manner of its publication in the March/April 2023 edition of The Irish Light newspaper. The first section appeared on the front page, under the headline ‘Ireland is Full’; the remainder was published inside the newspaper as a guide to confronting the lies being told about mass migration into Ireland. This point at which the division was made is indicated in the text below, although the article was written to be read as a single piece.
[For increased coherence, I have modified one sentence which became garbled in the process of transmission back in February, but nothing hangs on this from the viewpoint of the charges being laid against me.]
Bullied Towards Extinction
The Irish Government is guilty of actual racism on innumerable counts. It is truly racist to reach into other countries and seek to draw from them people of different ethnicities and colours and force them upon your own people, purely because of their ethnicity or colour. It is racist to infantilise these people by plying them with benefits and privileges that are not offered to the indigenous Irish population, for that is to patronise the one and wrongfully discriminate against the other. It is racist to give no consideration whatsoever to the likely consequences to the countries these people are being sucked out of — in many cases leaving their elderly relatives behind without anyone to care for them or support them. Yet, the Irish Government, when it is not pretending that these people all come from war-zones, feels confident in parading itself as ‘compassionate’ for having damaged not just the country it is charged with maintaining in good order, but also several countries which will be left bereft as a result of this plunder of their energetic young.
This is to say nothing of the damage all this is doing to Ireland — its economy devastated by the extension to outsiders of benefits and privileges not available to natives; its communities (invariably rural or working class ones) swamped by unvetted aliens, a majority of whom will have thrown away their identification papers and travel documents before arriving; its culture obliterated by an accompanying ideology that elevates the identities of the interlopers, but seeks to suppress that of the indigenous population.
Now that indigenous passions are at last beginning to rise to the occasion of the governmental campaign of industrial forced inward migration, it may be time to tune up the arguments so that they match the strength of emotion on show. Too often, our people, menaced by moral blackmail and threats of tarring and feathering by demonising slogans and catchwords, have resorted to weak arguments that ultimately fall into the laps of the predators seeking to sell our country and its people down the river of history. One example is the ‘I’m not a racist, but. . .’ trope, which is greeted with guffaws of condescension by the globalists and their puppets on the ground, as they sneer or cattle-prod the populace into silence once more. Another is the feeble resorting to arguments about resources, as though having more cops and community centres would mean that we could safely leave our culture to be swamped by indifferent aliens who come here strictly for the benefits and the beer.
Ireland is being bullied towards extinction. Its people are being told by their politicians that they can expect their population to double within a few years. They are told that this is a matter of ’compassion’, because all these people will come fleeing war and climate change. When the people ask why, then, it is necessary for the Government to canvass and advertise for migrants in Third World countries, they are told that this is a racist question. Similarly if the people point out that it is only a short few years since Irish people were told by an Irish government why they had themselves to leave Ireland to find work: ‘We can’t all expect to live on one small island.’
Every year of the decade up to 2019, almost as many people left Ireland seeking employment abroad as came here because they had been told it was the land of milk and houses. In total, over a million newcomers arrived in that period. To call this ‘replacement’ is apparently racist, even though this is precisely the term applied to it by the United Nations.
It never had anything to do with compassion. This is merely one of a whole panoply of distorted, gaslighting arguments being purveyed by what is now a vast taxpayer-funded industry in re-colonising Ireland on behalf — this time — of the American-led unipolar globalist front. The instrument this time — replete with resounding ironies — is the human quotient of some of the territories of the Third World most affected by the earlier waves of colonialism. But there is an added and confounding irony in the fact that Ireland, arguably the most brutalised of all nations in these incursions, has been targeted as the softest touch and the most alluring prize.
[The following part of the article, a continuation of the foregoing, was published inside the same edition of the newspaper. The communication from the accusing police officer makes no reference to this section.]
One of the most disgusting things being attempted by the purchased Irish political class is the weaponising of historical Irish emigration as a tool to blackmail the present generations into handing over their country to strangers. ‘We went all over the world!’ they tell us, seemingly shameless in their abuse of the memory of those starving hordes of human sacrifices who were driven out of Ireland by precisely the same forces that are orchestrating its present invasion.
Our people had to flee their country because of the venality of the British Crown and the complicity of the domestic quislings seeking to profit from the destruction and destitution of their country, then as now. But our people did not go abroad in search of social welfare, free houses and other benefits, not did they go to belittle the cultures of the countries offering them refuge. Our people spoke English and assimilated into the melting pot that was the emerging America, embracing the culture of their hosts with good grace and gratitude, whereas the 'new Irish' are invited — by NGOs financed out of the pockets of the indigenous population — to treat their hosts as racists and oppressors from the off. Our people went to America one-by-one, not in tribes or gangs, pursuing women and girls around the streets under the protection of a corrupt police force. They did not congregate in ghettos demanding 'rights' and calling their hosts ‘racists’, but put their shoulders to the wheel to build a new civilisation. They went to work and work they did, building Britain and America with their bare hands, many of them dying en route, or of the hardship they encountered on arrival. They were not furnished with the latest Levis and Nikes, and billeted in five-star hotels. They helped to build America, a fledgling, frontier nation, expanding into the wilds of a continent that had itself been stolen from its indigenous peoples. Our great aunts and uncles were among them, and their passion to survive bears no resemblance to what is being perpetrated now. Ireland is not America, and may indeed be close to the opposite: rather than an expanding frontier society, it is a society that has failed by every rational rubric to self-start, and therefore remains incapable of caring for its own, never mind inviting half the world in to steal what rightfully belongs to those who built and saved it.
Our people went to work, not to stand at street corners issuing menacing signals to women and girls. Moreover — and this is an important point — it was not ‘we’ who went, but the ancestors of people who were, as a result, born in Britain and America, and are therefore now British or American. This would seem to be — if it is an argument for anything — an argument for requiring Britain and America to carry out whatever exercise in historical balancing is deemed to be called for.
There are a million other points of disparity. Ireland is a tiny country. It is a short time since our political shysters were telling us we could not all live ‘on one small island’. Now, it appears, our island is capable of supporting unlimited numbers of outsiders with neither love, nor affinity, nor respect for Ireland or her history.
To say that we should open ourselves up without limit or discussion is tantamount to saying that we have no entitlement to a home in the world, no right to claim a birthright, and that our children ought to be denied the basic entitlement of any human born on this planet: the right to call the part of the Earth on which they were born their home and the right to put their heads down there with an easy heart.
Another argument these vile ignoramuses proffer is that the West destroyed the countries of Africa, Middle East et cetera by its colonial adventuring, and so owes a debt to the descendants of those who were dispossessed. This is true, but Ireland had no part in it. On the contrary, Ireland was itself occupied for many centuries by our nearest neighbour, and therefore has more in common with the allegedly dispossessed countries whose citizens come demanding reparation than with the rest of the West. The imperial overreach of England, Spain, Portugal or Belgium had nothing to do with us.
When their faux compassion fails to register, they turn the argument to what in other contexts might be deemed ‘enlightened self-interest’. Successful economies, they tell us, need migrants. But the Irish economy is not ‘successful’ in any meaningful sense reflecting the enhanced welfare of the Irish people. It is a disaster waiting to happen, a bomb waiting to go off. This is because what we call the Irish economy is nothing of the kind, but a cuckoo-in-the-nest economy that benefits the richest corporations in the world, while casting aside Irish people as second-class citizens, economically and otherwise. Only a tiny proportion of those working in transnational corporations operating in Ireland are Irish natives. These monoliths came to Ireland on the false pretence that they would create work for the indigenous population, but instead brought their workers in from outside, and flooded the streets of our capital with them until it became a foreign city on the east coast of Ireland.
They tell us we need lots of immigrants to pay our pensions, an example of gaslighting par excellence. We have already paid for our pensions, with our monthly or weekly contributions, over many years; that’s what pensions are. Except that the political class has multiple times raided the pension pots, or caused them to be devastated by stock market crashes, as a result of their criminal policies directed at serving the globalist corporates rather than their own people.
We have a problem, they tell us, of demographic collapse. Yes we do, but the reason Ireland's demographics are in meltdown is entirely down to government policies and globalist thinking: the forcing of abortion on our people in 2018 and the failure over many years to invest in the smaller towns and countryside of Ireland in ways that might have constructed a viable economy that would have provided the native population with some degree of cohesion and security.
This assault on Ireland is propelled by an ideological agenda, frequently referred to as Cultural Marxism, though Marx is but a tiny element within its labyrinthine and flexible provisions.
Cultural Marxism permits the moral elevation of a recognised victim to a position of supreme entitlement even over those who have built a society, home or community in the country being invaded, and wish mainly to benefit from their labours and be left alone. The invocation of a ‘natural disaster’ or a ‘war-torn’ area is sufficient to entitle the supranational authorities to demand the standing-down of all rights and freedoms of native populations in favour of those who are deemed to enjoy ‘protected characteristics’. This quantity can trump any fundamental, inalienable or imprescriptible claim of a native, regardless of other circumstances, conferring novel and actual legal entitlements that transcend notions of fairness or democracy. The fact that the orchestrators of this new regimen also happen to be the chief protagonists in provoking an applicable war, or instigating the relevant natural disaster, is inadmissible in any attempt to appeal, which will almost always prove futile. These new ‘laws’ are not laws in the old sense: They do not derive from democratic processes or norms, but come into being by diktat of a new cadre of moral guardians, who have adopted the anti-principles of the essentially communist Frankfurt School and declared themselves the enforcers of these diktats on the unadorned basis that they have successfully claimed the power to do so. Might has become right. Anyone who objects can be disposed of as a ‘fascist' or ‘white supremacist’, in the culture they have constructed to protect this new dispensation from either scrutiny or criticism.
In his 2020 book, The Age of Entitlement, Christopher Caldwell writes of how all these forms of thinking were first given legal life in the US Civil Rights Act of 1964, which essentially turned Cultural Marxist tenets into legal principles. This became the model for subsequent UN conventions, starting with the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1965, which ensured that these laws became essentially transportable to any foreign jurisdiction and subject to the same powers and reach, serving to globalise the Cultural Marxist programme and allow it to be recognised by governments and courts as trumping indigenous laws and constitutions.
The effects, though momentous, were barely noticed. It meant that, throughout the former free West, the entirety of the human relationship with place, nation, home and belonging had been altered out of all recognition by the developments branching out from the US in 1964. One of the key changes was that ‘human rights’ — previously regarded as arising from individual dignity in accordance with Christian principles — had come to be seen not as fundamental or absolute entitlements but as enforceable diktats of the supranational powers. This change was culturally imposed by a process of ‘education’, whereby, for example, somewhat reluctant populations were cajoled and coerced into accepting entirely new definitions of marriage, family and parenthood, under the stern and increasingly menacing gaze of the supranational powers and their appointed enforcers. Thus, law became not something deriving from the will of the people, but something imposed upon them, which they were required to submit to as a moral compact, and judged accordingly in ways that became increasingly ominous as the powers of the surveillance state became more and more palpable.
We have yet to grasp fully the nature and significance of these changes. When we complain that migrants are being housed before Irish people, we are merely observing the operation of the new dispensation. The structure of the new ‘law’ not merely permits this, but actively demands it. The purpose is twofold: to bed down the new dispensation on a non-negotiable basis, and to dramatise its workings for the benefit of those regarding themselves as the indigenous population of the newly declared colony, which for the moment is permitted to regard itself as the ‘host country’. This osmotic 'education' is designed to gradually break the news, so that the message will sink in and the native population will in time become disabused of any sense that Ireland belongs to its people. Ireland is no longer a nation; it is a ‘host country’ on its way back to being a sand-bank.
It has been clear for some time that this is the agenda of the global economic elites and their servant supranational policy-makers in respect of the Caucasian population of the West, which in most countries has long since fallen below the level at which it might in future be restored by intrinsic action. While these populations are encouraged to abort their young, they are simultaneously subject to massive waves of forced migration from Africa and elsewhere, and yet anyone who describes this as ‘population replacement’ is daubed as a ‘racist’ and shamed into silence.
One outcome of this is that, de facto and de jure, most people now utterly misunderstand the legal situation of migrants entering their countries. At a superficial level, the issue of, for example, refugees and asylum seekers is, for political reasons, presented as a matter of ‘compassion’, but this is merely the leveraging of an outmoded moral blackmail trope to get the newcomers in the door and up the stairs. In reality, the trick was to create conditions in which each migrant in Europe and America became, in effect, a roving portion of UN jurisdiction, by which all the rights and entitlements of UN conventions, increasingly modelled on US civil rights concepts, were essentially transportable to any foreign jurisdiction, and there propelled by at least as much torque and power as at ‘home’. Thus, each migrant abroad became as though a mobile force-field of ideological power, which neutralised many of the rights of those into whose former territories it sought to encroach. This is why groups of migrants are invariably protected by the police forces which we fondly believe to be ‘ours’, and zealously argued for, against our interests, by our ‘representatives’.
These quasi-legal processes are augmented by a grotesque manipulation of historical and cultural understandings. Since many of the migrants come from Africa, it is as though, docking at Rosslare, they are instantly able to access in themselves a mode of thinking indistinguishable from what might occur were they to disembark on the shores of America, with its assorted history of segregation and slavery, seeking vengeance or justice for some construed injury to their ancestors or the collective black imagination. The actual content of history is irrelevant and inadmissible. The fact that the Irish have allegedly been historically 'white' confers automatic leverage on all such claims. As though by virtue of being given refuge in America when they were being starved out of their own country, the ancestors of present-day Irish natives seemingly conferred grievance-rights on unknowable future generations of black and coloured peoples, to be mobilised against future generations of the Irish nation, ad infinitum.
Having the young men of Africa hanging around the corners of European cities does nothing to help Africa; it helps only fabulously wealthy globalist interests. As Robert Cardinal Sarah (pictured below) has written: ‘Globalized humanity, without borders, is a hell. The standardization of ways of life is the cancer of the postmodern world. Men become unwitting members of a great planetary herd, that does not think, does not protest, and allows itself to be guided towards a future that does not belong to it.’
John Waters Unchained is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.