Years before the outbreak of the First World War the British Government had established the Official Secrets Act, MI5 and MI6 and on 8 August 1914 Parliament passed the Defence of the Realm Act (DORA). Imperialist propaganda which had long predated the war took on a new savagery. Rudyard Kipling wrote a story whose heroine was an Englishwoman who refused a dying German airman a drink of water, and the story was praised by amateur and professional hacks. My long acquaintance with English women convinces me that Kipling should have been horsewhipped for imagining such cruelty and imputing such callousness to any of them, though perhaps Thatcher had a few precursors.
Newspapers that didn’t toe the government line had their stories censored or they were suppressed. The Royal Irish Constabulary and the “G” Division of the Dublin Metropolitan Police spied on anyone mixing with suspected old Fenians or other advanced Nationalists.
Pathe News was a propaganda arm of the British Government, as was THE IRISH TIMES, whose editor from 1907 until 1934 was John Edward Healy, who also wrote for THE TIMES of London.I referred in a previous Blog to that paper’s obituary of him in 1934. It said of him that he had always been a protagonist of a losing cause. That cause was anti-democratic.He opposed Home Rule for Ireland, and when Irish voters repeatedly plumped for a Republic he was even more opposed. In February 1933 he editorially voiced opposition the re-election of a Fianna Fail Government. Not many people read his paper and Fianna Fail got an overall majority. His anti-democratic animus was not insular or isolationist. For,in March 1933, he wrote another editorial, saluting Herr Hitler’s accession to power in Germany.
Under “DORA” newspapers in Britain and Ireland dared not publish the unvarnished truth. But THE IRISH TIMES SINN FEIN REBELLION HANDBOOK was issued when British General Maxwell was enforcing Martial Law. The IRISH TIMES was Britain’s glove puppet.
A century on from 1916 and THE IRISH TIMES is today is peddling the Handbook as an impartial and authoritative account of the Rising. It has been reprinted and readers are guided through it by one Shane Hegarty and Fintan O’Toole, who are apparently unaware of its provenance. Can I remind everyone that the Handbook was produced by a newspaper whose editor was later to welcome the accession of Adolf Hitler to power.?
INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS has got into the act and is producing weekly supplements reproducing their 1916 reports, but not warning readers that in 1916 their papers were hobbled by DORA and British Martial Law. It seems the INDO Group is not in the business of informing readers of the country’s history but very much in the business of getting money under false pretences.
The idea that during the Great War film newsreels could show anything which might embarrass the British Government within territory under that government’s control is quite wrong, and it was wrong at the time of the Second Boer War. I don’t know of any British film coverage of the concentration camps where about 30,000 Boer civilians including women and children died when in the care of British agencies. I don’t remember in the 1950s seeing any British or other newsreels of internment camps in Malaya or Kenya.So Pathe Newsreels showed only what the British Government wanted shown.
Since the Norman Invasion of Ireland in the 12th century the same old lies have been endlessly recycled by agents of the kings and parliaments of England, and they have been recognised as lies by our ancestors. But today there is a real danger that they will be believed by our descendants – if we are not very, very careful.
“Magna est Veritas et Praevalibit” – “Great is Truth and it shall Prevail.” But not if the IRISH TIMES or INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS, and their Monstrous Regiments of Conspirators have anything to do with it.
(Some of my citations are from Philip O’Connor’s article “Anti-Rising propaganda for the gullible”, from the March 2016 issue of the IRISH POLITICAL REVIEW)
Is it the same mistakes all over again or all new ones.
In 1966, the half century celebrations and media coverage caused unionist paranoia to return to armed conflict and kick started a conflict whether they admit it or not.
In 2016, the irish media have been sending extreme mixed messages. On one hand, they totally vilify republicans for all wrongs, not surprising that this will entrench unionist views and influence policing.
Not wanting to miss out on a profit, at the same time we are selling papers with rebel songs which will encourage the desire for independence.
I suppose if the media do manage to kick start another conflict, at least they can look on the bright side that they will sell a lot more papers.
More bitterness from Donal, so much so he must have a face like a squeezed up lemon. Good job Gerry’s not as afflicted or the Troubles would soon be ‘celebrating’ the big 50.
In a parallel universe Donal Kennedy has a cousin called Donald Kennedy LOL No 36… who can match him mano a mano as to whose ideological foe was more historically corrupt and insidious. In fact Top Trumps should bring out a card game version; “Green v Orange – Let Battle Commence!” (Without all the murder, violence, death, bombings and sectarian shit as such)
“In 1966, the half century celebrations and media coverage caused unionist paranoia to return to armed conflict and kick started a conflict whether they admit it or not.”
The 1966 UVF murders didn’t kick-start the Troubles.
“In 1966, the half century celebrations and media coverage caused unionist paranoia to return to armed conflict and kick started a conflict whether they admit it or not.”
“The 1966 UVF murders didn’t kick-start the Troubles.”
MT, there were no murders in the 5 years prior to the 1966 UVF murders, over the following three years, we had unionist politicians spreading venomous hatred towards Catholics, telling their followers an IRA resurgence was imminent which we now know was totally unfounded and inaccurate but you can not seriously claim you believe it had no influence on the loyalist community. The same good people who took to the streets to burn Catholics out of their homes, we had the UVF in 1969 planting bombs, unionist attacks on Catholics simply seeking civil rights in the 20th century, the RUC (a police force) killing Catholics. Then unionists invite the British army into the mix who also joined in the murdering of Catholics which by this time, the troubles was very much kick started.
All this happened before PIRA even existed so yes, unionists very much are responsible for kick starting the conflict.
If today almost 20 years after the conflict, unionists are still incapable of putting their hands up to what they did back then, why should they be trusted?
Your intransigence over this is simply breath-taking.
“MT, there were no murders in the 5 years prior to the 1966 UVF murders,”.
Nobody said there were
“over the following three years, we had unionist politicians spreading venomous hatred towards Catholics, telling their followers an IRA resurgence was imminent which we now know was totally unfounded and inaccurate but you can not seriously claim you believe it had no influence on the loyalist community. The same good people who took to the streets to burn Catholics out of their homes, we had the UVF in 1969 planting bombs, unionist attacks on Catholics simply seeking civil rights in the 20th century, the RUC (a police force) killing Catholics. Then unionists invite the British army into the mix who also joined in the murdering of Catholics which by this time, the troubles was very much kick started.”
And? What’s this got to do with your claim that the 1966 murders kick-started the Troubles?
“All this happened before PIRA even existed so yes, unionists very much are responsible for kick starting the conflict.”
So now you’re changing what you said? It wasn’t the 1966 murders that kick-started the Troubles, but rather unionists generally? Have you any authority to back up this assessment?
“Your intransigence over this is simply breath-taking.”
Intransigence over what?
“Intransigence over what?”
Not only you MT, but unionism in general.
The refusal to accept that the actions of militant unionism over a period of time leading to 1969 kick started the conflict known as the troubles.
I suppose if you don’t see attacks on the catholic community as wrong then you are hardly likely to agree MT. I suppose in your mind, the conflict only started when PIRA retaliated in the short strand, their first action in repelling a loyalists gun attack while the british army and police stood by and watched.
Had Catholics just sucked it all up and left the state to unionists, conflict could have been avoided.
“The refusal to accept that the actions of militant unionism over a period of time leading to 1969 kick started the conflict known as the troubles.”
It’s not intransigence not to accept a simplistic analysis. On the contrary, it’s intransigence to insist on one in the face of the evidence.
“I suppose if you don’t see attacks on the catholic community as wrong then you are hardly likely to agree MT. I suppose in your mind, the conflict only started when PIRA retaliated in the short strand, their first action in repelling a loyalists gun attack while the british army and police stood by and watched.”
But I do see attacks on the Catholic community as wrong. Unlike you, I oppose all such attacks. You’re the one who defends such violence. You should desist from lies and misrepresentation.
“But I do see attacks on the Catholic community as wrong. Unlike you, I oppose all such attacks. You’re the one who defends such violence. You should desist from lies and misrepresentation.”
That is the most reasonable thing I have heard you say on this forum MT. Well done.
Likewise, I too see all attacks on any people as wrong, including foreign nationals living amongst us, all killing is wrong, all conflict and wars are wrong, violence is wrong full stop.
Like you MT, I am also not a pacifist.
When the british army are sent to Iraq for example, you support them killing their enemy through force of arms do you not?
You have said it is possible to kill without using terrorism. That I dont agree with, shooting someone inflicts terror. Even the sight of guns in the wrong hands can inflict terror.
I have had a gun to my head and the trigger pulled by the UDA.
It is not the most traumatic experience I have had at the hands of unionists as it was all a bit of a blur but I do have some idea of the terror felt by people living in a country during a conflict.
All the same, I understand that you would want them to kill as many of the enemy as possible while suffering as little injuries in return, and that you feel proud of the brave men and women who risked so much in fighting on behalf of the people of their nation. You do not want to think about the Iraq men and women raped by the soldiers, beaten and abused in custody, shot unarmed in blind hatred, of bombs that tear apart hospitals and kill defenceless families indiscriminately.
Easier for you when it is far away though.
Thankfully the conflict in Ireland is over for good and we will no longer have to choose sides in the killing and mayhem that goes with it. All such killing under the current circumstances is simply wrong.
But be under no illusion, if conflict were to break out again, I would still support the irish side over the british and all that goes with it.
That is what conflict is. It is not what I want however, and everyone who does not want to return to that, should make damn sure we dont go there again.
“Likewise, I too see all attacks on any people as wrong, including foreign nationals living amongst us, all killing is wrong, all conflict and wars are wrong, violence is wrong full stop.”
Then why do you support and defend PIRA terror?
“When the british army are sent to Iraq for example, you support them killing their enemy through force of arms do you not?”
I opposed the Iraq War. Unlike you, I oppose unjust violence.
“You have said it is possible to kill without using terrorism. That I dont agree with, shooting someone inflicts terror. Even the sight of guns in the wrong hands can inflict terror.”
Then you don’t understand what terrorism is.
“I have had a gun to my head and the trigger pulled by the UDA.”
Inexplicable, then, how you could support the same happening to other people.
“Then why do you support and defend PIRA terror?”
There is no PIRA any more and I do not support terror full stop.
I do not agree with you on what started the conflict or who the antagonisers were preventing it from ending sooner.
I think it is wrong to condemn the PIRA as terrorists and at the same time to let britain away with murder and worse crimes.
It is clear we will never agree on this, so are we going to squabble pointlessly about it forever or move on?
All it is doing is making me less interested in what is important for unionists which I also don’t think is positive.
“I have had a gun to my head and the trigger pulled by the UDA.”
Inexplicable, then, how you could support the same happening to other people.”
I don’t and I sincerely hope that it isn’t MT.
I do not want any guns in society at all. not even the police should be armed.
“There is no PIRA any more and I do not support terror full stop.”
There was, though, and you supported it.
“I don’t and I sincerely hope that it isn’t MT.’
But you supported the PIRA: they put guns to people’s heads and much worse.
““There is no PIRA any more and I do not support terror full stop.”
There was, though, and you supported it.”
As I said already, if there was a return to conflict, I would of course support the irish side against the british again also.
That does not mean I want conflict to return, in fact quite the opposite.
But if Britain allowed conflict to return here, I would be 1000 times more furious about it.
Lets make sure we don’t go there, as another conflict might make the past one look like a game of conkers.
“As I said already, if there was a return to conflict, I would of course support the irish side against the british again also.
That does not mean I want conflict to return, in fact quite the opposite.”
I’m afraid that doesn’t change the fact that you supported PIRA terrorism.
“I’m afraid that doesn’t change the fact that you supported PIRA terrorism.”
It also doesn’t change the fact that you still support ongoing british state terrorism
We need to get rid of british state terrorism supporters out of Ireland. They should be marginalised and gradually outcast if they refuse to change
“It also doesn’t change the fact that you still support ongoing british state terrorism”
That’s not a fact. Unlike you, I don’t support any terrorism.
“That’s not a fact. Unlike you, I don’t support any terrorism.”
Yes it is and yes you do, you support the terrorism inflicted by the british army whether it be what they did in Ireland or in other conflicts. You even believe war can justified and that you can kill without terrorising anyone.
“Yes it is and yes you do, you support the terrorism inflicted by the british army whether it be what they did in Ireland or in other conflicts.”
I don’t. Please don’t lie.
“You even believe war can justified and that you can kill without terrorising anyone.”
Of course it can be justified and of course you can kill without engaging in terrorism.
I’m surprised to hear you say that you don’t suppport all of the British forces’ actions here and elsewhere, MT. That’s what Remembrance Sunday is about. Are you saying you don’t approve of Remembrance Sunday?
“I’m surprised to hear you say that you don’t suppport all of the British forces’ actions here and elsewhere, MT. That’s what Remembrance Sunday is about.”
Eh? No it’s not. What a gross misunderstanding. Deeply concerning if that is a widely held view, but perhaps it explains the anti-poppy stuff within the nationalist community.
“Are you saying you don’t approve of Remembrance Sunday?”
Of course not.