Anthony McIntyre's Blog, page 1133

Ads On The Front Line

Christopher Owens with a review of Ads On The Front Line.


Presented as both a serious piece on government attempts to use the media to influence public opinion and as an "I Love the Troubles" style nostalgic look back (complete with archive footage of Belfast at the time and the chart hits of the day providing the soundtrack), it straddles a fine line and actually does a fine job of integrating the two styles in a way that is neither forced or flimsy.

Notably, no one from Sinn Fein would appear on the programme (instead having to bring Danny Morrison in). Unsurprising, but still disappointing as I'm sure someone at Connolly House could have constructed an intriguing line about how the adverts, combined with the media ban, led to republicans being demonised and isolated to such an extent that it led to RUC officer Allen Moore shooting up the Sinn Fein advice centre. Whether that line would stand up under critical scrutiny is highly unlikely, but it is frustrating seeing the Shinners run from this particular debate.

Billy Hutchinson is interviewed and, by and large, mirrors the view of Danny Morrison in that both believe the adverts were propaganda designed to undermine and demonise paramilitaries who believed they were fighting a war. However, Hutchinson comes across as very thoughtful and insightful in places (especially when talking about some of the later ads), whereas Morrison (as described on a British Army message board) "...comes off in a particularly General Melchett tone as he is shown huffing and puffing about the ads...coming from a middle class mind set..."

And it's not hard to see why. The agency people interviewed clearly thought of people involved in paramilitary organisations as nothing more than cartoon characters who said "muahahahahaha" after committing some dastardly act. Attitudes like this show a clear division between the media and the people involved. Is it any wonder the conflict went on for so long with attitudes like that?

In terms of the adverts, it's telling that the ones that stand up today are the Troubles ones. All of them tap into the sense of dread and paranoia experienced by most people in this country at the time and can be taken as a reasonably accurate snapshot of the collective psyche as the conflict reached it's 20th anniversary (the 'Silence' one is particularly effective as an audio/visual piece with it's use of white text on a pitch black screen, the sinister sounding beat, gunshot and silence, even if it's message is ham fisted.)

Predictably, the advert that gets the most coverage is 'I Wanna Be Like You Dad' (otherwise known as 'Cats in the Cradle' due to the use of the song throughout). Interestingly, it ties in with what Peter Taylor has written about in both his Provos and Loyalists books, where fathers were coming out of jail after a lengthy sentence, only to see their sons going in to serve their own sentences, and Tim Brannigan makes similar comments in the programme.

It cannot be denied, it's a highly effective advert (although the look on the gunman's face as he sprays the pub did make me laugh when viewed in retrospect), and it's interesting to read various comments on YouTube where people (presumably born post 1997) debate what 'side' the father and son were on.

With them being aimed at the families of paramilitaries, did they work at dissuading their loved ones to carry out attacks? Somehow, I doubt it. Did it stop people from joining paramilitary organisations? Much more likely.

The one that I have vivid memories of is the 'Car Wash' advert where a seemingly normal, suburban setting is on the verge of being disrupted by a group of gunmen in a car who drive to a house where a father and son are washing their car and playing with their water pistols and Super Soakers. As they are about to shoot, an RUC Land Rover appears out of nowhere and the car drives off, with the father and son oblivious to what nearly happened.

I remember this one sticking out for a few reasons: it was set at daytime, the area was close knit with no obvious working class markings (so it was clearly an area untouched by the conflict), the juxtaposition of the water fight and the gunmen loading, the notion that a split second can change your life forever. It was genuinely disturbing to a seven year old me, and is something that remains very much at the forefront of my mind to this day.

Unsurprisingly, the programme loses momentum with the ceasefire, and the post ceasefire adverts are utterly cringe worthy, but are typical of that mid 90's "end of history" euphoria that was prevalent throughout the latter part of the decade (where people misread Francis Fukuyama and believed that there were no more wars to fight because neo-liberalism had won the day).

As well as this, they also introduced me to Van Morrison, who I have now hated for nearly 25 years.

The big question the programme asks is: did the ads have any effect? I doubt there'd have been many using the confidential telephone line who normally wouldn't have (certainly Suzanne Breen and Danny Morrison agree with that) but I suppose it did reinforce the view in the ordinary person's mind that twenty odd years of the Troubles was more than enough. So, in that sense, they were a success.

Also, the final advert ('Choices') invokes debate as it conflates voting for the Good Friday Agreement with voting for peace. Billy Hutchinson makes the point that, with the unionist community largely voting 'No' in the referendum, it seemed to be a last ditch effort for 'Yes' votes. Make no mistake, this was propaganda. And opinions are still divided today on how effective it was in securing a 'Yes' vote.

Overall, it's worth the effort but be prepared for your level of interest to drop around the 30 minute mark. And, as a final thought, I wish broadcasters would stop hiring middle class teenagers to show that the conflict is ancient history. Get kids from working class areas, they'll tell you a different story.

➽ Christopher Owens reviews for Metal Ireland and finds time to study the history and inherent contradictions of Ireland.Follow Christopher Owens on Twitter @MrOwens212

A Morning Thought (59)

Two Souls

The Uri Avnery Column discusses the Jewish soul.


Actually, the Hebrew original says "the soul of a Jew", but the translator probably got it right. It's the Jewish Soul that was meant.

But is there a Jewish Soul? Is it different from the souls of other people? And if so, what is the difference?

Frankly, I don't know what a soul is. But let's assume that there is such a thing as a collective psychology, the general spirit of all the men and women who make up this collective – each of whom has a psychology of his/her own. What is it that differentiates it from that of other peoples?

Looking at the present day Israeli people, a stranger may well be perplexed. First of all, more than a fifth of Israelis are not Jewish at all, but belong to the Palestinian people, who presumably have a different "soul". When people speak about Israelis, they generally really mean "Jewish Israelis".

This, by the way, should have convinced Israelis long ago to change the national anthem and other symbols of statehood, to give the minority a sense of belonging. The Canadians did so. When they realized that the citizens of French descent were liable to secede and found a nation of their own, they changed their anthem and flag, so as to give the French minority a sense of belonging. As far as I can judge from afar, the operation was successful. But there is little chance of this happening here.

Even When speaking about Israeli Jews only, our national psychology (or "soul") is rather perplexing. It contains elements that are mutually exclusive, profound inbuilt contradictions.

On the one hand, most (Jewish) Israelis are immensely proud of the power of the state they have “built out of nothing". 150 years ago, there were hardly any Jews in the land of Palestine, and these were completely powerless. Today, Israel is the most powerful state in the region, a nuclear power excelling in many fields of human endeavor – military, technological, economic, cultural etc.

Yet listening to many Israeli outpourings, one might come to the conclusion that we may be wiped from the map at any moment. The world is full of people whose sole aim in life is to destroy us. Therefore we must be ready at any moment to defend our very existence.

How do these two contradictory attitudes go together? No problem. They do very well.

First, There is the ancient belief that God chose us from all the peoples.

Why did God do that?

God knows. He does not have to explain.

The thing is a bit complicated. First the Jews invented God. There are also Egyptian and Mesopotamian claims, but Jews know better.

(It has been said that many Jews do not believe in God, but believe that God has chosen the Jews.)

Jews learn at a very tender age that they are God's chosen people. Unconsciously, this knowledge remains anchored in their "soul" throughout their life, even though many of them become total atheists. True, many peoples on earth believe that they are better than other peoples. But they don't have a Bible to prove it.

I am sure that many Jews are not even aware that they believe this, or why. The Jewish soul just knows it. We are special.

The language reflects this. There are Jews and there are the others. The Hebrew for all the others is "goyim". In ancient Hebrew, "Goyim" just means peoples in general, including the ancient Israelite people. But over the centuries a new definition has come into being: there are the Jews and there are all the others, the Gentiles, the Goyim.

According to legend, the Jews were a normal people living in their land, the Land of Israel, when the evil Romans conquered them and dispersed them throughout the world. In reality, the Jewish religion was a proselytizing religion and expanded quickly throughout the empire. The Jews in Palestine were already a minority among the adherents of Jehovah, when the Romans evicted many of them (but far from all) from the country.

Soon they had to compete with Christianity, an offshoot of Judaism, which also started to wildly gain adherents. Christianity was built around a great human story, the story of Jesus, and was therefore more apt to convert the masses of slaves and proletarians throughout the empire.

The New Testament also includes the story of the crucifixion – an unforgettable picture of "the Jews" demanding the execution of the gentle Jesus.

I doubt if a person who heard this story in their early childhood ever really loses the scene in their unconscious mind. The result is some kind of anti-Semitism, conscious or unconscious.

This was not the only reason for hating the Jews. The very fact that they were dispersed throughout the world was a huge advantage but also a huge curse.

A Jewish merchant in Hamburg could connect with a Jewish merchant in Thessaloniki, who was corresponding with a Jewish merchant in Cairo. Few Christians had such an opportunity. But the competition exposed Jews to innumerable pogroms. In one European country after another Jews were attacked, killed, raped, and finally expelled.

In the Jewish soul all this created two conflicting trends: the conviction that Jews were special and superior and the conviction that Jews were in eternal danger of being persecuted and exterminated.

In The meantime, another offshoot of Judaism - Islam - came into being and conquered a large part of the world. Lacking a Jesus story, it was not anti-Jewish. Muhammad had his quarrels with Jewish tribes in the Arabian desert, but for long stretches of time, Muslims and Jews worked closely together. Moses Maimonides, one of the greatest Jewish thinkers, was the personal physician of one of the greatest Muslim heroes, Salah ad-Din (Saladin). Until Zionism arose.

Jews did not change. While other European nations changed their forms of social structure – tribes, multi-tribal kingdoms, empires, modern nations etc. – Jews stuck to their ethnic-religious diaspora. This made them different, leading to pogroms and finally to the Holocaust.

Zionism was an attempt to turn the Jews into a modern European nation. The early Zionists were cursed by orthodox Rabbis in the most savage terms, but refused to be drawn into a culture war. They created the fiction that in Judaism, religion and nation are the same.

Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism, was a European colonialist through and through. He tried to win a European colonial power for his enterprise – first the German Kaiser, then the British imperialists. The Kaiser said to his aides "It’s a great idea, but you can't do it with Jews". The British realized the potential and issued the Balfour Declaration.

The Arab populations of Palestine and the "Middle East" realized too late that their very existence was in danger. When they started to resist, Zionism built up modern military forces. Very soon, they became by far the most efficient military machine in the region, and the only local nuclear power.

That Is where we are now. A domineering regional power and a global crybaby, ruling a colonized population deprived of all rights while being convinced that dark forces are out to exterminate us at any moment, considering ourselves a very special people and an eternal victim. All this quite sincerely. And all this together.

When somebody dares to suggest that anti-Semitism in the West is dying, and that anti-Islam is on the rise instead, the Jewish reaction is furious. We need anti-Semitism for our mental equilibrium. Nobody is going to steal it from us.

Almost 80 years ago, small groups of young Jews in Palestine had the idea of a separation between the communities: we Jews in Palestine were a new nation, all the others would remain just Jews. Rather like Americans and Australians, who were largely of British descent but not quite British anymore.

We all went "native". On reaching the age of 18, we all exchanged our Jewish names for Hebrew Names. (That's how Uri Avnery came into being.) We started to think of ourselves as a new nation, with a new "soul", connected to Judaism, sure, but mainly historically.

But when the full extent of the Holocaust became known, all these ideas died. The Jewish past was glorified. Now Israel calls itself the "Jewish State". With all the attributes of being Jewish, including the double soul.

So Israelis will continue to sing at football matches "As long as a Jewish soul…"

Uri Avnery is a veteran Israeli peace activist.
He writes @ Gush Shalom

A Morning Thought (58)

British Royals Not Welcome In Dublin - British Occupation Neither Normal Nor Acceptable

A statement by the President of Republican Sinn Féin Des Dalton opposing any royal visits to Ireland.


With the chaotic Brexit negotiations ongoing between the British government and the EU, it is obvious that the British Establishment is intent on normalising their occupation of the Six Counties to ease pressure around the question of the British-imposed border in Ireland. The slavish willingness of the 26-County Administration to facilitate this is shameful. At a time when there is an international focus on the issue of partition and an opportunity to further the argument for a New Ireland, the Leinster House political class instead seek to reinforce the status quo. Their actions are those of a vassal state.

There can never be normal relations between Britain and Ireland while part of the Irish nation remains under British occupation. Republican Sinn Féin will be protesting at this visit and are calling on all those who believe in Ireland's right to national sovereignty and independence to join us. We must send out a message that the British occupation of part of Ireland is neither normal nor acceptable.

Fuck Trump @ What A World

Who Really Put Saudi Women Behind The Wheel?

Mona Eltahawy writes for the New York Times about Saudi women securing the right to drive cars. 


Image A Saudi woman testing out her future car at an automobile showroom this month, a head of gaining the right to drive. CreditFaisal Al Nasser/Reuters
Feminism terrifies authoritarians.

Why else would the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman — the heir-apparent of an absolute monarchy that has ruled since 1932 over a country named after its patriarch — hold Loujain al-Hathloul, a 28-year-old graduate student, incommunicado for weeks?

Why would he, after being lauded on CBS’s “60 Minutes” for “emancipating women” on the eve of a visit to America last March, send forces in May to arrest 17 women’s rights activists, among them Ms. Hathloul, and also Aisha al-Mana, 70, a director of hospitals and a college for health sciences who suffered a stroke last year?

What threat does a 60-year-old retired professor, Aziza al-Yousef — a mother of five and grandmother of eight who was also arrested — pose that merits a pro-government newspaper putting her picture on its front page under the headline, “You and Your Treachery Have Failed”?

Continue reading

Mona Eltahawy writes about gender issues in the Middle East and around the globe.
Follow Mona Eltahawy on Twitter @monaeltahawy

Fuck Trump @ A Crooked Henchman Of The Deep State

A Resurrected IIP Is Required

Relaunch the Irish Independence Party as a Northern moderate nationalist alternative to the supposedly new-look ‘republican-lite’ of Sinn Fein. That’s the recommendation controversial political commentator, Dr John Coulter, makes in his Fearless Flying Column today.


What is needed to combat Sinn Fein is a new Northern-based moderate nationalist movement with a strong moral influence on abortion and same-sex marriage.

I used to think that the solution to the moderate nationalist dilemma was to merge the SDLP with either Fianna Fail or Fine Gael to combat Sinn Fein’s all-island identity.

There was also the alternative that now that Fianna Fail had organised in Northern Ireland, that republican party’s next move was to formally contest elections, with perhaps next year’s local governmental poll a top target.

Even if there is another Westminster snap poll over Brexit, at least Fianna Fail MPs would take their Commons seats. But there’s another elephant in the political room which even Unionism has had to deal with, which Southern republicanism wants to avoid - sharing power with Sinn Fein in a future Dail.

Southern politicians have witnessed the political mayhem which Sinn Fein is capable of unleashing on democracy if the crisis at Stormont is taken as a benchmark.

The nightmare scenario for both Fianna Fail and Fine Gael is that either may need to ‘sup soup with the devil’ politically and form a coalition government in Leinster House with the Provisional IRA’s political wing.

While Sinn Fein has already indicated at a special conference that it would be prepared to enter a coalition Dail government, both main Southern parties are still publicly adamant that a deal with Sinn Fein is not on the cards - no matter how much lipstick and mascara the republican movement plasters on its manifesto.

Sinn Fein is now piling all its political eggs into the Leinster House basket as it now firmly believes it can achieve its united Ireland via Dublin rather than Belfast.

The late Martin McGuinness’ legacy was to create a situation where it had backed the DUP partners into a political corner. For the time being, Sinn Fein can park its Stormont agenda because it has electorally blasted the SDLP off the political map.

Sinn Fein has wiped out the SDLP’s three MPs; the republican movement has more MLAs at Stormont, and if Sinn Fein can play its ‘middle class dolly bird’ card, it could dish out another battering to the SDLP in next year’s council elections in Ulster’s 11 super councils.

The bitter reality which the SDLP must face is that Sinn Fein has done to the SDLP, what the SDLP inflicted on the Irish Nationalist Party. While merger with Fine Gael or Fianna Fail contesting Northern elections may seem like the obvious solution, could it be implemented in time to prevent a moderate nationalist meltdown in the council poll?

The Sinn Fein all-island agenda has an Achilles’ Heel - the emergence of a new six-county moderate nationalist party in Northern Ireland, especially with battles over same-sex marriage and abortion about to become the big summer talking points.

Irish politics is full of ‘what ifs’. What if the Protestant nationalist leader - John Turnley - of the Irish Independence Party of the 1970s had not been murdered by the UDA in 1980 in the Co Antrim coastal village of Carnlough. If Turnley’s brand of radical middle class nationalism had eaten into the SDLP vote, would there have been a need for the republican hunger strikes of 1980 and 1981?

While I have maintained that Sinn Fein needed to copy the IIP in holding the moderate nationalist middle class voter base in Northern Ireland, that was before the republican movement abandoned its historical traditional values as espoused by Padraig Pearse.

As one of the main signatories of the 1916 Proclamation, he must be spinning in his grave at how the modern Sinn Fein movement has drifted away from the Christian faith and into the evil world of secular atheism. That was copper fastened earlier this month at the Sinn Fein ard fheis in the abortion debate with Sinn Fein’s clear message - if you are a nationalist with a pro-life Christian faith, then just clear off!

During the Troubles, Sinn Fein constantly acted as apologists for those who attacked the living; now the party has deteriorated into the pathetic apologists for those who wish to attack the unborn. How can any God-fearing Catholic who calls themselves a nationalist now vote for Sinn Fein?

Prayers for a miracle political revival for the SDLP will more than likely go unanswered. Only SDLP candidates who have built up a strong personal vote will hold their council seats in 2019. The local government poll in the weeks after Brexit will be a political Requiem Mass for the SDLP.

But moderate nationalists have one ace card - they can, and should, reform the IIP as a movement for pro-life Catholic voters. Stormont looks like being moth-balled for the foreseeable future. When it does return, there may well be a new realignment in Parliament Buildings - not along the traditional Unionist/Nationalist/Other divide, but along pro and anti-Christian lines.

Given the march of the secular society, I have often warned that Christians in the future may need to form their own party, although the odds of that succeeding are doubtful given the constant theological bickering among churches and denominations.

But there could be an unofficial Christian alliance between pro-life politicians across the political divide. Pro-choice campaigners were heralding the next stage in their secularist agenda with placards boasting ‘The North is Next’.

Politically and organisationally, moderate nationalist should pool their resources into forming a six-county movement rather than trying to organise on an all-island basis. Sinn Fein may not be completely derailed by a new IIP movement, but the brakes could be put on the bandwagon.

If the moderate nationalist fightback by the SDLP was genuine - and achievable - then the party should have reduced West Tyrone to a Sinn Fein marginal. But the reality is that West Tyrone is still a Sinn Fein stronghold.

The new IIP must be a moderate middle class nationalist movement which clearly espouses all that is good in conservative Catholicism, especially on the pro-life agenda. But moves to launch this movement must be made now as time is not on moderate nationalism’s side.


Dr John Coulter has been a journalist working in Northern Ireland since 1978. As well as being a former weekly newspaper editor, he has served as Religious Affairs Correspondent of the News Letter and is a past Director of Operations for Christian Communication Network television. He currently also writes political analysis articles for national newspaper titles. He is author of the ebook, An Saise Glas’: The Road to National Republicanism, available on Amazon Kindle.
Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter. @JohnAHCoulter

Fuck Trump @ Stormy Daniels