Social Items

TPQ
Jim Duffy ✍ The silence of almost all the devoted pro-neutrality activists, on the issue of Aughinish Alumina actively aiding Russia's military in its war in Ukraine, is striking.

Other than Senator Tom Clonan, who repeatedly condemns it, the silence is deafening - despite it being an unambiguous breach of Irish neutrality.

Not a word from Sinn Féin. Not a word from People Before Profit. Not a word from the Peace and Neutrality Alliance. Not a word from Catherine Connolly or Michael D Higgins. Their press releases draw a complete blank.

Yet the same people are always out giving interviews about non-existent plots to get Ireland into NATO - something that has no chance of occurring.

So why then the total silence on a Real live breach of Irish neutrality by an Irish company enabling Russia's illegal war, a war that breaches the UN charter and international law? Could it be that many of the Irish neutrality devotees are simply motivated by their end hate of The West, of NATO and everything else, but couldn't care less if neutrality breaches help Russia, and anti-Western countries?

Getting them to ever criticise Russia, or the USSR, or the Warsaw Pact, is like plucking hens' teeth. They will always bend over backwards to make excuses for Putin, or Stalin.

Some even justify the USSR's illegal occupation and annexation of the independent sovereign Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in 1940 - an annexation that flowed from the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between the USSR and Nazi Germany. They then say that "to secure peace" the three states should be handed back to Russian control, irrespective of the wishes of the peoples there.

The same people justify the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968, just as they will justify the Russian invasions of Ukraine in 2014 and 2022 - always of course twisting the facts to inevitably blame The West and NATO. Even when citizens stage revolutions, some Irish neutrality devotees invariably blame The West for engineering a supposed coup - as if citizens have no right to control their own destiny.

Those same Irish neutrality devotees proclaim themselves "anti-imperialists" while cheering on and excusing the most imperialist state in Europe-Asia: Russia. It is a country that has spent attacking its neighbours repeatedly. There is hardly a single one of its neighbours it has not at some stage invaded.

Finland finally declared its independent from Russia in 1917 after the fall of the Tsar - after decades of brutal Russianisation policies under Tsars Alexander III and Nicholas II. It has been recognised internationally as independent since 1918. Russia invaded it twice: in the Winter War and Continuation War. In 1948 it was forced to agree to a policy later named "Finlandization" (the process by which one powerful country makes a smaller neighbouring country refrain from opposing the former's foreign policy rules, while allowing it to keep its nominal independence and its own political system.)

Under it, the Soviet Union took effective control of its foreign and security policy - a period known in Finland as the 'period of national shame' or the 'period of national humiliation.' It finally regained its sovereignty in foreign and security policy in 1991 - and warns countries internationally never ever to repeat the mistake they made.

And yet, one hears some Irish neutrality advocates say that Russia has a "right" to enforce that again on Finland. I wonder would they say Britain has the right to take control of Irish foreign and security policy, or the US has a right to take control of Mexican and Cuban foreign and security policy, or is it only their beloved imperialist Russia that has that right?

When Putin after a century of independence asserted that Finland no right to be independent of Russia, I heard a number of Irish neutrality devotees actually justify his stance and say that the Finns had no right to their own sovereignty!!!

I have come to be cynical of so-called Irish neutrality, as so many of its most fanatical adherents are really just anti-wWestern pro-Russian apologists. I don't have a problem with real genuine neutrality, of the sort believed in by Senator Clonan - though some of the arguments he has made on the triple lock are factually wrong. He at least has a real concept of objective neutrality, not simply a neutrality that is anti-Western and pro-Russian.

That said, factually, the concept of being neutral as a means to stay out of war doesn't work. As neutrals all over found to their cost, if someone wants to attack you they will. Belgium discovered that twice, as did Luxembourg. So did the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in World War II. Sweden only avoided Nazi invasion by effectively collaborating with the Nazis and supplying them with critical minerals and a right to use its territory.

Of the other three neutrals in Europe - two, Ireland and the Vatican, were scheduled for invasion by the Nazis, but weren't invaded for reasons unconnected to their neutrality. Switzerland was protected by its geography as it was exceptionally difficult to conquer. No country in Europe avoided invasion by being neutral.

The 1907 Second Hague Convention supposedly protected neutrals who were signatories from attack by signatories in Article 1, which states "The territory of neutral Powers is inviolable." In fact it quickly turned out not to be worth the paper it was written on, and was just an unenforceable gentleman's promise. The convention was negotiated from 1904, signed in 1907, and came into force in 1910. It was broken in 1914, when one signatory, the German Second Reich, invaded two neutral signatories: Luxembourg on 2nd August 1914, and Belgium on 4th August 1914. There was no come back, other than the complaint "but you promised you wouldn't do that!" It had no enforcement mechanism.

Its weakness can be seen that countries invading neutrals have never even bothered formally leaving the convention before breaking it. It is that meaningless.

I am not arguing that Ireland should join NATO, or that it shouldn't. I am not arguing that Ireland should or should not be neutral. However it is important to know what neutrality is and what it isn't. Firstly, many of the loudest proponents of neutrality are really just the proverbial "useful idiots" who are supremely anti-West and pro-Moscow. They are not the spokespeople, much less the guardians, of real neutrality.

Secondly, history shows that neutrality is no protection from attack, as almost neutral in Europe, bar three, were attacked. Those three weren't attacked for reasons unconnected with their neutrality. All those attacked joined NATO when it was created, most at the beginning, a few later on.

Thirdly, contrary to myth, being neutral does not give a country a special independent status that makes it a centre for peace talks and negotiations. One of the most popular place for such negotiations is Norway. Norway was a founding member of NATO in 1949.

One negative with neutrality is that it gives countries a delusion of safety - where they think "we are neutral. No-one will attack us." Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania all found that that is not the case. Ireland found out that it was potential target for invasion by the Nazis when it began intercepting Nazi communications in May 1940, and quickly made plans in Plan W for Britain to come to its aid if it was attacked. As soon as the Taoiseach requested aid, the British ambassador would send the code word 'pumpkins'. The Royal Navy and RAF would attack the Nazi troops landing between Wexford and Waterford by sea and air, while British troops would cross the border and travel south to attack Nazi troops on land, aiding Irish soldiers.

That delusion of safety may be why Ireland has a tiny spend on defence - despite defence being a core duty of every sovereign state. The average spend among neutrals in Europe on defence is 0.9% of GDP. Neutral Cyprus spends 1.8% of GDP. Austria aims to reach 1% of GDP by this year. Switzerland aims to reach 1% by 2030. Ireland spends a miniscule 0.2%. It isn't just the lowest among neutrals, and by far the lowest in Europe, its is third worst in the world. Only Mauritius and Haiti are lower.

Yes, GDP is an unhelpful measurement for Ireland. However, it is the standard one used internationally for defence comparisons. Even using others, Ireland is way off the minimum target it should be at, as a sovereign state.

And yes Ireland is a target. You cannot have critical underwater infrastructure that all of Europe depends on just off your coast and not be. You cannot have just three interconnectors, and face rolling nationwide power cuts if they are cut, and not be. And you cannot be a net contributor to the EU budget, where Putin has made clear the EU is a target, and you not be.

Whether it is neutral or in NATO is not the point (In reality there is no likelihood of Ireland, Austria or Switzerland joining NATO.) It is that if neutral, know what neutrality is and is not. It is not a protection from attack, as if a country wants to attack a neutral they always do. As a sovereign country you need to take your defence seriously, and you should be spending at least the average spend of neutrals on defence. Anything else is reckless.

⏩ Jim Duffy is a writer-historian.

Aughinish Alumina 🪶 Not A Word

Pádraig Drummond ✊ I can’t stand seeing people weaponise one murder against another, like human life is some kind of political scoreboard.


 To me, every innocent life taken by violence is a tragedy, and every family left behind deserves dignity, truth, and justice, not to have their grief turned into ammunition for arguments online.

What frustrates me is watching people pick and choose whose humanity they recognise based on race, religion, nationality, or whatever side of a debate someone falls on.
 
Too many people are more interested in winning arguments than in showing basic compassion. They’ll speak loudly about one victim while dismissing another, as if empathy should come with conditions attached.

I refuse to think that way. I don’t believe justice is selective, and I don’t believe grief should be politicised to divide ordinary people against each other. One murder does not erase another. One family’s pain does not cancel out someone else’s suffering.

For me, solidarity means recognising the humanity in all oppressed and marginalised people, even when it’s inconvenient or unpopular.
 
It means refusing to dehumanise others just because the internet, the media, or political tribalism tells us to. I’m tired of seeing people use tragedy to score points instead of standing together against hatred, racism, violence, and division.

The dead deserve dignity. Their loved ones deserve justice. And people need to stop treating human suffering like it’s something to exploit for attention, ideology, or validation.

May Alex Coughlan & Yves Sakila rest in eternal peace, and may their families see justice.

⏩Pádraig Drummond is an anti-racism activist.

Stop Weaponising Murder

John Crawley ✍ We gather here to honour the memory of Volunteer George McBrearty, who, 45 years ago this month, was killed in action alongside his friend and comrade, Volunteer Charles ‘Pop’ Maguire.

1981 was a pivotal year in the struggle for full Irish freedom. It was the year of the hunger strikes. By Thursday, 28 May 1981, the day George and Pop were killed in action, Bobby Sands, Francis Hughes, Ray McCreesh and Patsy O’Hara had already died. George and Pop would never know that six more IRA and INLA volunteers would starve themselves to death in resisting the British criminalisation of our freedom struggle.

George McBrearty fought and died as a proud volunteer in the Irish Republican Army. He believed, and had every right to expect, that the term ‘Republican’ was not merely a suggestion but a resolute statement of intent.

There are former comrades of George McBrearty who would have us believe that, had he lived, he would probably, like them, have moved on. By ‘move on,’ they mean ‘move away.’ Away from Wolfe Tone’s call for the Irish people to abolish the memory of all past dissension and to substitute the common name of Irishman in place of the denominations of Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter. That George would have moved on to new ground carefully prepared by the British government over the course of a decades-long counter-insurgency campaign. That George would now be extolling a United Ireland rooted in British/Irish identity politics. That he would no longer refer to Ireland as our country, but think only in terms of ‘This Island’. ‘Our country’, after all, is one nation. ‘This island’ is a geographic fragment containing two nations. That George would have internalised the conditions, parameters, and political architecture of the United Ireland demanded by Britain, should it ever come to pass, and would hope one day to proclaim victory by maintaining that’s what we were fighting for all along. Perhaps George would have entered Stormont and transitioned from a 23-year-old Irish revolutionary in May 1981 to a 69-year-old British government pensioner in May 2026, while boasting to anyone who would listen about his ‘journey’.

George’s family, who loved him most and knew him best, know that George would never have been swayed by the pacification propaganda of misguided men and women who call themselves Republicans yet work daily to undermine the authentic aims and objectives of Irish republicanism. That is, to break the connection with England and to forge a joint civic identity as Irish citizens, oblivious of ethnic or sectarian distinctions. Differences that would become incidental in a genuine Republic remain fundamental in their ‘New’ Ireland, which is predicated on the old divisions.

No one can say with certainty what IRA volunteer George McBrearty would have believed today had he lived. But we know what he believed when he was killed on active service.

George believed in the aims and objectives of the IRA as it existed at the time. Long before it had transitioned from the cutting edge of the Irish Republic into a decommissioned party militia. The army in which he was a brave, dynamic, and dedicated combatant. The army that pledged never to desist until the announcement of a British declaration of intent to withdraw from Ireland. George’s IRA acknowledged that Unionists are pro-British for deep historical reasons that cannot be glibly dismissed, but are not the British presence and must not be made so. It recognised the British presence as Britain's jurisdictional claim to Ireland and the civil and military apparatus that gives it effect. That’s the British presence George fought and died to resist.

George was shot dead by armed employees of the British government, determined to maintain British rule in this part of Ireland. Did George fight and die to reform British rule? Of course not. He fought to end it. Those closest to him are in no doubt that George would never have rescinded his allegiance to the Republic by acknowledging the constitutional legitimacy of British rule in Westminster’s regional assembly at Stormont, nor would he have accepted that the Crown Constabulary, which protects and preserves it, rightfully retains a sole monopoly on the lawful use of force in this part of Ireland. George would never have encouraged Irish nationalists to become His Majesty’s constables and informers.

Republicans who criticise Pax Britannica are often asked, ‘What’s the alternative? The alternative to the two-nation Shared Island is the one-nation Republic. The alternative to embracing differences in national allegiances for the sake of peace is to end those differences for the sake of peace. Abraham Lincoln put this best while struggling to overcome divisions within his own Republic when he said ‘A house divided against itself cannot stand’. Crucial to beginning a genuine process of national reconciliation is ending British jurisdiction in Ireland; this includes Britain’s entitlement to act on behalf of Ulster unionists in a future united Ireland.

Britain was awarded no right to represent Ulster unionists in the three Ulster counties incorporated into the Free State in 1922. Many of these unionists in Cavan, Monaghan, and Donegal had signed the Ulster Covenant and were as loyal to the Crown in their day as their brethren a mile up the road in Fermanagh or Tyrone are today. Many still attend Orange Lodges and Orange marches. Yet, they are now equal and valued citizens of the Irish State and, since the Ireland Act 1949, have no claim to British citizenship or a British passport.

Until we end the British government's interference in our country, we cannot begin to repair the damage done to our national cohesion. In the meantime, Britain will continue to encourage, manipulate, and co-opt as many Irish citizens as possible into becoming willing accomplices in Ireland’s constitutional divisions along broadly sectarian lines.

We are continually cautioned to protect the Peace Process. Peace is not a process; it is an established fact. Pacification, on the other hand, is a process that occurs when an armed campaign is defeated or contained, but the root cause of violence remains intact. For the Brits, pacification is a systematic programme of military and political efforts to defeat an insurgency and achieve a desired result. In this case, to achieve normalisation, Ulsterisation (particularly police primacy), an end to armed resistance to British rule, and, crucially, an end to Irish Republicanism as a credible philosophy and a viable alternative.

The alternative to pacification is not war; it is peace. The real peace that can only occur when the root cause of conflict is addressed and not continually kicked down the road to be resuscitated in future constitutional arrangements that bake in the differences carefully fostered by an alien government which had divided a minority from the majority in the past.

The 1918 General Election was the last time the British government would permit the national will to be tested in an Ireland comprising one political unit. They will never encourage an Irish unity that transcends the sectarian divide. How we achieve a national democracy within an All-Ireland republic remains an aspiration that challenges republicans today.

Despite the difficulties Republicans face and the resources arrayed against us by both jurisdictions in Ireland, the roots of the national flower run too deep to die. They may lie dormant for a generation or two, but they invariably spring to life again. We must work politically to achieve that reawakening.

We remember Volunteer George McBrearty and his comrade Volunteer Pop Maguire with pride. We remember the heroic hunger strikers who died and were dying for Ireland, as George and Pop lay riddled with British Army bullets at the bottom of Southway.

We remember all the men and women commemorated by this magnificent memorial who contributed so much to the struggle for Irish freedom. To the Volunteers killed in action, to those who died from other causes, to the brave Derry citizens who contributed to the struggle in any way, however big or small, and to all those who remain unconquered and unconquerable, we salute you and pledge our everlasting admiration and gratitude for your courage and patriotism.

Up the Republic!
 
John Crawley is a former IRA volunteer and author of The Yank.

Volunteer George McBrearty, 24 May 2026

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Nine Hundred And Eighty Four

 

A Morning Thought @ 3158

Gary Robertson ⚽ It’s been an odd week here at Robertson Towers. 

Struck down by the lurgy and having taken to what I assumed was my death bed. So whilst the upcoming Scottish cup final really should have been the focus of attention it was clear I had been struck by the plague and was suffering greatly in only a way men can understand.
 
By Friday I began to feel much better and with the sympathetic and encouraging words of my son ringing in my ears - “Da no one is phoning a priest you’ve got a bug that’s all.” I managed to drag myself from what I assumed was my death bed, Lazarus style, onto my feet and I swear I heard angels sing as I did, plant myself in front of the TV. Trust me dear reader the struggle is real. Some may say I’m a tad melodramatic but better it is to err on the side of caution in my opinion. I am after all but a man and we men know that whatever ails the fairer sex we always get ten times worse.
 
So by Saturday I was as close to being a functioning human being as I’m likely to be and prepared myself for the match that was to come.
 
On paper a match up between Celtic (SPL champions) and Dunfermline of the Championship at first glance wouldn’t, even for a cup final, get the blood racing. The subplots made for a fascinating afternoon.
 
As already mentioned in last weeks column the financial implications for Rangers with a Dunfermline victory were massive, add in the “Will it won’t it” be Martin O’Neill's last ever match in charge and what looks almost certainly to be Daizen Maedas last match in a Celtic shirt?On top of this Neil Lennon facing up to his old boss, there was much more than a trophy at stake.
 
As I wrote on Bluesky at half time “that was the fastest 45 mins in football I can remember in over 40 years” and it was, a blur.
 
The scoring was opened in the 18th minute by, who else, but Maeda himself. From that point onward any thoughts of conspiracy quickly evaporated and on the 35th minute the much maligned Arne Engels shot from distance to make it a comfortable 2-0 at the break.
 
The second half and Dunfermline came out fighting, but again it was the Celts who increased their lead through super sub Kelechi Ihenancho in the 72nd min before Dunfermline did, as so many teams seem to do these days, scored their obligatory goal against the fragile Fenian defence. But by now in the 80th minute fortunately it was too little and too late. Celtic rattled a little, perhaps, still had as Neil Lennon put it himself “far more quality” and saw the club bag themselves a double.
 
As the cameras panned the celebrating crowds many banners and flags were on show and whilst we had the usual mix of Irish & Palestinian flags a few caught my eye in particular.
 
Flags in memory of IRA volunteer and hunger striker Raymond McCreesh and INLA volunteer and hunger striker Patsy O’Hara just two days after the 45th anniversary of their passing flown by young men - whose ages were comparable to those of these brave, selfless volunteers - again reminds us that when we are all lost to time their memories will live on. As they should be.
 
Another banner “Eternal rest Óglach Sean Clinton” remembering the volunteer who battled both the Brits and illness until his passing on April 30th 2026 was again, in my opinion (others may disagree) a lovely touch and tribute.
 
Back to the football and amongst Maeda's tears as he waved his goodbyes to the fans who’d taken him to their hearts and who’d written himself in the lore of Celtic FC another nice moment when Neil Lennon raised Martin O’Neill's hand high in victory. That’s how losing should be done. With dignity and respect not storming off exiting stage left and spouting conspiracy theories. A touch of class from a true Celtic legend.
 
Well done Neil Lennon.

So what’s to look forward to?

So Monday the premiership play off between St Mirren and Partick Thistle - available across Sky Sports.

Saturday - An international friendly as Scotland face Curaçao available on BBC Scotland from 1pm


Sunday - Womens Scottish cup final between Celtic and Rangers a 2pm kick off again being shown on BBC Scotland.

Also Sunday we have Largs Thistle v Auchinleck Talbot in the Junior Scottish Cup final.

So there’s plenty to whet the appetite and keep us interested before World Cup 2026 starts.

Speaking of World Cups we’re all used to those god awful dirges that pass as Scotland anthems (granted there’s not been many for a while) but just this morning this gem landed in my Bluesky notifications from @Robin-Grimmond3

If we don’t adopt this as this year's anthem I’m done supporting Scotland. A more Scottish, Scottish anthem of 2026? Show me a better one …

Enjoy and until the World Cup kicks off ….



🐼 Gary Robertson is the TPQ Scottish football correspondent.

Are We Coming Home Yet Scotland?


Azar Majedi ★ writing on 10-April-2026.

The main loser: people and the society; the winner so far: the Islamic Republic!

As expected, this war has turned people’s lives upside down. Hundreds of deaths, including children and infants, the destruction of a large and important part of society’s infrastructure, energy, water, gas, oil, pharmaceuticals, railways, schools and universities, hospitals and medical centres, factories and historical sites; the spread of poverty, the threat of hunger and famine predicted for 45 million people, poisonous and deadly polluted air; these have been the results of six weeks of devastating war for the Iranian people.

Ironically, during this devastating war, the Islamic Republic has found itself in a stronger position in the eyes of the world and in relation to the people in Iran, despite the significant and fatal blows to its existence and the loss of dozens of important and decisive members of the regime, including Khamenei.

Balance of Power

Forty days after the start of the war, society is facing a bitter truth: the balance of power between the people and the regime has changed to a great extent to the detriment of the people and to the benefit of the Islamic Republic. The war that the pro-US/Israeli factions tried to portray as a war to liberate the people from the evil of the Islamic Republic and are still desperately trying to show it as the only way to liberation and salvation; (they must mean salvation in heaven!) has not only not weakened the regime in relation to the people, but has actually pushed the people back significantly.

People whose lives are daily in danger of total destruction, who have become poorer, with a horrible future of famine and water shortage ahead, are desperate and helpless, tired and weak to organise to take control of their future and to overthrow the Islamic regime. The revolution needs organisation, leadership, a clear strategy and action plan, and political and social awareness. Revolution is not a spontaneous rebellion. Rebellion can be ignited and quickly smothered. The flames of a revolution cannot be easily extinguished.

Up until the day of the first bombing, the Islamic regime’s rule seemed fragile. People had imposed significant setbacks on the regime. People had changed the balance of power in the fight against and confrontation with the regime to a great extent. An important push back which has an ideological significant is the de facto overthrow of the Hejab by the women’s liberation movement. Hejab is the logo; the banner of the Islamic Regime. This is an important victory. But in forty days the war threw the people back and took away the power they had gradually gained over years of struggle.


Seizing nationalism as a trump card

An important factor in strengthening the Islamic regime, both in relation to the people and society and internationally, is for it to appear as the representative of Iranian nationalism and the “ancient Iranian civilization.” The Islamic Republic, especially the state-reformists or the so-called national-Islamists, have made many efforts to seize the ideology of nationalism. Even Ahmadinejad tried to present himself as the standard-bearer of Cyrus and Darius. These games did not have much impact on society and were met with ridicule and mockery.

Nationalism has traditionally and historically been associated with the right-wing opposition, the former regime, and the monarchists. But this right-wing and fascist movement, which has begged Trump and Netanyahu in a filthy and disgusting way to bomb and destroy Iran, carried Israeli flags in its demonstrations, danced and stomped in joy at the bombing and killing of people, and chanted obscene slogans such as "Tank you Trump," "Tank you BB," who have threatened their opposition with torture, death and lynching as their father in crown has done, has been stripped of any credibility in the eyes of the world and the Iranian society as a representative of the "Iranian nation" and in the general political culture of "Iranian nationalism."

Their leader, Reza Pahlavi, who has been exposed by many commentators, even the right wing, as a Mossad agent (the reason for his three trips to Israel during this period must be seen as part of his mission), is devoid of any kind of credibility and reputation in the world's eyes and is known as a freeloader who enjoys a super luxurious life thanks to his parents' thefts. A corrupt man whose name appeared on Epstein's list; a stinking beast who, the power they had gradually gained over years of struggle from before the twelve-day war until today, has openly called on Trump and Netanyahu to bomb and destroy Iran. He has officially opposed the ceasefire, following Netanyahu. He has publicly and in the media begged Trump and Netanyahu to cancel the ceasefire and continue the bombing until complete destruction.

Nationalism is a bourgeois ideology, a deceptive lie to maintain the unity of the people behind the oppressive capitalist state. Nationalism is a winning card of the bourgeoisie to rally and keep the majority of the people behind it, especially in times of war and intensification of class-political differences. Nationalism is the best tool of the bourgeoisie and the ruling class to control and suppress society. But as far as these stooges are concerned, the bitter irony is that their masters, Israel and America, are rushing so recklessly and brutally to implement the project of the new Middle East and Greater Israel that there is not a shred of credibility left for this so-called opposition. They have been completely thrown out of the Iranian political scene. One of the losers of this war is this old fascist movement. Thus, the seat of the representative of Iranian nationalism has been vacated for the Islamic regime to occupy.

This fascist movement, ardent propagandist of war, has gone so far in admiring and serving the US and Israel that no one, whether on the right or the left, recognises them as anything other than servants and mercenaries. Internationally, in the eyes of the global left movement and among people who are against war and massacre, the Islamic Republic, which has not only resisted military aggression so far, but has also inflicted relatively large economic and military damage on Israel and the military bases and economic interests of the United States in the sheikhdoms, including the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, has become the representative of "Iran" and therefore Iranian nationalism. Thanks to the blessing of the war, the Islamic regime was able to conquer a position for which it had fought fruitlessly for years.


Becoming a "world power"; The Mask of "Civilization and Morality"

It is not known whether the Islamic regime will emerge from this war in one piece and in full power or wounded and scarred? Perhaps not at all and will be destroyed; Future will tell. But in the current situation, the Islamic regime has won this devastating war.

In the eyes of the world, the Islamic Republic has made several important advances. It should be borne in mind that a large population of the world has suffered from the crimes, bullying and plunder of the American and Western empires, spearheaded by Israel; their conscience has been tormented by the genocide of Israel/America and the West in the Middle East and Africa. These people, who belong to various political movements, feel joy and happiness when they see the American and Israeli forces being hit. This is a natural and spontaneous human reaction. One must bear in mind that, except for the mainstream media, all narratives and analyses of this war call America and Israel the aggressors and the cause of the war. The majority of the world wants America and Israel to lose this war.

Furthermore, in the complete absence of any left and progressive force in the region that stands against Israel and America, in a situation where all the governments in the region are stooges of US and Israel, the resistance of the Islamic regime against the attacks of US and Israel and its attacks on Israel and the military bases and economic resources of America in the sheikhdoms has enhanced the position and credibility of the Islamic regime. This does not apply only to the forces supporting the so-called Axis of Resistance, many movements and people who are tired of these crimes and bullying of the last few years and see the danger of the destruction of the world have risen to praise the Islamic Republic.

Those who have rebelled against Trump's insane and psychopathic rants and behaviour immediately look to the opposite pole. Unfortunately, this is the spontaneous reaction of most human beings.

It must be admitted that the world is in a very dangerous and decisive situation. Anger, anxiety and fear dominate the atmosphere. People's eyes are opening to the lies, corruption and filth that rule the world. The mass protest movement is vast but devoid of radical left leadership. The working class and socialist movements are weak, incoherent, and scattered. The world is at a turning point: on the one hand, the undisputed rise of fascism, and on the other, the formation of a mass movement of awareness and protest.

As far as the people of Iran are concerned, maintaining and building solidarity, forming circles of support, and trying to maintain hope must be at the heart of our activities. In these circumstances, maintaining physical and mental survival is the main goal. Maintaining vigilance and readiness to confront a dark scenario is vital. The current situation is a defensive one. If the people can cope with these difficult and exhausting conditions, they will be in a much stronger position against the Islamic Republic, and if it is replaced along the way by a regime change, people will be in a better position to confront that puppet regime.

⏩ Asar Majed is the Chairperson of Organisation for Women’s Liberation.

The Bitter Truths Of War

Barry Gilheany ⚽ So Leeds United survived the beginning of our third spell in the English Premier League with three matches to spare . . . 

. . . in fourteenth place and with a final points total of 47; a comfortable eight above the dotted line. There was even the remote possibility of qualification for European competition. That reward went to Sunderland who came up through the Championship play offs and defied the received laws of football gravity by qualifying for the Europa League through their seventh-place final spot. Their previous foray into European competition was the 1973-74 European Cup Winners Cup competition (don’t ask me how they qualified for it; Google the answer!). It is to be hoped that interaction with European football culture acts as some kind of educative experience for those Brexit voting Makems! On a more cautionary note, how will the Black Cats juggle the perils of Second Season Syndrome with participation in what can be a draining competition in terms of travel and squad demand.

To return to the matter at hand; the moment that Leeds fans could definitely start dancing and dining to the tune of “Staying Up! We Are Staying Up! came with that excruciating VAR deliberation at the London Stadium in stoppage time in the West Ham United v Arsenal encounter where the stakes could not have been higher for the Gunners at any rate. For had Raya, the Arsenal keeper, not been adjudged to have been impeded (on top of several apparent tugging of West Ham shirts) during the melee resulting from a corner in which Callum Wilson rifled home what would have been a Hammers’ equaliser, then their arithmetic advantage at the top of the Premiership would have dissolved leaving the path clear for Manchester City to sweep towards yet another title. By contrast the point that the Hammers would have been insufficient to avoid the inevitable drop which was confirmed on Sunday past. But history and the Gods shone on Arsenal (and by extension Leeds United) and the goal was chalked off and rightfully so if the issue was solely the arm which crossed the body of Raya. But the noun stress simply does not do justice to the collective agony endured by maybe millions glued to their television sets across the world. 

But I share with my TPQ fellow columnist Dr John Coulter his joy and delight at this long overdue Premiership title for Arsenal. They were worthy winners; their standard of football defies the “One-Nil to the Arsenal” stereotype and the resilience and camaraderie amongst the group that Mikel Arteta has instilled which has enabled them to transcend the heartbreak and frustration of three successive runners-up finishes is something to behold. Onwards and upwards to a first ever and long overdue European Champions League trophy this Saturday against another Sovereign Wealth asset, namely PSG or should that be Qatar. Should Arteta do what no Arsenal boss has done since the legendary Herbert Chapman in the 1930s and retain the title, then a place in the pantheon of football deities awaits.

After another diversion into serendipity, I wish to report real satisfaction at Daniel Farke’s personal achievements this season in securing post-promotion safety for the first time in his managerial career as well as piloting a club to his first Cup semi-final. His change of tactical formation at half time at the Etihad on 29th November 2025 when his team were staring down the barrel of a defeat to equal the 7-0 rout inflicted by Manchester City in November 2021 and he down the barrel of likely dismissal after a run of four successive losses which had dropped us into the relegation places has already gone down in Elland Road folklore. Once we had extricated ourselves from the bottom three, a return was never likely as we became a competitive force in the Premiership, becoming much harder to beat and playing a brand of exciting football exemplified by the resurrection of the career of the notoriously injury prone striker Dominic Calvdert-Lewin. 

The highlight of the season was a 2-1 victory at Old Trafford over a Manchester United side much revitalised by Michael Carrick who has just been made permanent Head Coach; the first such League win at the lair of what for most Leeds fans is the Auld Enemy since February 1981. Farke thus achieved what evaded other (relatively) high achieving Leeds managers such as Howard Wilkinson, Marcelo Bielsa, David O’Leary, and George Graham. That we could easily have been three or four up at half-time and at the Hill Dickenson stadium (Everton’s new gaff) and Villa Park vindicates our status in the top flight. That we didn’t see such matches out to a wholly successful conclusion is certainly an area of improvement for next season.

That victory at Old Trafford presaged the dash to safety which saw us take 14 points from an available 21 with just one defeat and one duck; the 3-0 loss at West Ham on Sunday past, a dead rubber for far more tragic reasons for the Hammers whose relegation was the grisly climax to the most egregious corporate failings in recent English football history since the financial implosion at Elland Road in the early noughties which consigned us to a sentence of sixteen years of exile from the Premiership after relegation in 2004. In close competition for the dunce’s cap have been the executives at Tottenham who contrived to engineer the near-death experience of avoiding relegation by two points. Their survival was secured by a stumble to a 1-0 win over victory over Everton; their first home win since 6th December.

It is for others to dissect the grim goings on at boardrooms in North and East London. While wishing to avoid Thersea May type hubris about “strong and stable” leadership, the Leeds owners, the 49ers Enterprises, have proved to be solid tillers of the soil, something which could not be said for the succession of post Ridsdale regimes which made Leeds United a byword for financial and organisational incompetence. It was a history that Daniel Farke was totally aware of, having taken over as manager in 2023 in the midst of a relegation battle that was in large part due to appalling decision making by the board headed by Andrea Radrizzani and the Director of Football Victor Orta including signings of unsuitable players with relegation clauses. Having had to rebuild the club in the midst of the inevitable departures from the club, Daniel has warned the board of the legacies of such dysfunctional corporate leadership and will work with the 49ers as a team. A really positive development has been the commencement of work to expand Elland Road to a capacity of 52,000 by the beginning of the 2030s.

It was a weekend that saw multiple departures and ends of eras. Pep Guardiola bade an emotional farewell to a Manchester City for whom he brought a trophy haul unimaginable in the days of “Cityitis” (we won’t mention the 115 charges which will end up at football’s version of the County Court) along with two icons of the Pep talk era – Bernardo de Silva and John Stones with a guard of honour for de Silva as he departed the Etihad in a substitution in the 71st minute. Two lynchpins of what was essentially the Klopp era at Anfield, Mo Salah (the best forward to have graced the top flight in my years of watching football) and Andy Robertson also departed to the sight of another guard of honour at their substitutions. 

Whether Arne Slot will be around to properly manage the transition from the age of “heavy metal” football is, to put it tentatively, up for speculation. Andoni Iraola left Bournemouth, having not just kept this most unlikely outpost of elite football in the Premiership but to the Europa League. Oliver Glasner left Crystal Palace having guided them to their first major trophy, the FA Cup in 2025, and to the final of the European Conference League this season. How successful will their respective successors be in ensuring the continuing renewal and regeneration of their clubs?

Lastly, as a native of County Tyrone I cannot sign off on this piece without paying tribute to Frank McGuigan, a Red Hand legend who sadly passed away at home in his native Ardboe on Sunday at the age of 71. A footballing but very self-effacing prodigy who captained Tyrone in their 1973 Ulster Football Final victory at the age of 19; he would surely have achieved more than his second Ulster medal in 1984 at the age of 30 which he won through a scintillating display of football skill had not life in the form of exile on the building sites of New York. A superstar of his era; Frank had to deal with tragedy and struggle in the form of a serious road traffic accident which ended his career and later a battle with alcoholism which he came out of the other end. In his recovery years, he passed on his wisdom and knowledge to the next generation of Ardboe GFC players including his three sons.

RIP Frank.

Marching on Together

⏩Barry Gilheany is a freelance writer, qualified counsellor and aspirant artist resident in Colchester where he took his PhD at the University of Essex. He is also a lifelong Leeds United supporter. 

The Premiership Final Round Up ⚽ Leeds United Survival And Those Who We Have Adored Move On

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Nine Hundred And Eighty Three

 

A Morning Thought @ 3157

Dixie Elliot ✊Writing in March after the London civil case against Gerry Adams.


The arrogant disdain Gerry Adams has shown towards The Dark can be matched only by that shown by Donald Trump towards anyone who would dare question him. 

During his evidence, he was questioned repeatedly on various statements and interviews given by Mr Hughes, also known as ‘The Dark’, who was the former officer commanding of the Belfast brigade of the IRA and the leader of the 1980 hunger strike. Mr Hughes died in 2008. 

At one point, Mr Adams called Mr Hughes a “disappointment” and a “sorry figure who was alcohol dependent”. 

However, he said he still retained a fondness for the senior republican, whom he was in prison with in the 1970s in Long Kesh. “I also had, and still have, that photograph,” said Mr Adams, when questioned over the image of him alongside Mr Hughes in Long Kesh. 

“Brendan, disappointingly, was against the Sinn Fein strategy, the peace process, and sided with those who formed anti-peace process armed groups.
(He) said publicly on occasions that I should be shot, and was quoted once that he would indeed shoot me himself. I see all of that in the context of what he endured during his H-Block imprisonment and the hunger strikes.
He ended up as a sorry figure who was alcohol dependent, and I still retain a fondness for him. 
Even though he was a disappointment, he was also a victim of what was happening in our country."

Shortly after Mr Adams’ comments were reported, Mr Hughes’ daughter, Josephine Hughes, took to social media to hit out at the former West Belfast MP. “Gerry I hope my father’s face haunts you the rest of your days, to stand in a British court and basically call my father a liar. I hope everyone sees through you like my daddy did. I couldn’t be prouder of my daddy,” she wrote, and shared the photograph of Mr Adams and Mr Hughes in Long Kesh..."  

There's a lot I could write about the IRA volunteer Brendan Hughes, who always led from the front, and Gerry Adams who led the IRA to defeat, but I'll stick to one thing which is of importance if we are to understand the lengths Adams has gone to try and smear the name of Brendan. In a 2009 interview with the Irish News Adams said:

. . . In December 1980 the republican leadership on the outside was in contact with the British who claimed they were interested in a settlement. But before a document outlining a new regime arrived in the jail the hunger strike was called off by Brendan Hughes to save the life of the late Sean McKenna. The British, or sections of them, interpreted this as weakness . . . 

Adams knew how that hunger strike ended from the moment he read the comm sent out to him by Bobby Sands, which he had written on the night it ended. In that comm Bobby mentioned nothing about any document. He didn't say that 'The Dark had fucked up,' (as Laurence McKeown claimed Bobby had said in the documentary 66 Days.) He didn't say that The Dark had been outmanoeuvred by the British. More importantly he made no mention of The Dark calling off the hunger strike to save the life of Sean McKenna. (Although that was correct in that he knew if he let Sean die it would have been for nothing as that hunger strike was falling apart anyway)

I recently came across this comm when searching through Bobby's biography, Nothing But An Unfinished Song for something else. Bobby's own words tears apart the the false narrative put out there by Adams and Morrison, the intention of which was to blame The Dark for the second Hunger strike, had he let Sean die then there would have been no second hunger strike. 

This false narrative became fact in the minds of many Republicans, some who should know better, and it is still being spread to this day. Bobby wrote in that comm to Adams:

I don't believe we can achieve our aims or recoup our losses in the light of what has occurred, I mean not only the boys breaking but perhaps our desperate attempts to salvage something.

Bobby was referring to that hunger strike falling apart as Sean McKenna was nearly dead. It was for that reason that he changed tactics in the second hunger strike so that it was staggered out instead of a single group going on it together. He would go first as he knew that the British would let men die and he would be the first to do so. Bobby's comm to Adams:



Thomas Dixie Elliot is a Derry artist and a former H Block Blanketman.
Follow Dixie Elliot on Twitter @IsMise_Dixie

The Trumpian Arrogance Of Gerry Adams

People And Nature ☭ Written by  Simon Pirani.


Russia’s political prisoners are “outcasts in their own land,” Sergei Dudchenko, a biker tortured and framed by the security services, told his trial judges this month before being handed a seven-year prison sentence.

Those arrested for opposing the war on Ukraine had “fewer rights than a stray dog, and on top of that they bear the humiliating brand of ‘terrorist’ – and all this for their active civic stance.”

Sergei Dudchenko. Photo: Mediazona / social media

Dudchenko and his friend Nikolai Murnev, who received the same sentence, were arrested with others in October 2022 in Stavropol, southern Russia.

While in detention on minor charges (petty hooliganism and drug possession) they were brutally tortured. A case was put together that they were preparing a “terrorist act” — setting fire to a military recruitment office. Another of the group died in pre-trial detention, one fled the country and one turned state’s witness.

The invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 “split life into before and after, it divided the world into black and white”, Dudchenko told the court.

Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Armenians, Georgians, Azerbaijanis, Kazakhs, Turkmens, Jews and others had “paid an unimaginable price” to resist Nazism in World War II. How, decades later, could “so much hatred and anger” be directed against Ukraine?

Within days of the invasion, Dudchenko made a solo protest – a motorbike ride with the Ukrainian flag. In court, four years later, he said: “When I sped along, with the banner of the oppressed streaming behind me, past an astonished crowd of militarists, I felt the human in me come into bloom.”

Dudchenko is one of dozens of wartime protesters who have exercised one of the few constitutional rights that remains accessible: to say a “final word” before sentencing.

Some who exercise this right, like Dudchenko, are citizens whose anti-war protest was their first political action. Some, like the powerlifting champion Yulia Lemeshchenko, are Russians who joined the Ukrainian armed forces. She told her trial, in November last year: “I am not a citizen of the country for which I decided to fight, but for me, Ukraine is home.”

Some are political activists, like Anna Arkhipova, one of six members of the Vesna protest network sentenced at a show trial in St Petersburg last month. “When the war began, it was my conscience that would not let me stand idly by”, she stated.

Try Me For Treason: anti-war protesters’ speeches in Russian courts, an English-language film featuring readings of speeches, was released on YouTube yesterday. (Watch it here.)

The title comes from a speech by Andrei Trofimov, who is serving ten years for pro-Ukrainian statements on social media — plus three for ending his “final word” to a closed court by saying: “Glory to Ukraine! Putin is a dickhead.”

At the second trial, before getting the three extra years, Trofimov scorned the charges of “discrediting the armed forces” and “justifying terrorism”, and invited prosecutors to charge him for deserting to Ukraine’s side. “Try me for treason. I betrayed your deranged state”, he told the judges.

The fifty-minute documentary was put together on a zero budget by a group of actors in the UK, to make the Russian anti-war movement more visible internationally.

Maya Willcocks, the actor-producer who reads a speech by Darya Kozyreva, said:

These are not well-known political leaders, they are people who have taken a stand against the state. I felt it was very important to have their words translated into English and out there for people to hear – to send the message that occupation is a crime, whether in Palestine or in Ukraine.

Tony Aldis, the videographer, said: 

What I found compelling about these stories is that the beginning of any fightback is very often when people stand up against an apparently unassailable power.
These people are not organised. It’s a raw push against something that they don’t believe they can beat, but they think they have to take a stand anyway, in solidarity with someone else who is being attacked and murdered.
That idea is very important to us in the west, given what we face here in the UK, and in the USA, with the rise of the far right.

As one of a small group of translators that helped prisoner support groups, I worked on the script, and on the book Voices Against Putin’s War from which it derived.

Having travelled to Russia and Ukraine since Soviet times, I was struck by the political depth and heterogeneity of anti-war protest, even as it is constrained by state terror to individual acts of defiance.

Those punished with long sentences range from pacifists who quote Tolstoy, to Soviet-era dissidents who ooze contempt for the judges and Russians who go out of their way to justify Ukraine’s defensive military action.

It would be easy – and stupid – to dismiss the “final words” as atomised cries into a dark authoritarian night. Rarely are they pleas to judges or government; more often, they are consciously crafted appeals to society.

The “last words” often try to situate those who say them historically. Sergei Dudchenko, born in 1987, said in court that “people like us will always keep emerging, to pick up the fallen banner of good and reason” … and recalled the seven protesters arrested on Red Square in 1968 for opposing the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia.

Noteworthy, too, is the infrastructure of support for political prisoners, comprising established human rights organisations such as Memorial: Support Political Prisoners, OVD-Info and Mediazona, newly-formed groups such as Fires of Freedom and Solidarity Zone, a web site featuring “last words” going back to the 1950s, and Telegram groups caring for individual prisoners.

From California to the Caucasus, dozens of informal groups of Russians in exile gather and write letters to prisoners.

All these organisations support lawyers and activists in Russia who visit prisoners, send parcels and support relatives – themselves now risky activities.

Ukrainian human rights groups including Zmina, the Crimea Human Rights Group and the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group have a challenge of a different order, in supporting Ukrainian civilian prisoners in Russian jails.

Bohdan Ziza, who features in our film, has family and friends who know where he is. (He is serving fifteen years for throwing blue and yellow paint (the colours of the Ukrainian flag), and a petrol bomb that was quickly extinguished by a security guard, at a municipal council office in Crimea.) So do many Crimean Tatar activists victimised by Russia’s racist, Islamophobic crackdown in the peninsula in 2017–19.

But hundreds, possibly thousands of Ukrainians are at unknown locations in Russia’s 21st-century gulag.

The Ukrainian government today counts 90,000 people as “missing”: many are soldiers, imprisoned or killed, but at least 16,000 are civilians, according to the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Many are victims of abductions, widespread in the territories occupied by Russia.

Ukrainian lawyers and human rights activists have compiled a register of more than 5,000 “enforced disappearances”, in addition to the widely-publicized cases of kidnapped children.

Long prison sentences, imposed with little or no pretence of legal procedure, and savage torture – especially of those suspected of sympathising with Ukrainian resistance – are ubiquitous in the occupied territories. The indefatigable Kharkiv human-rights group’s website reports a stream of life-destroying sentences for peaceful activities deemed dissident.

Doing all we can to provide practical support for political prisoners, and engaging with their compelling articulations of their motives, is central to international solidarity.

☭ Republished from Jacobin, with thanks

☭ Watch Try Me For Treason here

☭ People & Nature is now on mastodon, as well as twitter, whatsapp and telegram. Please follow! Or email peoplenature@protonmail.com, and we’ll add you to our circulation list (2-4 messages per month)

Russia’s Anti-War Prisoners 🪶Outcasts In Their Own Country

Dr John Coulter ✍ June is traditionally the month for commemorations for the famous D-Day landings in Normandy in 1944 which heralded the end of Hitler’s Nazi Third Reich.

But another political D-Day will take place next month with the high profile Makerfield Westminster by-election, which could eventually decide the future, not just of current PM Keir Starmer, but also of the entire Labour Government.

Flying the red flag for Labour is the popular Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, with many pundits suggesting winning Makerfield would be a convenient stepping stone to get Red Andy back into the House of Commons so that he can launch a leadership bid against Starmer.

But why the nickname Red Andy? His campaign team are branding him as being on the so-called Soft Left of Labour. Right-wing political commentators like myself view Burnham as being on the Hard Left of the party; he’s just very clever - unlike a former Labour boss Jeremy Corbyn - at hiding his extreme socialist beliefs.

However, all this talk of leadership plots and coups may be a tad premature. Red Andy is not 100 per cent guaranteed of winning the Makerfield seat!

The constituency - as we approach the 10th anniversary of the Brexit referendum - is viewed as a solidly ‘Leave’ region, as demonstrated by the surge in the anti-EU Reform UK vote in the local government elections earlier this month.

If Red Andy wants to ‘do a King Canute’ and hold back the Reform party tide, he will have to distance himself from the political gossip that Labour wants to renegotiate a closer post-Brexit relationship with the EU at the least; at worst, wants to hold another referendum aimed at getting the UK to rejoin the EU.

That sort of political chit-chat will not sit well with the pro-Brexit voters in Makerfield and could hand the Commons seat to Reform on a silver platter. Like the fallers at the first fence at the famous Grand National horse race, Red Andy could potentially face the embarrassment of not becoming an MP and being pipped at the post by a buoyant Nigel Farage party.

Likewise, we should not assume that a Red Andy victory in Makerfield will automatically signal the end of the Starter regime in 10 Downing Street. Labour, like the Ulster Unionist Party in 1998 in the wake of the Good Friday Agreement, is a party at war with itself.

Given the almost apocalyptic results in mainland Britain in May’s elections, many Labour MPs could be looking over their shoulders at what a potential General Election could hold for them.

Would a change of PM followed by a snap General Election be enough to hold their seats rather than waiting a couple of years until the present mandate ends?

Would there be those in the Starmer camp, who when facing the prospect of certain defeat in a leadership election, could trigger a situation where the country is instead sent back to the polls in the General Election rather than a simple transition of power within Labour in Downing Street?

If May’s election results were replicated in a General Election within the next 12 months, for example, the impressive current Labour majority would politically evaporate and Nigel Farage would be handed the keys of 10 Downing Street.

Is the present Labour civil war so bitter that some would rather see Farage in power rather than allow Red Andy to succeed Starmer? And as for Northern Ireland, how would unionism, nationalism and others react to a Red Andy-led Labour Government?

Unlike the Conservatives, Labour has consistently refused to contest elections in Northern Ireland, preferring instead to see the moderate nationalist SDLP as its sister party. But how many working class Unionist socialists would actually vote for the SDLP?

With some predictions saying the next General Election could throw up a hung parliament, and with 18 seats up for grabs in Northern Ireland, could a Red Andy administration be tempted to cast aside Labour’s refusal to run candidates and decide to go head to head with Ulster-based parties?

After all, Sinn Fein refuses to take its seats in Westminster, so potentially there’s half a dozen seats up for grabs for Labour.

And with Northern Ireland being left behind the rest of the UK in the Brexit outcome, could a more pro-EU Red Andy Government get a better deal from Brussels for the Province, given that Northern Ireland voted ‘Remain’ in the 2016 referendum?

The Burnham camp will also have to deal with how it sees off the threat from the Green Party, which also made significant gains in the mainland Britain elections. The Greens’ decision to portray themselves as the protest party of the Left worked tactically with many voters.

At the moment, Makerfield is shaping up to be a political two-horse race between Red Andy and Reform UK. But there can only be one winner. And that winner could ultimately decide who becomes, or remains, PM.

If Sir Keir had a vote in Makerfield, I wonder in the privacy of the voting booth, who he could cast his vote tactically for? If I was a Starmerite, the last person I’d want in the Commons is Red Andy!
 
Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter
John is a Director for Belfast’s Christian radio station, Sunshine 1049 FM. 

Can Red Andy Really Stop The Reform Surge?

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)