Social Items

TPQ
Christopher Owens ðŸ”– “A contemporary variant of the horror film with a particular focus on human bodies that are subject to torture, mutilation, mutation, decay, degeneration, and transformation, usually shown in graphic detail..” 




. . . as well as “A science fiction genre focusing on a blurring of distinctions between humans and machines in bleak dystopias with lawless subcultures.”

That’s how the Oxford Dictionary of science-fiction refers to both body horror and cyberpunk, and they’re pretty spot on.

Although normally separate genres, the combination of the two has steadily increased in popularity over the last number of years, perhaps tapping into our own fears surrounding mortality, the future, health and beauty.

Does Warm Fusion do this?

Read on and find out.

The plot is fairly simple, as seen by this blurb on the publisher's website:

After a series of murders rip through the city’s brothels, an escort named Vin Young, who cosplays as the Brothers Grimm’s Snow White—and is one of the generation of deformed victims—pursues the killer, or killers, joins forces with Jarrod Hannover, the lone cop assigned to the case. The two eventually arrive at a biotech megacorp developing Warm Fusion, a pioneering technology meant to replace prosthetics limbs—and soon confront the sociopathic scientist Nicholas Fleischer, his monstrous alter-ego, Mr. Barnaby, and the hideous monster that he’s been secretly developing.

Not the most innovative plot, admittedly, but it’s all about the execution after all. Does the writing and art combine to suck the reader into the world envisaged?

Yes and no.

While it cannot be denied that Alberto Ponticelli’s artwork and Lee Loughridge’s colours are exemplary, they cannot hide the fact that the main protagonist (Vin Young) is not a particularly interesting or compelling character. While she has a backstory, it’s not developed enough to make the reader care. Similarly, Jarrod Hannover (the cop) has little to no character traits besides operating an AI that can transcribe his thoughts at a crime scene, as you can see below.


And as for the bad guys?

Similar story.

It is disappointingly light on transgression as well: characters have sex while having robotic arms or missing limbs but this is very familiar terrain for the genre. Having characters mouth off about feeling nothing but chasing extremities does not give it added context.

Finally, it’s a three-issue story that feels like it could have done with a fourth. There could be something in this as there were reports that the publisher had problems with distribution at one point so it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that they decided to cut the run short to ensure it could be published as a graphic novel.

Passable reading but falls short as a cyberpunk story and as a body horror story. 

Scott Hoffman (Writer), Alberto Ponticelli (Illustrator), Lee Loughridge (Colourist), 2026, Warm Fusion. DSTRLY ISBN-13: 978-1962265256

⏩ Christopher Owens was a reviewer for Metal Ireland and finds time to study the history and inherent contradictions of Ireland. He is currently the TPQ Friday columnist and is the author of A Vortex of Securocrats and “dethrone god”.

Warm Fusion

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of Two Thousand And Ninety Six

 

Religious Derangement Syndrome @ 16

 

A Morning Thought @ 3268

Cam Ogie ✍ “Money doesn’t give you the right to own the conversation.” - Lukas Graham

There is something particularly hollow about declaring yourself above politics at precisely the moment when taking a position might actually cost you something.

Ed Sheeran’s response to the removal of Macklemore from his US tour is a striking example. Faced with the exclusion of an artist who had used Sheeran’s stage to say “Free Palestine” and speak about Gaza and the occupied West Bank, Sheeran sought refuge in the reassuring language of moderation: unity, dialogue, diplomacy, sanctuary and the suffering of “both sides”. It sounds compassionate. It sounds reasonable. Above all, it sounds safe.

And perhaps that is precisely the problem.

Sheeran wrote that he was “appalled by the conflict between Israel and Palestine” and described the suffering and pain on both sides as a human tragedy. There is nothing objectionable about acknowledging Israeli suffering. Israeli civilians murdered, injured or taken hostage by Hamas are not somehow less deserving of compassion because of what the Israeli government subsequently did in Gaza. Hamas's deliberate attacks against civilians cannot be sanitised simply because one supports Palestinian rights.

But acknowledging equal human worth is very different from presenting the political and military circumstances producing that suffering as though they were symmetrical.

Hamas is an armed organisation. Israel is a sovereign state possessing one of the region's most sophisticated militaries and exercising enormous military power over Palestinians. Palestinians and Hamas are not interchangeable, just as Israeli civilians and the Israeli government are not interchangeable.

Sheeran called Palestinian and Israeli violence “equal”; it is that his language — “the suffering and pain caused on both sides” and his appeal to “multiple approaches” to peace — can be criticised for flattening major differences in power, scale, state capacity and civilian harm into an apparently symmetrical tragedy. Reducing this enormously unequal relationship to tragedy occurring on “both sides” risks replacing political reality with an emotionally comforting symmetry. It allows everyone to mourn and nobody to explain.

The Convenient Discovery of Being Apolitical

Sheeran's explanation deserves particular scrutiny. He said that he chooses to use his fame and music as a “place of safety and sanctuary”, maintaining diplomacy and keeping conversations open rather than turning his concerts into political forums. It is an attractive philosophy until one examines Sheeran's own history:

As Laura Snapes pointed out in The Guardian, Sheeran's relationship with politics has not always been quite so distant. He participated in the 2022 Concert for Ukraine, an explicitly humanitarian response to Russia's invasion. Snapes also notes his previous intervention over Brexit, his support for Jeremy Corbyn and his support for equality legislation in the United States. So the issue cannot simply be that politics has no place on Ed Sheeran's stage.

Politics apparently can have a place. The more uncomfortable question is which politics, under what circumstances, and at what personal or commercial cost?

Supporting Ukraine in 2022 placed an artist alongside an enormous coalition of Western governments, broadcasters, corporations and cultural institutions. Speaking about Palestine in an American stadium environment can generate very different pressures. That distinction matters.

There is nothing inherently wrong with an artist deciding which causes to support. Nobody is obliged to become a spokesman for every injustice on Earth. But once someone explains his silence through a general principle of political neutrality, his previous willingness to engage politically becomes relevant. “I don't do politics” is a difficult defence when the historical record demonstrates that sometimes you do.

Neutrality After Someone Has Been Silenced

More importantly, neutrality becomes extremely difficult to maintain once another person's political expression has already produced consequences. Had Sheeran simply declined to discuss Gaza from the beginning, one could reasonably describe that as political reticence.

But that is no longer what happened. Macklemore spoke. Powerful interests objected.

A billionaire stadium owner and strong Israeli supporter refused to allow him to perform. Other venues objected. The promoter removed him. The headline artist continued. At that point, the choice was no longer between politics and no politics. Politics had already entered the arena. The remaining question was what everyone involved intended to do about it. That is why Laura Snapes's observation that there is ultimately no neutral position in circumstances such as these is so pertinent. She also draws attention to Robert Kraft's political connections and longstanding support for Israel. Kraft is a friend of Donald Trump and a major supporter of Israel. At the 2019 Genesis Prize ceremony honouring Kraft, Benjamin Netanyahu praised his commitment to Israel and declared that Israel had no “more loyal friend”.

None of that automatically makes Kraft's decision illegitimate. Kraft has defended his position by referring to what he regards as antisemitic rhetoric and imagery associated with Macklemore and by insisting that advocacy for Palestinians should not obscure Hamas's responsibility.

That explanation should be recorded rather than caricatured. But it does not make the political dimension disappear.

When a billionaire with publicly documented political connections and a longstanding commitment to Israel determines that a musician advocating for Palestine will not perform in his stadium, describing everything that follows as merely a promoter's decision hardly removes politics from the equation. It simply relocates political power from the microphone to the boardroom.

“It Was Not My Decision”

Sheeran's other defence is technically important.

“Macklemore coming off tour was the promoter's decision; it was not mine,” he said.

That may be entirely true. But there is an enormous difference between making a decision and accepting one.

Sheeran may not have possessed the contractual authority to force a stadium owner to host Macklemore. He says he attempted to mediate between promoters, venue owners and activists and was unable to reach a solution. That should be acknowledged. But the actions of the considerably less powerful musicians around him demonstrated that another choice remained available. They could walk away. And they did. Finneas withdrew. Lukas Graham withdrew. Aaron Rowe withdrew. Beoga — Sheeran's Irish backing band — withdrew.

All cited solidarity with Palestine or opposition to Macklemore's exclusion among their reasons.

Suddenly Sheeran's apparent powerlessness looked rather different. Because these musicians did something wonderfully uncomplicated: they accepted that having principles occasionally involves losing something.

Principles That Cost Something

Aaron Rowe's decision is particularly significant because he possesses nowhere near Sheeran's commercial power.

For an emerging musician, supporting one of the world's biggest recording artists in American stadiums represents an extraordinary career opportunity. Yet Rowe withdrew, invoking his Irish background and Ireland's historical experience of colonialism and occupation. Beoga likewise referred to their Irish identity and understanding of colonialism when explaining their decision.

Lukas Graham made the broader point that wealth should not determine who controls public conversation, while Finneas objected to artists being silenced for speaking for oppressed people.

Whatever one thinks of their political analysis, their actions expose the weakness in the argument that there was simply nothing meaningful Sheeran could do.

There was. They did it. They relinquished the opportunity.

That does not mean Sheeran was morally obliged to cancel his tour. Cancelling stadium concerts affects thousands of people who have nothing to do with the dispute: employees, contractors, musicians, local workers and fans who have spent considerable amounts travelling and booking accommodation. Sheeran explicitly cited those responsibilities when explaining why he would continue. That is a legitimate consideration. But it is not the same thing as neutrality. It is a decision that the consequences of cancellation outweigh the reasons for refusing to continue. And that is itself a choice.

The Problem With “Both Sides”

This brings us back to perhaps the most troubling aspect of Sheeran's statement: the language of suffering on “both sides”. There is a seductive simplicity to that phrase.

At the level of individual human beings, of course there is suffering on both sides. A murdered Israeli child and a murdered Palestinian child are equally dead. Their parents experience grief rather than geopolitics. But recognising equal human worth does not require pretending that every political, military and historical relationship surrounding those deaths is equal. Nor should the phrase “Israeli state violence” be allowed to create the impression that a state is some autonomous machine operating independently of human beings. States do not drop bombs. States do not pull triggers. States do not demolish buildings. States do not formulate military strategy. People do these things through governments, armed forces, bureaucracies and political institutions. And those institutions can be sustained by varying degrees of public consent, electoral support, political participation, acquiescence and opposition.

States Do Not Commit Violence Without People - History makes that distinction important

When historians speak about Nazi state violence, they do not imagine that some abstract entity called “the Nazi state” independently invaded countries, deported populations, operated concentration camps and committed mass murder. Human beings did those things.

Political leaders ordered them. Bureaucrats administered them. Soldiers and police carried them out. Businesses and institutions sometimes facilitated or benefited from them. And the regime enjoyed varying degrees of support and acquiescence within German society.

But historical accuracy also demands recognition of Germans who resisted Nazism, Germans who opposed Hitler, Germans persecuted by the regime and Germans who cannot reasonably be assigned responsibility for crimes they neither supported nor committed.

The lesson is therefore not one of inherited or collective guilt. It is that the phrase “state violence” should never become a linguistic device for removing human agency from state actions. The same principle must apply when discussing Israel.

Israeli military operations are determined by political leaders and military commanders and implemented by human beings serving within Israeli institutions. Israeli citizens elect governments, participate in political life and can support, oppose or attempt to influence the policies undertaken in their name.

Consequently, it would be equally misleading to speak about Israeli state violence as though Israeli society were entirely detached from it. But Israelis are not a single political mind.

There are Israelis who strongly support their government's conduct of the war. There are Israelis who oppose aspects of it. There are Israelis who have demonstrated against their government. There are Israelis who campaign for Palestinian rights. There are Israelis who refuse military service or object to particular policies, and many whose positions cannot neatly be placed into any of these categories.

Recognising those differences does not require pretending that Israeli state violence somehow exists independently of Israeli society.

It requires something more intellectually demanding: distinguishing between individual responsibility, institutional responsibility, political support and collective identity.

And the Same Standard Must Apply to Palestinians

That distinction must work in both directions.

Palestinians cannot collectively inherit responsibility for Hamas's atrocities simply because Hamas is a Palestinian organisation.

A Palestinian child does not become responsible for October 7 by being born Palestinian. A Palestinian civilian does not become responsible for the murder of Israeli civilians merely because Hamas claims to act in the Palestinian cause. And an Israeli civilian does not become personally responsible for the killing of Palestinian civilians merely by being Israeli. But neither should “the state” become a linguistic shield that makes political and military violence appear detached from those who authorise it, implement it, defend it or politically support it.

There is therefore an important distinction between saying:

Israelis are collectively responsible for Israeli state violence

and saying:

Israeli state violence is conceived, authorised, implemented and, to varying degrees, politically supported by human beings within Israeli society.

The first assigns collective guilt. The second recognises political reality. And exactly the same intellectual standard should apply to Palestinian society, Hamas and every other state or armed political movement.

Why the Symmetry Still Fails

This is why Sheeran's “both sides” formulation ultimately feels so inadequate. It takes millions of individual people, governments, armed organisations, soldiers, civilians, hostages, political movements and radically different levels of military power and compresses everything into two apparently equivalent blocks:

Israelis on one side. Palestinians on the other.

Reality is considerably more complicated. Hamas's murder of Israeli civilians does not become defensible because Palestinians have suffered occupation, displacement or bombardment. Conversely, Hamas's atrocities cannot function as an unlimited moral credit against which every subsequent Israeli military action is charged. One can condemn October 7 and still scrutinise the scale and conduct of Israel's subsequent military campaign. One can demand the release of Israeli hostages while simultaneously demanding protection for Palestinian civilians. One can reject antisemitism absolutely while rejecting the proposition that criticism of the Israeli government, Israeli military conduct or the political support sustaining those policies is inherently antisemitic.

Indeed, Macklemore explicitly attempted to make precisely that distinction, telling Jewish members of his audience that his criticism of Israel was not criticism of them and framing his position around equal dignity for human beings.

The genocide allegation also requires precision. Palestinians, human-rights organisations, scholars and others have characterised Israel's actions in Gaza as genocide, while Israel emphatically rejects that allegation and says its military campaign targets Hamas rather than the Palestinian population. Genocide also has a specific meaning under international law, and political assertions about it should be distinguished from legal findings.

But none of that requires pretending that the underlying distribution of power is symmetrical.

Compassion can be equal. Civilian lives can possess equal value.

But power, military capability, political agency and responsibility do not therefore become equal.

That is precisely what the comforting language of “both sides” risks obscuring.



When Billionaires Decide What Can Be Said

There is another issue here that extends well beyond Israel and Palestine. Who gets to decide what artists are permitted to say? Macklemore was not demanding that Kraft endorse his politics. He was expressing his own.

Kraft owns the stadium and has interests, rights and responsibilities of his own. But when ownership of cultural infrastructure allows an extremely wealthy individual to determine which political positions may be expressed within it, questions about freedom of expression and economic power become unavoidable. And that is where Sheeran's language about keeping “conversations open” becomes almost paradoxical. The conversation wasn't kept open. One participant was removed from it. Calling what remains “dialogue” does not change that. If Macklemore had been permitted to perform and Kraft had publicly condemned his remarks, there would have been disagreement.

If pro-Israel organisations had protested outside the stadium while Macklemore performed inside it, there would have been disagreement.

If Jewish organisations had challenged Macklemore publicly and Macklemore had answered them, there would have been disagreement.

That is what an open political conversation looks like. Removing the speaker is something different.

Escapism for Whom?

Sheeran says his concerts are about “unity, joy, escapism, love” and creating somewhere everyone feels welcome. Again, it sounds admirable.

But escapism is considerably easier for those who have something to escape to. For people whose families are living through war, displacement or bereavement, politics is not a discussion that conveniently ends when the stadium lights come on. That does not mean every concert must become a political rally. It means only that “leave politics outside” is itself much easier to demand when the existing political arrangements are not destroying your world.

And once Macklemore had been removed because of political speech, the fantasy of an apolitical concert had already collapsed. The politics remained. Only the dissenter had disappeared.

The People With Less Power Showed More Willingness to Sacrifice

Perhaps the most damaging part of this episode for Sheeran is therefore not anything Macklemore said. It is what Sheeran's own supporting musicians subsequently did.

They were presented with essentially the same moral problem and reached a different conclusion. The smaller artists had considerably less commercial power and potentially much to lose professionally. Yet they walked. Sheeran stayed. That does not establish that their political analysis is automatically correct, nor does it prove that Sheeran secretly supports Kraft's position. It establishes something much simpler.

The claim that there was no meaningful alternative becomes difficult to sustain when several people standing beside you immediately demonstrate one. Principles are extremely easy when they cost nothing. Solidarity is easy when everyone in the room agrees. Free expression is easy when nobody powerful objects. And political courage is easiest when the politics concerned have already been approved by governments, corporations, broadcasters and the cultural establishment.

The test arrives when saying something — or refusing to accept someone else's silencing — carries consequences. Macklemore accepted consequences. Rowe accepted them. Beoga accepted them. Finneas accepted them. Lukas Graham accepted them.

Ed Sheeran chose a different course. And he is entitled to defend that decision. But describing it as apolitical does not make it so.

Silence Is Not Always Neutral

Perhaps that is the lasting lesson from this episode. Neutrality is not simply something we declare ourselves to possess. It has to be examined in relation to the power operating around us. There is an enormous moral difference between refusing to participate in a political argument and standing aside after somebody else has already used political and economic power to determine who is permitted to participate in it. There is also a difference between recognising the humanity of everyone caught in a conflict and reducing that conflict to an emotionally satisfying equivalence between “both sides”. Israeli civilians are not the Israeli government. Palestinian civilians are not Hamas. Jewish people are not collectively responsible for Israel. Palestinians are not collectively responsible for October 7.

But governments, armies and political movements do not exist independently of human beings either. Their decisions are conceived by people, carried out by people, supported by some people, opposed by others and ultimately judged according to what those people actually did. That distinction is more difficult than simply saying “both sides”. But it is also considerably more honest.

And when one artist speaks, a billionaire objects, institutions respond by removing the speaker, and the world's superstar at the centre of it all retreats behind the language of sanctuary, diplomacy and neutrality, perhaps the question is not whether politics should have entered the concert. It already had.

The only question was who would be permitted to speak about it.

When power determines that answer and everyone else carries on as before, the resulting silence should not automatically be mistaken for neutrality.

Sometimes silence is simply what power sounds like when nobody is prepared to challenge it.

⏩ Cam Ogie is a Gaelic games enthusiast.


The Courage Of Conviction 🪶 Until It Costs Something

Dixie Elliot ✊Is there an elephant in the room with us right now?


Well yes there is, and if Sinn Féin hasn't seen it by now it's because they don't want to.

The 'Elephant in the Room' is that should a British Secretary of State decide that "there appears likely" to be a large enough majority in the North of Ireland in favour of a United Ireland and agrees to hold a border poll, that Unionists will announce that they will be boycotting it just as Nationalists boycotted the 1973 border poll.

That's right, there was a border poll on 8th March 1973 which Nationalists boycotted meaning that it was overwhelmingly won by Unionists.

Then on the 20th March, a mere 12 days later, the British published a white paper which proposed a devolved power-sharing assembly in 'NI' and a Council of Ireland to promote economic cross-border links with the Republic of Ireland.

It was called 'the Sunningdale Agreement.'

The new 'Northern Ireland Assembly' met for the first time on 31st July 1973.

Unionist Brian Faulkner became Chief Executive and the SDLP's Gerry Fitt became Deputy Chief Executive. (The same as the First and Deputy First Ministers in the GFA)

So in my opinion the elephant in the room is a Unionist boycott of a border poll citing the 1973 Nationalist boycott.

Does anyone honestly believe that as the Secretary of State in 1973 gave Unionists the victory despite a Nationalist boycott, that a present day Secondary of State will do the same if Unionists decide that boycott is the best way of winning?

There is no chance of that happening as the British Secretary of State will simply cite the threat of a violent Unionist backlash and cancel it.

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

The Elephant In The Room

Caoimhin O’Muraile ☭ The US President as most people in the world will be acutely aware visited the twenty-six-counties on the weekend 12th -3th September for a round of golf and the ‘Irish Open’. 

He came as a private citizen but the Dail government still found it necessary to lick the maniac's arse in a bid to curry favour. A little bit like going to Vlad the Impaler’s diner party, those who could grovel the most did not get impaled on a spike and not turning up at all was not an option.

Donald Trump is a little like the beast Vlad in his desire and need for attention and having people, governments, grovel before him. Trump thinks very much along the lines of the school bully knowing full well who he can pick on the most, who desires to be well in with him, and who to leave alone. 

For once in their post Second World War existence the British government, and this is unusual, stood up to Trump. The last time a British Prime Minister stood up and faced down a US leader was Harold Wilson when he refused Lyndon Johnson's demand for British troops in Vietnam during the nineteen-sixties. Former British incumbent, Keir Starmer, told Trump he could not use British bases for aggressive attacks on Iran but they were available for defence! Whatever that means? By the standards of other government's Starmer, though probably crapping himself, did show a certain courage in refusing Trump. The US President is a vindictive man and new Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, is no doubt aware of that. This vindictive side of Trump will become a little more apparent shortly. As a school bully Trump sees other world governments as weaker pupils in the playground with the possible exception of the equally deranged Vladimir Putin in Russia. Trump toys around with other governments and the mini fightback by the British may well come back to haunt them.

As a private citizen visiting Ireland there was no need for the five-star treatment afforded him by the twenty-six-county government but they did so all the same. Anything Trump may have said does not carry the weight of an official visit, his purpose here was golf. Even so he decided to make an off the cuff comment suggesting he favours a United Ireland, “unification is gonna happen”, were one of his passing remarks. This was not a statement of official US policy it was Trump being, in my opinion, mischievous. He threw a ‘Sprat and caught a Mackerel’. His suggestion was probably said in jest and was taken much more seriously than the comedian intended. Not that it matters. Trump, if the shit hit the fan, would no doubt say he was visiting in a private capacity and can’t remember what he said.

Sinn Fein Leader, Mary Lou McDonald, appears to have taken the bait claiming the unification debate has the support of the US President, she said “the commentary from the President of the United States reflects burying heads in the sand is no longer an option” referring to Micheal Martin's unenthusiastic views on unification. The Taoiseach I believe does not really want Irish unity as he makes plain enough in his narratives. If called to task Trump may deny all this and as no minutes were taken, he could claim it was a joke to wind Andy Burnham up. On this an element of truth may be there, any talk of Irish unification by Trump would irk the British Prime Minister who has said, coming as no surprise, a border poll on Irish unity was “off the table”. Because of these few off the cuff lines by a narcissistic delusionist on Irish unification is taken as gospel it would appear by Sinn Fein who would have us believe movement on the subject is inevitable.

This mountain from a mole hill if they could only see it puts Sinn Fein potentially in a precarious position. Because the party leader and, no doubt all lower ranks, have taken Trump’s at best dubious word he could have them in his pocket. The next time Mary Lou is shouting from the away end in Dail Eireann attacking US, and Trump in particular, policies in the Middle East, essentially Gaza, perhaps all the US President would need to say is, along the lines:

Can I remind Sinn Fein of my support for their case regarding Irish unity? If they wish that support to continue, they’d better shut their critical mouths about our activities and policy in Gaza and the West Bank. 

Trump knows this support, if that is what it was, is not official or US policy. It was a meaningless remark and nothing more with no clout whatsoever! The fact Sinn Fein believe Trump to be pro-unity will be enough to send delusions through the ranks of the opposition benches (the away end) in Dail Eireann as the Sinn Fein leadership appear to believe Trump suddenly to be the best thing since sliced bread! From sinner to saint based on an off the cuff remark, Trump must be laughing his balls off. 

By taking this line, instead of ignoring what could turn out to be nothing more than Trump's mischievous behaviour, making one of the bullied believe the bully is on their side against the British, Sinn Fein have possibly compromised their position and support for the Palestinians. I think strategically Sinn Fein should have continued to push, if that is what they are doing, for a poll on unification without referencing Trump unless somebody else, the Taoiseach for example, decides to invoke Trump's comments. Instead they have reacted to the cattle prodders prod and now the herd is moving, but moving where to? They will follow Mary Lou all the way until the party are possibly made to look foolish by Donald Trump. With one off the cuff comment favouring Irish unification Donald Trump has potentially silenced one of his greatest critics over treatment of the Palestinians and general Middle-Eastern policies. He has thrown down a gauntlet, indirectly, to Sinn Fein along the lines of Irish Unity or support for Palestine, which one is it to be? What if he demands Sinn Fein choose between the two? 

Stop referencing Trump on Irish unity and stop now. You are doing the cause no favours whatsoever. The only interest Trump has in Ireland is that fucking golf course of his in Doonbeg, County Clare. He is not interested in the fabled ‘Good Friday Agreement’ or Irish unity no matter what he might say when making pleasantries! If he were to play golf in England and met Andy Burnham Trump would probably agree with the British PM that a border poll is “off the table” and Irish unity is neither preferred or on the horizon. The man cannot be trusted. He is not consistent even in official policy let alone when having no more than a chat. However his comments appear enough to send Sinn Fein onto cloud nine or the Twilight Zone.

Another potential quid pro quo Trump left us with was his promise to ease tariffs on Irish Whiskey exports to the US. Should he be believed? Well, no sane person would give such a promise house room, but Micheal Martin appears as excited over this promise as Mary Lou is over his comments on Irish unity. Again Trump has potentially, if he chooses, silenced a critic. The recognition of Palestine by the twenty-six-county administration, rightly so, could be compromised if Trump decides so. Imagine if his, again unofficial, promises to reduce tariffs is at the price the government drop this recognition of Palestine? This is one of the problems with getting too friendly with a malignant narcissist like Donald Trump. They are not and never can be trustworthy and if it suits them they will stab anybody in the back to further their own interests. 

Will Trump lower or even drop completely the tariffs on Irish Whiskey exports to the USA? Is it in his gift to do so even if he said it officially? Remember the man who came here for the golf was in civies meaning he was a private citizen in his, not presidential, time. Anything said in this capacity should be taken with a huge pinch of salt and watch out for the pitfalls. 

The offer of tariff reductions should have been accepted with mild appreciation not ringing the bells of permanent prosperity courtesy of Donald Trump. Micheal Martin, Simon Harris, Mary Lou McDonald and uncle Tom Cobley and all were taking soup with Trump. Not one of them had a very long spoon. If the intentions were to buy this rubbish from the off duty Trump the purchasers should perhaps remember, ‘caveat emptor’!!!

 
Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist.

Trump Visit 🪶 The Legacy

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of Two Thousand And Ninety Five

 

A Morning Thought @ 3267

Jim Duffy ✍ People who wonder why countries across Eastern Europe and Asia are so fearful of Russia, and see it as untrustworthy and prone to break every deal it makes, need to understand what those countries have gone through over the centuries at the hand of Russia. 

Poland was subject to at least Nineteen attacks by Russia. Finland was attacked through its history by Russia over Thirty times.
 
Some were full wars. Some were violent attacks on border communities. The place where the President of Finland's grandparents were from, and where his father was born, is now occupied by Russia as a result of the second of the wars it waged against Finland during World War II. 

Russia was one of the countries that wiped Poland off the map and they seized its territory. Ukraine lost up to 5 million to the Holodomor, the man-made famine that results from Stalin's brutal collectivisation between 1932 and 1933.
 
Modern day Russia like in the past when it illegally seizes territory expels the native population and replaces them by Russian planters. Russia did just that since 2014 in Crimea - which is why neighbouring states have zero sympathy for the Russian planters in Crimea left without electricity, petrol or food. They are glad too see them flee the houses they illegally occupied and stole from natives and flee back to Russia where they came from.
 
It is no longer countries in Eastern Europe and in Asia, including Japan, despise Russia, do not trust it, and look on Putin apologists and useful idiots in the west with disgust. They have every reason to despise a country whose entire history has been built on attack, subjugating and annexing its neighbour. It is the ultimate neighbour from hell.

⏩ Jim Duffy is a writer-historian.

Neighbour From Hell

Fenian Memorial Committee Of America And Irish National Graves Association    will be unveiling a monument to the Catalpa Rescue. 

Venue: Glasnevin Cemetery, Dublin. 

Date: 19-September-2026.

Time:1300.

Catalpa Rescue Monument Unveiling

Micheál Choilm Mac Giolla Easbuig ★ Minister Thomas Byrne, commenting on his meeting on Wednesday, 12 August . . . 

 . . . the Minister of State for Defence, (more like minister of war) said:

I welcomed the opportunity to meet with General Grynkewich in Dublin today.
Ireland’s engagement with NATO through Partnership for Peace has provided our Defences Forces with valuable opportunities since 1999 for useful and pragmatic collaboration, in our contribution to peacekeeping globally, and in adherence with our policy of military neutrality.

Thomas Byrne calls all of this ‘pragmatic collaboration’ and ‘adherence with our policy of neutrality’. It’s amazing how ‘intellectual gymnastics’ are used by the ruling class to justify anything . . . anything at all . . . and continue the ‘ruling by fooling’.
 
So, NATO and PESCO are being sold to us as a ‘Partnership for Peace’!! Just incredible. Escalating military spending, wars, genocides and their consequences for civilians, around the world, is called a ‘Partnership for Peace’!! It is hard to believe that Thomas Byrne, who also met with Europe’s war mongers, masquerading as ministers of defence, at the Gleann na Draoithe resort or any normal person, would believe that nonsense.They don’t even believe their own yarns. And we, the decent people of Ireland, don’t believe a word of it either.

Helen McEntee, ostensibly, the minister of foreign affairs, more like the minister of ‘foreign wars’, now says, that military spending is up to 43%, from a tiny figure of 2 to 5% before this. The latter figure more in keeping with what is supposed to be a neutral state. But those figures notwithstanding, Helen wants to increase the spending on military hardware and preparations for war, to an even higher percentage; to be nearer nearer 60%.

This compares with a measly 9% spending on housing by the Irish government and only 11% on public health care. Infrastructure spending is a tiny 5%. And, depending on how it’s measured, there is only a 2.8% to 5.8% spend on education. Even government spending on ‘social protection’, known as benefits, is only 22% . . .  approximately half of the present military budget. For those who are old and pension age, the government can manage only a 27% budget. For Helen McEntee and her ilk, spending on the provision of war and death, comes far ahead of spending on the provisions of life.

Here i Dún na nGall the two sitting TD’s Pat (The Cope) Gallagher and Charlie McConnelogue are totally silent on all of this spending of millions upon millions, on war preparations, weapons of death And the on-going destruction of our neutrality and sovereignty. Why? Do they not realise that hundreds upon hundreds of families i Dún na nGall need to put food on their table and warm their homes. There is a bypass needed i LeitirCeanainn. Could this money be more usefully spent on that? Could this money, that is being spent on weapons of death and wars, be spent on our destroyed fishing fleet, thanks to the EU, with the connivance of Fianna Fail et al? This money, destined for wars, should be spent on the collapsing homes, due to defective blocks, all over Dún na nGall further afield i Éireann? I call on them to answer these questions and state their position clearly on this imperialist military spending, in what is supposed to be a neutral and sovereign country.

We are not fooled by the safe sounding Words of “defence”, “security” and “peace” that are used all the time, to hide the fact that it is wars, deaths and genocides that they are talking about here . . .  nothing else. What does their talk about “defence” ,“security” and “peace” really mean? Who will profit from the manufacturing and selling of these weapons of death?

It means the spending of billions, even trillions, on weapons of death; to kill maim an injure civilians in their hundreds of thousands, around the world. It means the recruiting of our sons, daughters and grandchildren to fight and die in foreign wars; at the behest of imperialism and capitalism, no more and no less. And it means, the diversion of funding away from social issues such as housing health and even our infrastructure here; in other words the material necessities of life, necessary for people to live in comfort and happiness. Does living not count for more than dying? We need to Always remember, that, the minority who are the ruling class, care little for the majority, the poor and working poor; and they will continue to exploit them in any way they can If we continue to allow it.

It is long past the time that the people of Ireland put a stop to the moves by the ruling class, to make our country a target for war. Sionainn 'warport' should be immediately closed down. Like Countess
Markievicz did all those years ago, we must organise against the conscription of our children into the NATO/European army through the 'slight of hand' tricks of "security", "defence" and "peace". It is none of the above.


Micheál Choilm Mac Giolla Easbuig 
is an independent councillor on Donegal County Council.

Weapons Of War

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of Two Thousand And Ninety Four

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)