Social Items

TPQ
Christopher Owens 🔖 I’m always amazed at how horror can often be a subtle (or less than subtle) commentary on the fears of society.


The reappearance of the zombie in popular fiction of the last 20 odd years (from 28 Days Later through to Pride and Prejudice and Zombies and The Walking Dead) not only hints at the concerns over depersonalisation of society through technology but also cancel culture and the collapse of the Western world after a war. It’s a smart way to tackle the worries of the period but also tell a rollicking tale.

Which is what we get in Race the Undead.

Starting off in a post Covid world, things go awry whenever it becomes obvious that:

…a new threat emerged in Africa and parts of Europe. Scientists… were astonished when…worries were expressed, not only by NATO allies, but with Russian, Chinese, Indian and Brazilian contemporaries... All pointed, not to a virus, but a combination between a bacterium and an unknown toxin that crossed the blood brain barrier. The results were apparent death. Except the victims were not dead as such. Their brain chemistry was destroyed, except that part of the hypothalamus that controls hunger – they reanimated with a ravenous hunger for flesh from the two ‘victims’ of this infection they had examined.

We’re then introduced to Greg and a motley crew of survivors in Ballymena who have raided the local cop shops for supplies. Having received a message from the Icelandic government that, if they can get to Ballycastle in a certain period of time, the group of survivors will be given shelter in Iceland. But will it be that easy?

Post-apocalyptic/survival tales thrive when you care for the band of misfits who would never be friends in a normal setting and must now survive while trying to make sense of what has happened to the world. We certainly get plenty of this material throughout Race the Undead as Greg grieves the death of his family at his own hands due to zombification while struggling with his advancing years and resenting the mantle of leader, Sam musing on being the first in her family to go to university and the amusing duo of Smicker and Seamus as former soldier and paramilitary respectively.
 
There’s also a satisfying air of melancholia and menace that permeates the tale. Melancholia in the struggle to come to terms with the new world and menace in that there are forces beyond their comprehension shaping the circumstances in the foreground and background.

Take this segment as an example:

Ahead were four shambolic figures, zombies straight out of central casting, ragged clothes, greying peeling skin, vacant eyes, walking down the middle of the road. A fifth was pulling itself along the pavement on its elbows, its legs missing. Behind them was what appeared to be a child’s body that had been ripped into bits. Brady noted that the hand of the child was dangling from one of the walking dead’s mouths … The stillness of the day was then filled by staccato fire. Aiming at 200 yards wasn’t accurate, for even the best drilled soldier, but Brady noted that the five walked forward steadily, firing deliberately…A pause and a few controlled bursts…within five yards the coup de gras, double shots to the heads. It was over in less than 30 seconds. The general was pleased how they had performed …

Note how the zombies are portrayed as both pathetic and horrific, the suggestion of a once perfect nuclear family mutated against their will while the precision of the soldiers indicates pre-planning and foreknowledge.

Acting as a thriller/horror, Race the Undead more than succeeds. As a playful examination of our fears post-Covid and post-Brexit, it also succeeds.

Once again, horror hits where a thousand studies can’t even reach.

Jonathan Traynor, 2025, Race the Undead. Excalibur Press. ISBN-13: 978-1910728666

⏩ 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”.

Race The Undead

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Six Hundred And Fifty One

 

A Morning Thought @ 2607

Anthony McIntyre ☠ For the past week a former IRA leader has been in the witness box in Dublin's High Court, denying that he was a former IRA leader.


In this surreal Trumpesque setting, the person who served both as IRA chief of staff and army council member, Gerry Adams, is denying under oath that he was any such thing. He was only ever in Sinn Fein, presumably working under such deep cover that even the Provisional IRA's first chief of staff was mistaken in thinking he belonged to the IRA.

Adams hasn't yet taken to suggesting that fifty five years of writing, journalism, research and analysis all mixed him up with his late father of the same name. The father after all was a paedophile, the type of guy an organisation like the IRA would admit to its ranks: a man of such sewer ethics that disappearing people would be par for the course. Naturally, Gerry the younger would see it as his life's work to stop in its tracks such a malign organisation. A peacemaker, only a churlish cynic would put him down for that. 

Adams professed fidelity to the IRA despite it not being the path he chose to go down, claiming that he would never resile from the organisation. This leaves observers to wonder why when, according to his evidence, the IRA was replete with resentful types who incessantly told lies about him. At one point it looked as if he was about to claim that the IRA was only formed to thwart the progress of his political career. His mission in that context was to bring the IRA to peace and to secure the surrender that eventually occurred.

Detractors and ne'er-do-wells like myself need to be reminded that back in the day there were lots of things going on during the North's violent political conflict. A war zone is a particular busy and trying place for a peacemaker. Not everything that happened can be remembered. Seriously, against such a heady backdrop, there are some things beyond the recall of even a Legion Of Mary leader consumed by reciting rosaries for peace. Gerry can't reasonably be expected to know Liam was his brother. Catholic families were large. With so many children running about, a devoted peacemaker can't be faulted for an inability to keep on top of who his siblings were. Our blessed peacemaker attended a Christian Brothers school so there were brothers everywhere. Hard to tell one from the other. Besides there were bigger fish to fry. If a guy doesn't know his own brother, it is even less likely that he might know the people he accompanied to London for peace talks as their spiritual advisor, to be in the IRA.

And on it went.

The IRA was made to look ridiculous through the evidence of Gerry Adams. Key figures were vindictive liars out to get him. He did not hesitate to support the right of the IRA to wage armed struggle but in court there seemed to be no armed action that he agreed with. They seemed to do nothing that he could approve of. Hence his mission to stop the IRA and its bungled operations. 

Courts are the most unlikely of venues to be associated with humour. They can be as funny as a mortuary. Still, Adams has transformed that through sworn testimony that has been nothing short of comedy gold. Think of the pope with some Jesuitical dissembling explain how he has never been a member of the Catholic Church even though cardinals and bishops who served alongside him testify to the contrary. Aged as he is, there is still time for him to carve out a lucrative career on the comedy circuit. Not quite the Big Yin, but the Big Ly Yin.

In the round Gerry Adams is not to be blamed for not wanting to admit to membership of the organisation he directed, for which he could still be arrested by the DUPSNI and imprisoned. It is the farcical fiction that he weaves that draws down the ridicule when he could simply respond 'no comment' to any query about his IRA role.

Whatever the outcome of the case, one abiding truth will remain. No one ever has lied more about Gerry Adams than Gerry Adams.

⏩Follow on Twitter @AnthonyMcIntyre.

A Lying Week

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Six Hundred And Fifty

Caoimhin O’Muraile ☭ The Good Friday Agreement (GFA) was signed on 10th April 1998 between the British and Irish Governments and the interested political parties in the Six Counties.

The GFA was in fact two agreements, the ‘British Irish Agreement’ (BIA), being an agreement between the governments of two international nation states, Britain and Ireland, giving the entire document recognition in international law, such as it is. The BIA legitimised the second document; the ‘Multi Party Agreement’ (MPA), between most of the political parties in the Six-Counties, and was annexed to the MPA making one document which became known as the ‘Good Friday Agreement’ or the ‘Belfast Agreement’ depending on your point of view. 

However, coming from a republican viewpoint the GFA leaves much to be desired, in fact it is a tissue of contradictions. I am not opposed to an agreement, no any sane person could be, even this one with much, much clarification and some amendments. The negotiators from the republican camp, all supposedly experienced in the art of negotiation, should not have signed this document without these clarifications and, where necessary, amendments being sorted out first. Why they did is open to many questions; could the negotiators on the other side of the table have had ‘the drop’ on the republican negotiators? This is one possibility which some have floated, does it hold substance? Only those involved can answer this and at least one man is deceased!

The British and Irish Governments were both eager to secure this agreement and Tony Blair, British Prime Minister, with Bertie Ahern, Irish Taoiseach, undoubtedly put a lot of time and effort getting it over the line. That was all very well: firstly it relieved the Twenty-Six-County administration of claiming sovereignty over the North of Ireland, something they have never really been happy or easy with which is perhaps why they never even bothered to establish an office for Irish unification, as Germany did in preparation for their possible eventuality. Secondly it was/is hoped this agreement would relieve the British of the ‘headache’ they claim to have which is “Northern Ireland”, their terminology, meaning it would take the republican combatants, IRA and INLA off the stage. They have retained sovereignty without the war involved in holding it. This then brings us to the first point of disagreement and that is the role of the British Secretary of State having the absolute final say over any border poll on Irish unification. The GFA states that, ‘if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that “Northern Ireland” should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland, the Secretary of State shall make an Order in council enabling a border poll’. This essentially means no matter what the evidence may be on the ground, in the streets – and it is unclear what the conditions which would have to be met are – the Secretary of State has the ultimate say. If the Secretary of State decides he/she for whatever reasons the conditions are not met they can just say no to a border poll. If the same British office holder decides to ignore public opinion, choosing to interpret findings differently, he/she can veto any border poll demand and under this GFA nothing can be done about it. Surely this should have been amended to read along the lines of; ‘the British Secretary of State in conjunction with the Irish Minister of Foreign Affairs will, after consulting all the interested parties, make a decision over the issue of a border poll for unification involving the people of the entire island’. Surely an experienced negotiator would have spotted the flaws in this piece of the agreement. It basically means the British Secretary of State can – some would argue on behalf of the unionists – veto indefinitely any border poll in the six-counties or on the island of Ireland. Recently in the House of Commons Robin Swan of the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) asked for clarification that the “Secretary of State is a unionist”!

Other major issues of contention which should have been clarified are; ‘The agreement acknowledged: that the majority of the people of “Northern Ireland” wished to remain part of the United Kingdom’. It then states; ‘That a substantial section of the people of “Northern Ireland”, and the majority of the people of the island of Ireland, wished to bring about a united Ireland’. Both these views were/are acknowledged as being legitimate. The question is which point takes preference? The people of the entire island of Ireland or the people of “Northern Ireland”? For example, if a substantial number, but not a majority, say 43% of the people in the Six-Counties prefer unification and a huge majority in the Twenty-Six-Counties opt for the same, giving a large majority on the island of Ireland for Irish unity, do the unionists who voted against, 57%, in the North of Ireland get to veto the rest of the country? They would have secured a majority for the status quo in the Six-Counties but not on the island as a whole. Would the voters in “Northern Ireland” be regarded as a separate entity to the rest of the country? This is what the unionist/loyalists would want or, on the other hand, is the island to be regarded as one constituency as republicans would desire and the vote nationally for unification carry the day? This point was never apparently ironed out and the question is why was this the case? The can was kicked down the road and a very fucking long road it would appear! The British were reportedly surprised the republicans would give so much for so little, I see their point.

We are constantly told the people of the island of Ireland as a whole voted in favour of the Good Friday Agreement which was not strictly true! The people in the Six-Counties, on both sides of the so-called divide, did vote in huge numbers for this agreement. This was not the case in the Twenty-six-Counties we voted primarily on amending articles 2+3 of the Irish constitution which would allow the state to sign up to the agreement. Articles 2+3 of the 1937 constitution, often referred to as ‘de Valera’s Constitution’, claimed sovereignty by the Dublin Government over the whole island. The people of the Twenty-Six-Counties voted by a sizable number to amend the constitutions articles 2+3 instead of claiming sovereignty over the whole island of Ireland to read; Article 2:

It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish nation. That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland. Furthermore, the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage.

Article 3: 

It is the firm will of the Irish nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island. Until then, the laws enacted by the Parliament enshrined by this Constitution shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws enacted by the Parliament that existed before the coming into operation of this Constitution.

The voters of the Twenty-Six-Counties were asked ‘whether they would allow the state to sign the agreement and allow necessary constitutional changes (Nineteenth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland) to facilitate it.’ Changing articles 2+3 allowed just that:

Recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island.

 Does ‘in both jurisdictions’ mean the Thirty-Two Counties with a referendum worded the same way over the entire island of Ireland? After all 26 + 6 = 32. So can we assume the agreement means by ‘both jurisdictions’ the Six and Twenty-Six Counties referenda running concurrently as one constituency? The outcome of the vote over the whole island be binding in accordance with the GFA? The problem here is, the two jurisdictions have two entirely different systems constitutionally, so whether a referendum could run concurrently is questionable!

Has the GFA brought peace to the area once engulfed in conflict? Yes, to a certain extent it has and most of the populations in both jurisdictions would not swap what they have now for that of the past. War weariness had been a symptom in the Six-Counties among the populations of both sides for a number of years, a war weariness which, to a large extent, has been eradicated. But what of the volunteers of the IRA and INLA who had fought for a united Ireland? From the point of view of the INLA no agreement could ever bring about their ultimate goal of ‘national liberation and socialism’ simply because the GFA was signed and legitimised by the signatures of two capitalist governments, the issue of political ideology was never on the table. As for the IRA the question of political ideology did not arise as their representatives at the table, Sinn Fein, were/are not anti-capitalist. The political representatives of the INLA, the Irish Republican Socialist Party (IRSP), are not signatories to the GFA, the party could never have gone down this avenue and still claim to be fighting for socialism. The IRSP now, without the revolutionary; ‘Army of the People, the INLA’ (as the song goes), look a little like other would be revolutionary socialist groups such as the Socialist Workers Party!

Who have been the victors or perhaps beneficiaries would be a better word? The population of the six-counties have certainly a safer way of life, that is beyond question, but the main winners are, firstly, the British and NATO. The British maintain sovereignty offering a vague hope of a united Ireland at some unspecified time in the future, while maintaining, an albeit, reduced military force as part of NATO on the island of Ireland. This presence no longer has the militarily aggressive IRA and INLA to fight, the war is over. The loyalist death squads are no longer needed, they were just used by the British anyway, so any activity from them can be clamped down on immediately. International capitalism can flourish and firms can move into the North of Ireland, knowing they will not be bombed out, and can exploit a job hungry workforce. Trade between the Six and Twenty-Six-Counties can flourish with none of the previous difficulties, holdups, kidnappings for ransom’s etc, and huge profits can be made by the few from the labour power of the many.

So, where next? A return to armed conflict? No, that is not an option, if for no other reason the populations of the Six-Counties would never stand for it. The days of the British Army raiding houses at the crack of dawn are long gone, and many people today will not even remember those dark days, many would not have been born. I do not have the answers but one thing is for sure, before this agreement was signed much, much more clarity and amendments added, should have been sought from the British side. My question is why was such clarity not sought? If this was a game of chess the term; ‘check mate’ comes to mind! Who to? The answer to that question the reader must decide for themselves!

Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist.

The Good Friday Agreement 27 Years On 🪶 Still Flawed

 

A Morning Thought @ 2606

 

A Morning Thought @ 2605

John Crawley 🎤 delivers an oration in commemoration of the 109th anniversary of the Easter Rising.

John Crawley is a former IRA volunteer and author of The Yank.

John Crawley Easter Oration 2025

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Six Hundred And Forty Nine

Enda Craig ⬟ The disgraceful neglect by successive Irish governments has left thousands of innocent Donegal residents suffering, as their homes crumble due to defective concrete — a direct result of inadequate government oversight.

When the State finds itself entangled in a disaster of its own making, its response is often a study in calculated detachment.

For each affected homeowner whose house is crumbling, this is far more than a structural failure — it is a financial, emotional, and deeply personal catastrophe that threatens the stability of an entire family.

The psychological toll is immense: trapped in a legal obligation to continue paying a mortgage on a home that is disintegrating before their eyes, they watch their hard-earned money vanish into the void. The weight of knowing that their once-valued property is now worthless only intensifies the anguish.

But the State sees it differently.

Despite bearing significant responsibility, it swiftly distances itself from any accountability. Any assistance — meager as it may b e— is framed as a grant, a voluntary act of generosity rather than an obligation.

The crisis is recast as a management project, one whose primary objective is not justice for affected citizens, but the protection of the State’s financial interests at all costs.

This task typically falls to senior civil servants within the relevant government department — here, the Housing Agency.

Their mission is clear: safeguard the State.

Questions of morality, fairness, or fundamental rights are secondary, if considered at all.

In their view, it is nothing personal.

It is simply their job, supported unwaveringly by the political establishment, which makes noise but delivers little in the way of meaningful action.

⏩ Enda Craig is a Donegal resident and community activist.

The Irish Government V The People 🪶 Homes Ravaged By Internal Sulphate Attack

Merrion Press 🔖is on the cusp of publishing a new book by Cormac Moore.

 

COMING SOON

THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL
The Irish Boundary Commission

Cormac Moore

Historian Cormac Moore explores the fascinating and infuriating story behind the Boundary Commission’s momentous failure, one hundred years on.

Described by Ulster Unionist leader James Craig as the ‘root of all evil’, the Boundary Commission that convened in 1924 was a symbol of hope for nationalist Ireland and fear for unionist Northern Ireland. Offered to Sinn Féin plenipotentiaries to help push the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty over the line, it was believed the Commission would transfer large tracts of the six counties back to the newly established Free State.

However, delayed by the Civil War and Unionist non-cooperation, and hampered from the start by the vague and ambiguous wording of the clause in the Treaty, by the Irish government’s naivety, by the intransigence of unionists, and by the duplicity of successive British governments, it ultimately bolstered the unionist cause, leaving the border unchanged. Swathes of Northern nationalists were abandoned to their fate, their trust in both British and Free State governments irrevocably damaged.

One hundred years on, Cormac Moore illuminates the fascinating and infuriating story behind the Boundary Commission’s momentous failure, which would have long-lasting, catastrophic consequences for the entirety of the island of Ireland.

Paperback • €22.99|£19.99 • 312 pages • 226mm x 153mm • 9781788551779

On sale May 6

Coming Soon 📚 Cormac Moore

A Digest of News ✊ from Ukrainian Sources ⚔ 7-April-2025.

In this week’s bulletin

⬤ an antifascist who joined Ukraine’s army.
⬤ Statement: humanitarian issues in occupied areas.
⬤ former POW Maksym Butkevych.
⬤ More evidence of Russian torture.

News from the territories occupied by Russia

18-year-old escapes Russian-occupied Luhansk in search of “Ukraine and freedom” (Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, April 4th)

Russia forcibly disappears young Ukrainian from occupied Kherson oblast, then fabricates ‘trial’ and 18-year sentence (Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, April 4th)

Desperate SOS as Russia upholds brutally cynical sentence against abducted Kherson activist Iryna Horobtsova (Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, April 3rd)

Ukrainian political prisoners forced through torture to reject lawyers and to sing Russian anthem (Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, April 2nd)

Entire Ukrainian family seized in latest Russian terror in occupied Crimea (Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, April 1st)

Crimean sentenced to 15 years for donation to rescue children from Russian-occupied territory (Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, March 31st)

In Kyiv, human rights defenders and international partners discussed prospects of peace negotiations for residents of the occupied territories (Zmina, March 29th)

The situation at the front

Weekly war summary: strike on Krivy Rih, Russian Zaporizhzhia offensive slows (The Insider, 5 April)

News from Ukraine

Exactly three years ago, my friend Denis Matsola and his friend Vlad Zhuravlev fell into the hands of the occupier (Hanna Perekhoda, Facebook, April 4th)

Ukraine brings back 11 more children from occupied areas and Russia (Ukrainska Pravda, April 3rd)

NAOMA: history and lessons of student struggle (Commons.com.ua, 20 March)

Choices – the story of a Ukrainian anti-fascist (Takku, 20 March)

War-related news from Russia

A Great friendship? Russian propaganda and the Bundestag elections (Posle.media, 2 April)

Kirill Medvedev and Oleg Zhuravlev: Russia’s (post) war future (The Russian Reader, 1 April)

Analysis and comment

UN human rights chief denounces Russian attack that kills nine children (UN Human Rights Commissioner, 6 April)

Statement: the need to consider humanitarian issues in the occupied territories during negotiations (Crimea Human Rights Group, 2 April)

Maksim Butkevych: my military service was a joke - but then I had to use it (BBC, April 2nd)

Research of war crimes and human rights abuses

UN Committee against Torture to review Ukraine (UNHCR, April 3rd)

Alena Lunova in The Hague: Ukraine already has its own experience in building a system of search for missing persons (Zmina, April 3rd)

Representatives of the Center for Civil Liberties met the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe (Centre for Civil Liberties, April 3rd)

«Help us save people, the human rights system and the world». Oleksandra Romantsova during the side event at the UN Human Rights Council (Centre for Civil Liberties, April 3rd)

«Any negotiations should start with discussing the release of people unlawfully detained in Russia». Oleksandra Romantsova at the European Parliament (Centre for Civil Liberties, April 3rd)

Russia’s supreme court supports abduction, torture and lawless sentence against Ukrainian journalist Serhiy Tsyhipa (Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, March 31st)

Russia is using the justice system to persecute Ukrainians: ZMINA together with the MIHR presented a research (Zmina, March 31st)

International solidarity

Report on solidarity week 2025 (Solidarity Collectives, 4 April)

Upcoming events

Wednesday, May 7 · 3 – 5pm, War and Peace in Ukraine, Clerici Building G.21, Headington Campus, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford.

🔴This bulletin is put together by labour movement activists in solidarity with Ukrainian resistance. More information at Ukraine Information Group.

We are also on twitter. Our aim is to circulate information in English that to the best of our knowledge is reliable. If you have something you think we should include, please send it to 2U022ukrainesolidarity@gmail.com.


We are now on Facebook and Substack! Please subscribe and tell friends. Better still, people can email us at 2022ukrainesolidarity@gmail.com, and we’ll send them the bulletin direct every Monday. The full-scale Russian assault on Ukraine is going into its third year: we’ll keep information and analysis coming, for as long as it takes.

The bulletin is also stored on line here.

To receive the bulletin regularly, send your email to:
2022ukrainesolidarity@gmail.com.
To stop it, please reply with the word “STOP” in the subject field.

News From Ukraine 💣 Bulletin 141

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)