Social Items

TPQ
Christopher Owens ðŸŽµ with the 51st in his Predominance series.

Our future is clear/No one seems to care/Armageddon is near/The end is here - SS Decontrol

Horns up 

New Horizons 

 

LA Witch – DOGGOD

A shocking five years have passed since the underrated ‘Play with Fire’ and they’re back with more garage influenced post punk, albeit with slightly more emphasis on the post punk this time around. Songs like ‘777’ give off autumnal vibes due to the brittle (yet cutting) guitar tone while ‘Eyes of Love’ perfectly meshes The Gun Club with The Sound.

The album can be streamed and purchased here.

Sevendials – A Crash Course in Catastrophe

Reteaming Chris Connolly (Revolting Cocks) and Paul Ferguson (Killing Joke) was always going to be a winner and adding Mark Gemini Thwaite into the mix guarantees success. While the focus has been on their cover of Sparks’ ‘Number 1 Song in Heaven’, the broodier numbers like ‘Corrupted Verse’ and ‘Zodiac Minds’ are where the band come into their own.

The album can be streamed and purchased here.

FACS – Wish Defence

One of the finest bands in the world return with an album that, lyrically, revolves around the concepts of the self and whether we have a true self. Musically, the album is more muscular, angular post-punk that feels world building (check out the track ‘Ordinary Voices’ for proof) and self-contained (‘Sometimes Only’ is apt proof of this.

The album can be streamed and purchased here.

Iggor Cavalera/Shane Embury – Neon Gods/Own Your Darkness

Two stalwarts of extreme metal have teamed up to deliver a split release of industrial/noise on Cold Spring. Although Iggor’s side is the most effective due to the thrilling atmosphere, layered sounds and varying volume, Shane’s track does offer a more ambient, yet sinister, take on drone. Hopefully both give us full albums in the future.

The album can be streamed and purchased here.

Decontrol – The Inevitable End

Mixing d-beat crust, Rudimentary Peni shrillness and thrash riffage, Decontrol have given us a fierce, modern anarcho punk record that lashes out with indignant fury at everyone from the BBC to the alt-right. ‘You Hate Me’ and ‘Our Boys in Blue’ stand out in particular due to the riffs not being a million miles away from Toxic Holocaust. I’m sure they’re even more ferocious live.

The album can be streamed and purchased here.

Score – Original Copy

Described in the press release as “...another round of trippy and melodic groovers for the heart and mind...” that “…hint playfully at the idea of ideas, and the power of creativity…”, this is a blissed-out LP that will sound just as good walking about in the sun as well as soundtracking summer evening barbeques. Ten minute closer ‘Lightbulb Moment’ exemplifies this euphoria.

The album can be streamed and purchased here.

 

Golden Oldies


Psychic TV – Force the Hand of Chance

The first release from Genesis P. Orridge’s post Throbbing Gristle outfit in 1982 indicated that it would be both business as usual (the ritualistic ‘Teminus’ and ‘Guiltless) and a different beast altogether (the poppy ‘Just Drifting’ and ‘Stolen Kisses’). Remarkably, it works brilliantly and you’re ready to join Thee Temple ov Psychick Youth by the end of the record.


Bad Religion – Suffer

Long after the initial wave of US hardcore (and five years after their misguided attempt at prog rock), Bad Religion ripped 1988 a new one by going back to their roots, writing catchy songs and helping to kickstart a new wave of melodic hardcore/pop punk. So many great songs on here but ‘Land of Competition’ and ‘How Much is Enough?’ remain peak Bad Religion.


Earth – The Bees Made Honey in the Lion’s Skull

With their days as drone rock pioneers long in the rear-view mirror, this 2008 LP from Dylan Carlson and co. is an astonishing progression from ‘ Hex; Or Printing in the Infernal Method’. Slow, swampy sounding and country tinged; it remains one of the definitive post-metal releases. Opener ‘Omens and Portents I: The Driver’ is the ideal track to introduce newcomers.


 

 ⏩ 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.

Predominance 51

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

 

A Morning Thought @ 2580

 

A Morning Thought @ 2579

Caoimhin O’Muraile ☭ In the world we live, or at least exist in, the political system we live under is called ‘liberal democracy’ which is a far cry from full transparent democracy and only means we get a vote every four or five years. 

It does not mean our daily lives are democratically directed or that the proletariat as a class have any meaningful say in what direction our lives take in the broader scheme of things. Actually, in the 26 County Irish state constitutionally that term of office for a government can be legally as long as seven years, though this is never enacted by any incumbent. 

In Britain in real terms, and where no written constitution exists, there is a two or possibly three-party system though in recent years more political parties have entered the race but the reality is it is still a two or three horse race. In the 26 County’s we have a system of voting called ‘the single transferable vote’ whereas in Britain the even less democratic ‘first past the post’ system of electing still exists. In real terms in Britain, it is going to be either the Labour or Conservative Party with perhaps the Liberal Democrats helping out one party or the other to form a coalition. In the 26 County’s it is usually a coalition of either Fianna Fail and perhaps Labour, or Fine Gael with Labour and the Greens forming a coalition, either way one of the ‘civil war’ (the pro and anti-treaty sides in the Irish Civil War 1922-23) parties are the senior and deciding party in such a set up. Today a revitalised and certainly unrecognisable Sinn Fein have entered the former cosy little set up, with the two old enemies Fine Gael and Fianna Fail, burying their differences and forming an unholy alliance to keep Sinn Fein out of government. Sinn Fein are promising the world as do most of these would-be stooges of the rich and powerful while in opposition and, as per usual, the government parties are going all out to tell us why the policies of Sinn Fein are unrealistic and will never work. There is nothing new in this verbal bullshit and to that all I can say is, without having much faith in Sinn Fein, they have not yet been given a chance to implement their policies.

One major promise of Sinn Fein is to introduce over a two-term period a ‘fully costed single tiered nationalised health service’ based loosely on the one operated in the United Kingdom (UK). The question is whether the real government, the rich and the powerful occupants of the 26-County state, will allow such a service to be introduced? I doubt it but will give Sinn Fein the benefit simply because things cannot be any worse regarding health provision of service (not to be confused with level of health care) in the 26-County’s. What perhaps Sinn Fein are not taking into account is when the Labour Government of Clement Attlee brought in the National Health Service (NHS) in 1948 they did so on the back of the Second World War and people demanded better. Today the wealthy are slowly clawing back the NHS into their private hands, though various governments deny this charge.

It is very important to differentiate between politics and economics, many think they are the same, they are not, courting couple yes, husband and wife no. Yes, governments have budgets to manage the fiscal purse, public money, a minority factor in the general scheme of any capitalist economy, as most of the money belongs to private wealthy individuals and companies belonging to them. In the 26-County state such people as Denis O’Brien, the Collinson brothers, Michael O’Leary to name three and the rest of their business-class have larger private bank accounts collectively than the rest of the population combined, most of which is banked outside the state collecting huge interest on their base capital. Ignoring these people’s personal wealth and take the value of their gross capital, buildings and means of production therein (push pull economics), along with the annual profits made by these companies their wealth is astronomical. Banking outside the state is beneficial to these bandits so these great patriots do not have to pay tax towards goods and services for the benefit of all, such things as health, housing, education and a decent standard of living for everybody. Elected governments are pretty powerless to do anything about these people’s tax avoidance as this, unlike illegal tax evasion, is perfectly legal. In Ireland the 26-County state loses up to and beyond 22% of revenue through tax avoidance by the wealthy. When the 26-County state has an open and shut case to collect tax from huge companies like Apple they simply refuse to do so. Why? Because they know these people are larger and more powerful, certainly economically, than the elected government and the Dail administration wish to remain friends with these conglomerates! Or they give us some tale about these firms bringing employment, shit paid, but nevertheless employment! Eventually the European Commission intervened in the case of Apple forcing the government to take the money, upwards of €13 billion! These brigands are often referred to as ‘the ruling-class’ in society and the clue is in the word, ‘ruling’. Whoever sits in government in the Dail, or any parliament, these people will still be in charge, certainly economically, and economics will always trump politics in a ‘liberal democracy.’

So, in a ‘liberal democracy’ we get the vote every four to five years and elect a party to govern the affairs of the wealthy. We can then all take ourselves back to work for these very same wealthy people and absolutely nothing changes, exploitation for profit continues as do redundancies when these wealthy people have no further use for us. Never mind though, we can still bluff ourselves we are really in charge because we get the vote! Karl Marx once stated, rightly so, “All forms of the state have democracy for their truth, and for that reason are false to the extent that they are not democracy”. Marx continued; “The executive of the modern state is nothing but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie”. Put simply, the government sitting in Dail Eireann or any other parliament are simply agents to ensure the well-being and economic stability of the capitalist-class, the exploiters of labour, and this democracy charade is perhaps the biggest work of fiction since the Bible. Perhaps a comparison can be made with a ball of clay? Imagine a huge ball of clay which represents the global proletariat in today’s post-modern world. The governments of the planets liberal democracies represent the Potters who, through their policies, mould the clay into a shape in this case worker who produces products the international capitalist-class demand. The shape of this once ball of clay must be suitably adjusted to produce the needs of the ‘market’ which the bourgeoisie, or capitalist-class, profit from. Former coal miners or steel workers who had worked most of their lives down the pit or in the steel works coking a blast furnace, with the closure of their industries, are remoulded to work in the new small post-industrial units. Occasionally the working-class do not wish to be ‘moulded’ into the shape the potters are trying so they go on strike, switching off the kilns. If this strike continues for too long, costing the capitalist economy money, the government on behalf of the wealthy send out the police with batons to chastise the workers. This analysis may sound a little ‘Heath Robinson,’ or over complicated, but it is nevertheless correct. We are all pieces of clay to be manipulated and moulded into a shape of benefit to the minority capitalist-class!

What then is a ‘plutocracy’? A plutocracy is when the wealthy are in charge, usually unelected, as a class. They are the government. Examples of ancient such ‘plutocracies’ would be the city states of Athens, ironically credited with being the originators of democracy, Carthage and Rome. More recent examples would be Mussolini’s fascist Italy and Pinochet’s Chile. Are our so-called ‘liberal democracies’ really ‘plutocracies’ disguised as democratic systems? After all, in the workplace owned by the wealthy there are no democratic structures in place. Perhaps only socialism and the overthrow of the capitalist system would provide such democratic structures in the workplace (please do not use the former USSR as an opposition argument). In truth the only democratic structure in the workplace is the election, where applicable, of the trade union representative, or ‘shop steward.’ These representatives of the employees are voted into their positions, or out of them, every year or sometimes longer but never in excess of five years. We do not elect the boss, or even the chargehand. Many of the wealthy owners of the means of production, having got wealthy out of the wealth created by the workers labour-power, tell their employees; ‘this is not a democracy’ so get back to work or ‘collect your cards’! If it is not a democracy it must then be a plutocracy?

Are our ‘liberal democracies’ really ‘plutocracies’? I would suggest they are because irrespective of who we vote into government, the wealthy or ruling-class remain static and still rule. Even in totalitarian evil regimes like Nazi Germany the wealthy were still in power, many were members of the Nazi party. The Nazis were funded by Germany’s wealthy, Theisen, Krupps Armaments and steel producers, Siemens electronics, Hugo Boss fashion designers who designed the uniforms of the SA then the SS, and many other mega rich exploiters of labour. So, once again a plutocracy, which the Nazis made no secret of, providing it was the wealthy of Germany and not Jewish business! Trade unions were closed down and were replaced by the Nazi ran ‘Labour Front’ which in real terms was controlled by the Nazi Party and the bosses.

If the wealthy feel in any way threatened by the policies of a party in government or opposition, they will first of all, as was the case with both Michael Foot and Jeremy Corbyn of the British Labour Party, discredit them via their media. If that does not work and such a person becomes Prime Minister (as Jeremy Corbyn almost did in 2017), they will economically undermine that person’s credentials and governments policies. If that doesn’t work, as was the case in Chile, they will liquidate that person, dissolve the government, and put their own person in to governmental power. The elected Salvador Allende was shot dead in Chile and General Augusto Pinochet put in charge and the policies beneficial to exploitation continued. As Karl Marx said over a century ago “the bourgeoisie force the proletariat to take dangerous, low-paying jobs, in order to survive,” this is as true today as it was in the days of Marx, and Engels. Workers are forced into jobs they hate and pay low wages or lose their benefits. The question remains, do we live in a ‘democracy’ even a liberal one, or a ‘plutocracy’? Who holds real power, the government or the wealthy?

To briefly summarise, in a ‘liberal democracy’ we elect a party or parties to government who all usually go back on their election pledges. Once in office they set about governing for the benefit of the wealthy, the affairs of the wealthy and a few crumbs left over for the majority of the electorate, the working-class. A ‘plutocracy’ is government by the wealthy, for the wealthy and only the wealthy. It is they as a class who actually govern, or misgovern, and not representatives of that class as is the case in a ‘liberal democracy’. This is why many more far-sighted people see governments in ‘liberal democracies’ as “stooges” of the wealthy. The differences between the two systems are minimal to say the least! Is it worth going out to vote? Yes, it is the only democratic right we have, even if it is pretty meaningless, but nevertheless do exercise it. Perhaps modern liberal democracies could be described as; plutocracy with liberal democratic impressions and forms, they are dressed up to look and feel like democracies? Finally, to quote Ken Livingstone “if voting changed anything, they’d abolish it!!” How very true that quote may well prove to be.

Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist.

Capitalism 🪶A Democracy Or Plutocracy?

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

 

A Morning Thought @ 2578

 

A Morning Thought @ 2577

Colm McGuinness 📢 delivered the oration at Arbour Hill Cemetery on Easter Monday. The annual commemoration is organised by the National 1916 Commemoration Committee.


Standing here today does not make you an Irish republican. If we choose to stand in this hallowed spot as Irish republicans then we must relay to the Irish people, in clear and concise terms, our justification and credentials for doing so.

We cannot claim to act on behalf of the Irish people if we cannot explain to them why and how a sovereign Irish republic affords our people the political, social and cultural framework within which Irish society can progress along genuine republican principles.

The supreme lesson bequeathed by those who fought in 1916 is a line of clarity, a fundamental starting point from which Irish republicanism must commence, and from there, cultivate its core philosophy to impact on the current political climate in which we find ourselves.

That line of clarity determines that the Irish people must reject any British dimension, influence or agency in the sovereign affairs of the Irish people. It also declares that no such interference can form any part in a just and democratic conflict resolution process. In the words of the 1916 Proclamation Irish sovereignty is inalienable and indefeasible; it cannot be bartered or given away for any purpose especially for political and constitutional expediency.

Grattan’s Parliament, Home Rule, Partition, Leinster House and Stormont are all manifestations to serve British strategic interests in our country. They originated and were nurtured with the direct and dependant collusion of a domestic Irish politics which has flourished for its own ends and has placed its own welfare above the welfare of our people.

But it is not enough for Irish republicans to simply quote from those who went before us. All generations of our people have the inalienable right to exercise their sovereignty in the face of the circumstances in which they live. And equally, all generations of Irish republicans have a right and duty to articulate their voice so that those generations take notice of it. History has given us our foundations; what we build on them is a matter for us.

Where is the voice of Irish republicanism today? What are we saying that is remotely quotable to those who will come after us? What ideas do we possess to advance the objectives of those buried here, who faced British firing squads in the sure confidence that such ideas would follow and secure the Republic they died for? If you cannot answer these questions, then you must remain silent. Marching bands are not a republican dialogue.

Our first task is to liberate Irish republicanism itself. We have mired it so deeply in the past that we have strangled any relevance it can have today. We have surrendered its future to historical decisions that were noble and relevant to their time but are, nonetheless, done and receding. There is no redemption in pointing at betrayal, in the comfort blanket of ideological purity or claiming heredity succession, which in itself is a deeply anti-republican concept. The core reasoning of republicanism is not traditional opposition but pragmatic progression.

The Republic proclaimed in 1916, democratically ratified in 1918, convened in 1919 and usurped in 1922 no longer exists both in fact and influence. The Proclamation of 1916 has been neutralised by the current political class who can claim empathy with its sentiments but will suffer no political consequences by refusing to pursue them. If we do not accept this reality, then we cannot begin to address the current realities which Irish republicans now face. It is not a question of republicanism going back to basics but rather Irish republicans taking those basics and moving forward.

If Irish republicanism is to have any chance to progress it needs to close the chapter on the First Republic, and the unsuccessful struggle to re-establish it, and open a new chapter for a Second Republic and initiate a new struggle to realise it.

The struggle to end the violation of our national sovereignty by the Westminster Parliament and the struggle to forge a viable and functioning Republic are one and the same. A so-called United Ireland is too vague a description to render it an objective, in any sense, of Irish republicanism. Building what we mean to establish is the surest means of defeating all those who stand in our way, both British and Irish.

By seeking to establish a Second Republic we address our people from a starting point of modernity. We make events in their lifetime relevant to their future and in turn to the republican project itself. Our duty to republican history is fulfilled because only those who have ideas to advance that history can inherit its mantle.

A Second Republic must serve its people and not itself be a servant to the political class; its own proclamation must state this and how it means to achieve it. It is not an altar at which to exalt historic patriotism but a living blueprint to build, foster and administer genuine republican ideals. The Proclamation of 1916 did not discard the Fenian Proclamation of 1867, it was a natural progression of it. That natural progression, once again, needs to be made manifest if the status quo is to be effectively challenged.

The Ireland of today is far removed from the vision of either proclamation, and more alarmingly, drifting ever further away. And once again British strategic interests have their hand on the tiller.

The political reasoning behind partition alters and adapts to the differing needs of the British establishment to preserve it. And because the Good Friday Agreement does not oblige the Twenty-Six County State to pursue the ending of Partition those British needs will go unchallenged.

More nefariously the dominant narrative on the constitutional question is now ingrained with the flawed need for a British citizen dimension to any future 32 County State. It is abundantly clear that British long-term thinking is looking beyond partition and modeling a so-called unitary state that will continue to serve its strategic interests in Ireland.

The British are no longer dependent on Unionist consent to guarantee its strategic interests in Ireland because under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement they have secured nationalist consent for the very same ends.

This British strategy is clearly audible in the language and actions of constitutional and establishment nationalists. Gone is the language of sovereignty and self-determination instead replaced with terminology such as ‘Agreed Ireland’ and ‘Shared Island’ couched in the emotive rhetoric of peace and reconciliation.

The relentless assault on the policy of neutrality, to enmesh present and future Irish Armed Forces in Western Military Alliances, further underscores Westminster’s long-term intentions and nationalist compliance with same.

This is precisely why the British retained complete control over that aspect of the Good Friday Agreement which deals with constitutional change. The primary purpose of a Border Poll is not what establishment nationalists hail it to be, but rather a mechanism by which the British can determine the nature of any state that results from such a poll.

This is an Ireland in the Commonwealth. An Ireland as the western flank of NATO. An Ireland as a sub-entity in a capitalist financial system. An Ireland whose ancient culture and identity will be deliberately eroded for political expediency.

Here is where the Republican Movement must step up to the mark. Any republican critique of the British occupation of our country must be cognisant of British long-term planning and its use of domestic Irish politicians to make that planning effective.

If the British establishment is thinking forward to shape future events so too must republican strategies to challenge them. Waving history at the British is as effective as using old medicines to treat modern ailments; if anything, British history has taught us this.

What we are witnessing in Ireland today is the counter-democratic outworking of the Good Friday Agreement. Even if the terms of that agreement fall into obscurity the political direction it initiated will continue to prevail.

The strongest argument that Irish republicanism currently possesses is a democratic one. We must now focus our attentions and resources into developing this argument to its fullest potential. As it stands, Partition is seen as being democratically endorsed via the so-called principle of consent. Achieving that consent is the red herring which both governments would have all interested parties endlessly but fruitlessly pursue.

A modern Proclamation, setting out in clear and precise terms, the sovereign democratic premise upon which a Second Republic must be founded, should by default graphically expose the counter-democratic nature of this consent fallacy.

If we resort to ideological abstractions or historical rhetoric as the primary focus of our efforts, we will only be talking to ourselves; an ever decreasing and irrelevant circle. What we need to articulate is not what the principle of consent is supposed to give us, but what it actually denies us, in real terms.

Peace on the island of Ireland should not be held hostage to a compromise on the integrity of our national sovereignty. If, as republicans, we recognise the people as the nation then it is through the people that our vision of nation and statehood must traverse if it is to have any relevance to them at all.

And for this to happen we must speak and understand the language of the people, the language of need, of necessity and of priority. The welfare of the people must constitute the social imperative of the Second Republic.

Arbour Hill Easter Commemoration 2025

Europe Solidaire Sans Frontières ✏ Written by Hanna Perekhoda.

Ukrainian activist Hana Perekhoda says there is a fundamental contradiction in European leftist thinking: opposition to European rearmament based on its presumed status as an imperialist power, while reality reveals an alarming military vulnerability. 

In the face of Russian aggression against Ukraine and within an increasingly unstable geopolitical context, the author invites us to rethink our conception of European defence and the consequences of a moral abandonment of Eastern European countries. 

She makes an urgent call to reconcile the preservation of the European democratic framework with an internal struggle for its social transformation. 

I observe, in Western European leftist circles, a principled opposition to any strengthening of European military capabilities. The argument is clear: Europe is supposedly an imperialist power, and it would therefore be morally unacceptable for it to rearm. France’s current role in the Congo, for example, illustrates this. This horrible reality fuels legitimate resentment in many regions of the world and demonstrates the persistent blindness of most Europeans.

This idea deserves to be heard, but it masks a dangerous contradiction. It implicitly leads to the belief that because of its economic power, Europe also enjoys military power, which eliminates the risk of external military aggression. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Continue @ ESSF.

The Military Vulnerability of Europe 🪶 A Blind Spot For The Western Left

Merrion Press ðŸ”–has just published a new book by Paul Clements.

 

OUT NOW



A YEAR IN THE WOODS
Montalto through the Seasons

Paul Clements



‘The knockings of autumn are making themselves heard in the rustle of the leaves and whistle of the chilly wind. Spiderwebs are festooned on hedges and a spider is poised at the centre of one. In the fleeting morning sunshine the webs light up in twinkling displays.’

Recovering from surgery, Paul Clements and his wife, Felicity, spent a year in a remote cottage in the woodlands of Montalto Estate, Co. Down. Through the lens of a curious observer and a budding bird watcher, Clements describes in exquisite detail his discovery of the restorative power of nature. Beautifully written, A Year in the Woods is a fusion of social and cultural history, nature writing and memoir.

Reflecting back on this magical year spent in the woods through the journal he kept, Clements describes his awakening to the wonder of the woodland and developing his deep connection to nature. Peppered with fascinating folklore and history, this is a lyrical and captivating testament to the joy of a life spent outdoors.

Hardback • €18.99|£17.99 • 240 pages • 215mm x 135mm • 9781785375484

On sale April 17

 

 

Out Now 📚 Paul Clements

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

 

A Morning Thought @ 2576

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)