Ten links to a diverse range of opinion that might be of interest to TPQ readers. They are selected not to invite agreement but curiosity. Readers can submit links to pieces they find thought provoking.
Before We Conform, Or Condemn, Let Us At Least Be Curious
♜One recognizes one's course by discovering the paths that stray from it - Albert Camus♞
Those lads felt free to talk like that because they were already hearing the same kind of talk from the party itself. They were listening to the same poison dressed up as “concern about immigration” or “protecting Irish values.” They didn’t invent it. They just took the mask off.
Aontú can pretend to be shocked all they like, but anyone paying attention could see this coming a mile off. When a party spends years blaming migrants for housing and health problems, when they cosy up to the conservative right and pander to the same kind of people who wave Trump flags and talk about “our culture being under threat,” it’s no surprise their youth start flirting with fascist groups. That’s what happens when you feed people hate and call it patriotism.
These lads in Aontú didn’t think they were saying anything out of line. They thought they were being clever, being “hard men” standing up for Ireland. But all they were doing was copying the far-right crowd, spouting racist slurs and conspiracy rubbish about Jews and migrants. They were acting like online fascists, not republicans. And let’s be honest, this isn’t Irish republicanism in any shape or form. It’s imported American nonsense, full of hate and lies, with a tricolour slapped on top.
Aontú can sack them all, but that doesn’t wash the party’s hands clean. You can’t build your politics on fear and division and then act surprised when your own members start saying the quiet part out loud. If you lie down with the conservative right, you get up with fascists. That’s exactly what’s happened here.
Real Irish republicanism has nothing to do with this. James Connolly and the lads who fought for the Republic stood for the unity of all working people, no matter their colour, religion, or where they were born. Connolly stood with Jewish workers, dockers from all over the world, and anyone who was treated as less than human. That’s the real Irish tradition, solidarity, not hate.
Racism and antisemitism are a disgrace to that tradition and to this country. Anyone who spreads that kind of poison isn’t standing up for Ireland; they’re betraying her. The true republic belongs to everyone who lives and works here. It’s built on equality, not on who you can exclude.
Aontú can keep pretending it’s just a few bad apples, but until they stop playing footsie with the far right and take a stand against the hate they’ve helped to grow, nothing will change. Their youth didn’t misunderstand the party’s message; they understood it perfectly.
Ireland has no room for fascists and no place for racism. Working people in this country have enough to fight without being turned against each other. The fight is for housing, for fair pay, for dignity, not for hate.
⏩Pádraig Drummond is an anti-racism activist.
Ten links to a diverse range of opinion that might be of interest to TPQ readers. They are selected not to invite agreement but curiosity. Readers can submit links to pieces they find thought provoking.
Before We Conform, Or Condemn, Let Us At Least Be Curious
♜One recognizes one's course by discovering the paths that stray from it - Albert Camus♞
Sometimes it’s for good reasons: it was the final decade before Web 2.0 changed the world, the first since the 1930’s to not live under the shadow of nuclear war and there was a genuine sense of optimism in the air if you lived in the West. Sometimes it’s for nefarious reasons: ignoring the Iraq war and the conflict in Bosnia to pretend that everything was hunky dory before September 11th, revising history to portray New Labour as sensible adults instead of authoritarian class traitors and celebrating trash culture instead of arguing how it contributed to a dumbing down of society.
Some have argued that it was the last decade of pure, unadulterated freedom which, as someone who grew up in this period, I would have to question. But I cannot deny that it was a fascinating time to grow up in, especially the late 90’s.
As I wrote in a review of a similarly themed book:
I was 13 in 1999 which, in hindsight, turned out to be the perfect age to witness the paranoia re Y2K, the over-optimism about how the 21st century would turn out, worrying that the murder of Eamon Collins would signal another year of turmoil for the post-GFA era North, and a little piece of software called Napster which would drastically alter music (and how we consume it) forever.
And, as this new book argues, 1999 also set the scene for the world we live in today.
TikTok fights and quack conspiracy podcasts? Jerry Springer did that beforehand. The blurring of boundaries between fact and fiction? Welcome to professional wrestling’s kayfabe tactic which drove the Monday Night Wars. OnlyFans? Girls Gone Wild. An endless glut of reality shows? Both Big Brother and Survivor debuted in this period. The speculative frenzy that drove the price of Beanie Babies into stupid numbers? Crypto. Donald Trump in the White House? He announced that in 1999 with Oprah as his running mate.
Quite depressing when you think about it.
A freelance journalist as well as a market research analyst, Ross Benes has put together a fascinating tome that intricately dissects this period, makes connections that you may not have considered before and all with the gusto and enthusiasm of a lifelong fan of pop culture.
His discussion about reality TV is not only laser sharp, but also underlines how ingrained such shows have been in the collective psyche for the past 25 years:
Although our collective TV viewing is fractured to an extent that largely prohibits shared pop cultural moments outside sports, many, if not most, consumers still recognize a Kardashian/Jenner viral post, The Bachelor rose ceremony, Big Brother espionage, Queer Eye makeover, Shark Tank business pitch, and Survivor challenge. This is because in the late 1990s and early 2000s, reality TV exploded. Since then, its presence, on our screens and in our lives, keeps expanding…Throughout the 1990s, reality shows were a cable hit on MTV. After MTV and CBS became sister stations, CBS brought reality to broadcast TV in a big way. Within two years of the merger, CBS rolled out three of reality’s most successful franchises—Big Brother, The Amazing Race, and Survivor. When Matt Damon said, “I always thought it better to be a fake somebody than a real nobody” in the December 1999 movie The Talented Mr. Ripley, his statement could have applied to many TV characters.
And as for the real legacy of reality TV, Benes puts it in sly terms:
Some reality stars would transcend the genre. “New York, my city,” the narrator states in the opening sequence of a famed 2004 reality show. “Where the wheels of the global economy never stop turning. A concrete metropolis of unparalleled strength and purpose.” The narrator fancies himself as “the largest real estate developer in New York.” He describes how the mean streets hardened him, brags about his expensive lifestyle, shills for his brand, and portrays his millions in debt as personal assets. The show pits sixteen young entrepreneurs in a competition to become this man’s apprentice. The star and producer of the show is of course Donald Trump, president of the United States of America.
Similarly, when discussing how wrestling’s theatrics have crossed over into the pollical realm when the likes of AOC and Jake Tapper tweet or deliver news like they’re cutting a promo with The Rock, one can’t help of the 2006 film Idiocracy.
Written with a critical love of the period and the culture, Benes offers up plenty of thinking points and laughs along the way. It especially helps that the tone oscillates between sneering and accepting complicity, especially when he considers the naked consumerism of Pokémon (gotta catch ‘em all) and Beanie Babies (which made up 10% of eBay’s sales at one point).
Due to this and other perceived blind spots, Benes has been criticised in some circles for not fully grappling with what he claims are the lasting implications of this culture: after all (as some argue) is it really a surprise whenever MAGA supporters treat ICE raids with a little more seriousness than Grand Theft Auto but with the same glee?
What I think it really speaks to is the defeat of class politics and the ubiquity of The Third Way in the 1990’s.
As the Revolutionary Communist Party argued in their suicide note:
…over the past couple of years we have come to understand that there are new barriers which need to be overcome before we can begin to convince people to act against the usual ills of capitalism. The flipside of the current problem mongering is the constant diminishing of the potential for people to do anything about it. There is now a widespread assumption that we are more or less incapable of changing things for the better, an assumption that 'There is no alternative'. The combination of these two factors is creating a paralysing atmosphere in society.
Combined with the complete discreditation of Marxism for a decade, the fragmentation of traditional working-class areas of solidarity (such as churches and clubs) and the acceleration of the metropolitan city, it’s no wonder that the pop culture of the era was aspirational yet low rent, real but fake, inviting yet gatekept.
Therefore, a book like this is necessary to remind us that nostalgia is fine in small doses, but we shouldn’t be so easily fooled again.
Ross Benes, 2025, 1999: The Year Low
Culture Conquered America and Kickstarted Our Bizarre Times. University
Press of Kansas. ISBN: 978-0700638574
⏩ 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”.
 |
| 8-October-2025 |
The stated aim is to provide families of Troubles-related dead with, “… a fair, proportionate, and transparent system to seek answers.”
This initiative is being described by both states as a means of undoing a flawed and discredited Legacy Act enacted by the previous Tory government. Whether this new set of proposals will turn out to be a significant improvement remains to be seen. Because, in spite of the usual pro-establishment spin, several issues remain unresolved.
There remains, for example, the matter of access to sensitive information. In many instances, this is a key element in determining exactly what role the British state played in the conflict. To what extent Britain’s intelligence agencies were involved in a secret counter-insurgency campaign remains an important question. However, it appears that little has changed in relation to this subject. The official British government press release tells us this so-called new departure:
There remains, for example, the matter of access to sensitive information. In many instances, this is a key element in determining exactly what role the British state played in the conflict. To what extent Britain’s intelligence agencies were involved in a secret counter-insurgency campaign remains an important question. However, it appears that little has changed in relation to this subject. The official British government press release tells us this so-called new departure:
‘… facilitates disclosure of the maximum possible amount of information to families consistent with the requirements of national security and to protect life.’(1)
No doubt, the requirements of national security will take precedence over all other concerns. Conveniently, though, Britain’s Secretaries of State for the North will henceforth be spared the embarrassment of having to explain why such information is being denied to relatives of the deceased. The decision is being taken out of his or her hands but will be taken instead by a different branch of the state’s apparatus.
Furthermore, in keeping with protecting the interests of the British state, extraordinary precautions are being put in place to shield former members of its armed forces. Six special measures will be included in the legislation to be introduced in Westminster to specifically assist ex-soldiers, or veterans as they are referred to throughout the press release.
One of the measures, in particular, reveals how careful the British government is in dealing with the past. Point Three of six affords what it describes as protection in old age, stating that the health and wellbeing of witnesses (i.e., British military personnel) must be considered when deciding whether it would be appropriate to require them to give evidence. It is hardly facetious to describe this procedure as a ‘get out of jail free’ card, granting, as it does, the Ministry of Defence enormous latitude to decide who is to testify and who is best kept out of circulation.
Admittedly, there are certain aspects of this Legacy Framework that will be welcomed. The small number of inquests stopped by the previous legislation will be allowed to resume, while some others stalled while in progress will be referred for assessment by the Solicitor General. However, there will be no announcement of further new inquests. The new Legacy Commission, which is replacing the old and discredited ICRIR, will become the primary route.
There is, too, the fact that this is a joint initiative between the British and Irish governments, with input from the Republic’s authorities. Whether southern participation will hold the British fully to account remains to be seen. It is one step to identify a triggerman, but it is often still more important to identify who or what is overseeing the shooter.
Two examples will illustrate why this is especially relevant.
Writing 50 years after the Miami Showband massacre, survivor Stephen Travers details the presence among the assassins of a man wearing a British Army officer’s uniform and speaking with an, ‘… educated, upper-class English accent …’ (2) Since then, there has emerged a plethora of reports covering the actions of agents and informants working for MI5 across the range of armed underground organisations.
All of which clearly indicates that the northern Troubles were a much more complex affair than the narrative favoured by the authorities in both London and Dublin. A tendentious narrative tells of a conflict between the bad guys (terrorists) and the good guys (the state’s forces, maintaining law and order).
Were this merely a revisionist telling of history, then it might be best left in the hands of more objective historians to correct the story. However, the North is not an academic issue. An honest account of Britain’s deep-state machinations during the Troubles would do little to enhance the reputation of the old empire. What it would do, though, is generate a frank, open discussion north and south of the border about past events: who was pulling the strings, and for why. By moving the debate beyond the ‘baddies versus goodies’, a more progressive and peaceful environment would surely evolve in the North.
Whether the new Legacy Framework will deliver such an outcome is highly questionable. It is, nevertheless, such an important objective that no effort should be spared in making it a reality.
No doubt, the requirements of national security will take precedence over all other concerns. Conveniently, though, Britain’s Secretaries of State for the North will henceforth be spared the embarrassment of having to explain why such information is being denied to relatives of the deceased. The decision is being taken out of his or her hands but will be taken instead by a different branch of the state’s apparatus.
Furthermore, in keeping with protecting the interests of the British state, extraordinary precautions are being put in place to shield former members of its armed forces. Six special measures will be included in the legislation to be introduced in Westminster to specifically assist ex-soldiers, or veterans as they are referred to throughout the press release.
One of the measures, in particular, reveals how careful the British government is in dealing with the past. Point Three of six affords what it describes as protection in old age, stating that the health and wellbeing of witnesses (i.e., British military personnel) must be considered when deciding whether it would be appropriate to require them to give evidence. It is hardly facetious to describe this procedure as a ‘get out of jail free’ card, granting, as it does, the Ministry of Defence enormous latitude to decide who is to testify and who is best kept out of circulation.
Admittedly, there are certain aspects of this Legacy Framework that will be welcomed. The small number of inquests stopped by the previous legislation will be allowed to resume, while some others stalled while in progress will be referred for assessment by the Solicitor General. However, there will be no announcement of further new inquests. The new Legacy Commission, which is replacing the old and discredited ICRIR, will become the primary route.
There is, too, the fact that this is a joint initiative between the British and Irish governments, with input from the Republic’s authorities. Whether southern participation will hold the British fully to account remains to be seen. It is one step to identify a triggerman, but it is often still more important to identify who or what is overseeing the shooter.
Two examples will illustrate why this is especially relevant.
Writing 50 years after the Miami Showband massacre, survivor Stephen Travers details the presence among the assassins of a man wearing a British Army officer’s uniform and speaking with an, ‘… educated, upper-class English accent …’ (2) Since then, there has emerged a plethora of reports covering the actions of agents and informants working for MI5 across the range of armed underground organisations.
All of which clearly indicates that the northern Troubles were a much more complex affair than the narrative favoured by the authorities in both London and Dublin. A tendentious narrative tells of a conflict between the bad guys (terrorists) and the good guys (the state’s forces, maintaining law and order).
Were this merely a revisionist telling of history, then it might be best left in the hands of more objective historians to correct the story. However, the North is not an academic issue. An honest account of Britain’s deep-state machinations during the Troubles would do little to enhance the reputation of the old empire. What it would do, though, is generate a frank, open discussion north and south of the border about past events: who was pulling the strings, and for why. By moving the debate beyond the ‘baddies versus goodies’, a more progressive and peaceful environment would surely evolve in the North.
Whether the new Legacy Framework will deliver such an outcome is highly questionable. It is, nevertheless, such an important objective that no effort should be spared in making it a reality.
(2) The Bass Player by Stephen Travers. Publisher, New Island Books
 |
Tommy McKearney is a left wing and trade union activist. He is author of The Provisional IRA: From Insurrection to Parliament. Follow on Twitter @Tommymckearney |
On its 20th anniversary, Brazil’s PSOL faces a critical juncture between two opposing approaches to combating the far right.
One faction advocates unconditional support for Lula’s government and broad alliances with bourgeois sectors; another maintains class independence and demands structural anti-neoliberal reforms through popular mobilisation. Historian Vinicius Machado argues the party must choose whether to remain committed to its founding anti-capitalist principles or become merely another social-liberal electoral vehicle subordinated to institutional power.
On 6th June 2025, PSOL completed 20 years of legalisation. Born in 2004, after the expulsion of parliamentarians who refused to vote for the pension reform of the Lula government, the party was officially recognised in 2005. Its foundation marked a political and ideological rupture with the PT [1], which, at that moment, consolidated its adaptation to the bourgeois order and to the politics of alliances with the bourgeoisie.
Since its origin, PSOL raised the banner of class independence and the strategic socialist horizon, even though in its trajectory the party brought together currents with different reformist and revolutionary traditions. This position, far from being a merely tactical choice, resulted from a long trajectory of experiences and defeats of the workers’ movement throughout the 20th century.
On 6th June 2025, PSOL completed 20 years of legalisation. Born in 2004, after the expulsion of parliamentarians who refused to vote for the pension reform of the Lula government, the party was officially recognised in 2005. Its foundation marked a political and ideological rupture with the PT [1], which, at that moment, consolidated its adaptation to the bourgeois order and to the politics of alliances with the bourgeoisie.
Since its origin, PSOL raised the banner of class independence and the strategic socialist horizon, even though in its trajectory the party brought together currents with different reformist and revolutionary traditions. This position, far from being a merely tactical choice, resulted from a long trajectory of experiences and defeats of the workers’ movement throughout the 20th century.
Continue @ ESSF.
Frankie Quinn with a poem from his expansive body of work.
On A Cliff's Edge
If he were to stumble and fall
Will the light catch his breath?
Will the wind toss his hair?
From side to side, or blow it straight
In his face so tears become ice frozen
Pearls on his face?
♞♜♝
On a cliff’s edge,
sharp stone
Pillars point toward wild dreams
Coloured by hard rain on cut cheeks
Outstretched arms of bewildered boy
He rests his head on the breeze
Which steals him away to the warmth.
♞♜♝
Don’t look up! No one there to call out STOP!
Or touch the patched-out eyes enflamed with pain
Black out the blue below each wrist
Emptiness befriends him on a beach in winter
No coloured towels or squeaky rubber toys
Mothers push into bags full of love for boys.
♞♜♝
When you are bad you are bad, you are not allowed
To be sad
♞♜♝
He stepped out walked with the clouds
No permission to scream. Shut your mouth! Don’t
Blame us, you told us you were fine
⏩ Frankie Quinn is a former republican prisoner who is now a community activist. He is the author of Open Gates, a book of poetry.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
