Blog

  • Small Horses

    The big man tugged the brim of his hat and spoke gently to the camera as though a guest had newly arrived at his door.

    “Evenin’ folks. I’m here to tell you about my new picture, The Train Robbers, with a little lady you might have heard of by the name of Ann Margaret.” He inclined his head in a manner familiar to audiences who might, in that gesture, recall the earnest frontier wisdom for which his characters were renowned. “I think you’ll like it. It’s an old-fashioned Western with lots of action and—”

    “Cut!” the director yelled.

    The big man’s eyes narrowed and his throaty voice rose to a tattered yelp.

    “Well, what’s the matter now?”

    “Sorry, sir,” the director hesitated. “They’d prefer we didn’t use the term ‘old-fashioned’ anymore. They think it’ll drive away the younger audience.”

    “Who thinks?”

    A pinkish glow glazed the young director’s cheeks.

    “The marketing department.” His fingers played nervously by an earlobe. “The studio’s marketing department.”

    “Marketing department?” The big man exclaimed, his voice cracking under the incredulity. “Hell, anyone driven away by that nonsense can stay away, far as I’m concerned. I guess they’d rather we dump our regular audience and bring in a bunch of hippies instead. That it?”

    “I don’t know, sir, but that’s the direction I was given. I’m just doing my job. How about we take five while Howard works up the changes for you?”

    The big man’s eyebrows dwelled over a long cautious stare, then he suddenly released a brittle chuckle and slapped his own thigh.

    “Well, hell, you work that in there, Howard,” he cried. “You work it all the way in there while I go parlay with our noble representative of the honorable fourth estate.”

    He scurried sideways through a cloud of fussing assistants and technicians and crossed the dusty yard to a pair of canvas chairs which sat in the oblong shadow of a large parasol. The reporter, a young man with a vaguely tormented expression, lounged inattentively over the side of one of the chairs. When he saw the big man approaching, he yanked his legs aboard, drew his fingers from his beatnik beard and lurched upright, composing a large notebook on his lap as his pen made a nervous vigil over a fresh page.

    The big man sat heavily into his chair with a long, wayward grunt. He snatched a drink from the small table beside him and the ice cubes tinkled against the glass as he raised it to his lips. He took a long sideways look at the young reporter.

    “Where were we?” he said, when he’d taken a messy sup.

    “We were talking about your acting method.”

    A stern look waved the lines above the man’s brows and an unamused fissure cleaved his mouth into a half-smile.

    You were talking about that,” he said, “not me. There’s no method. I’m myself, on purpose. It’s not much of a trick but it’s all the trick I got.”

    “Do you think that’s enough these days with people like Voight, Hoffman—”

    “It’s plenty enough,” the man snapped. “I suppose you think all this method-acting hooey is for the benefit of the audience. It’s not, you know. It’s just vanity. These modern actors feel like they gotta show the audience that they’re suffering for their art and I guess the only way they know how to do that is to sob right into the camera. The thing they miss is that heroes were never meant to be like normal folks. The whole point of heroes is to be better than normal folks and, in my book, better means better. Not darker. Or sadder. Or dirtier, either. Not shooting people in the back like you see in all these Spaghetti Westerns. Not doing drugs or whatever else you see these days. We ought to be setting an example for people. Showing them what real courage is. That’s why people come to my pictures. That’s why they been coming to my pictures for thirty years and that’s why they’ll still be coming to my pictures in a hundred years when all these fancy dan tricks is gone the way of the dodo.”

    “You seem very confident of your enduring legacy.”

    The big man gave a crippled, sorrowful laugh, “Well, I guess I am. Faith don’t cost much this side of life but, even so, it’s in surprisingly short supply.”

    The reporter bobbed excitedly and attacked the page with his pen.

    “That’s good.”

    “People need heroes they can rely on. These anti-heroes, as you guys call them, that’s just a fad the public will get tired of eventually. And, when they do, they’ll come looking for real heroes again.”

    “So, I take it you didn’t like The Wild Bunch?”

    “No sir, I didn’t. Bad guys pretending to be good guys.”

    “But can’t a person be both? Can’t a person be more than just good or evil?”

    “No sir, they can’t. They gotta pick a side and stick with it. It’s thinking like yours got the world in the upside-down mess it’s in. Men dressed like women and women dressed like men. Fellas that are supposed to be heroes blubbing about the place like sissies. People with no right to it demanding an audience’s respect. I’m no expert on scripture but I remember somewhere in there a warning against those who would try to put darkness for light and light for darkness.”

    “If you want to talk about scripture, what about Saint Paul on the road to Damascus? Wasn’t that a case of darkness turning into light.”

    The big man gave a creaking chuckle.

    “Well son, you be sure to let me know when we get another case like that one.”

    A few shouts came from the set and they both looked up and spent a few moments watching the buildup of activity there.

    “You got one more question, kid.”

    “You going to the Oscars tonight, sir? Who do you think will win for Best Actor?”

    The big man made a distasteful face.

    “Well, Olivier is a fine actor. I suppose I wouldn’t be too upset if he won.”

    “What about Brando? His performance in The Godfather is surely deserving of an Oscar, wouldn’t you say?”

    “No, son, I wouldn’t say. Too showy. Stuffing all that junk in his cheeks. All vanity and, I guess you know now, I can’t abide vanity,” he made a point of looking at the young man’s beard, “in anyone.”

    “Can’t you even admit that the movie itself is a modern masterpiece?”

    “No, sir, I can’t. If you ask me, that picture is nothing but modern un-American garbage.”

    “But surely,” the reporter started but the big man stood up and raised a meaty palm.

    “Maybe you should interview Brando. He’ll tell you exactly what you want to hear.”

    The young man frowned and the big man leaned over him, tilting his hat up his forehead.

    “I guess you’d prefer it I came off my horse like old Saul,” he said with a short chuckle and staggered back to the set, leaving the young reporter chewing his pen silently.

    The young man stood up, put away his notes and wandered over to a young lady who was smoking a cigarette in the shade of a long silver trailer.

    “Can you spare a cigarette, honey?”

    She looked at him and her lips formed a brief pout of distaste but, after a few seconds, she yanked a corner of her lip into a dazed smile and held out a long cigarette.

    “Here you go, Daddy-o.”

    When he’d lit his cigarette, he leaned against the trailer and nodded his head in the direction of the renewed activity.

    “So, what’s he like to work with?”

    “The living legend?”

    “Yes.”

    She looked him up and down.

    “Off the record?”

    “Sure,” he said, clutching the cigarette between his teeth as he dived into his bag for his notepad and pen.

    She pursed her lips carefully and blew a long thin plume of smoke toward the subject of their discourse.

    “He’s a royal pain in the ass.”

     

    *          *          *          *          *

     

    “No, dammit!” the big man said with a hoarse growl, flinging a despairing arm at the apprentice wrangler. “It’s still too tall. We’re shooting a promo here, son. You’re gonna want to get his head in the frame, otherwise people will think someone sawed a foot off me or I’m standing in a trench.”

    The apprentice wrangler, a kid no more than nineteen, opened his mouth to say something but the man wasn’t waiting for an answer.

    “Take it back and bring me another,” he said and wafted the air between them with the back of his hand.

    This was the third horse he’d returned, each with the same fatigued gesture, like an imperfectly cooked steak being waved back to the kitchen.

    The young wrangler grimaced and nervously tightened his grip around the reins. Mr. Mitchell, the head wrangler, had told him to keep it simple and to bring him one of the Quarter horses. He stepped apart from the horse, looking up at it and across its felted light brown flanks as though re-evaluating its suitability for himself.

    Between horses, the big man had dragged his canvas chair out from beneath the large white parasol and into the light. Now, as he watched the kid conduct his silent inspection, he lay back into the seat and stretched his long limbs into the warming midday sun. The man measured the moment with a throaty chuckle before taking himself slowly out of the chair. He removed his hat and slapped it once against his right thigh before refitting it and taking his famous lopsided stride over to where the kid stood, awaiting his approach with visible concern.

    The AD stepped beside the kid, pulled his white baseball cap over his eyes and tugged at his greying beard, offering a physical demonstration of his concern.

    “We can work around this,” he said. “A wide shot from further back. Then you’ll have everybody in the frame.”

    The big man shook his head and his eyes crinkled in a stern smile.

    “Hell, Bob, we’ll look like ants. You want folks to have to guess who the hell is in the picture?” He pointed at the kid. “You telling me we ain’t got one regular sized horse in that whole remuda back there?”

    He started walking in the direction the kid had come from.

    The director joined the AD and the kid beside the horse.

    “Where are you going?” the director called.

    “I’m going to pick myself out a normal-sized horse. You stay here and take five or six or whatever you guys call it these days.”

    The big man followed the track around past a set of worn outhouses to a series of fresh-boarded corrals. The kid followed at a short distance and watched the man let himself into a large pen with about a dozen horses in two groups, stepping nervously in opposite corners.

    The man noticed the kid and gestured to a cream and brown colt in the nearest corner.

    “What about that little Paint Horse?”

    “Oh, not Bobbin, sir. He’s mighty ornery. We only got him around for a special show that needs a bad-tempered ride. I wouldn’t recommend using him for this type of show, sir”

    “Well,” the man said, “I reckon I can handle him.”

    He strolled slowly over to the horse and carefully patted its flanks and head, whispering and clucking to the animal as he stepped closer.

    The horse turned one side of his head to look at the man. The large eye, wet and brown, studied him.

    “You know me, don’t you?” the man said, easing his hand across the thick mane and patting the horse’s neck softly.

    He was about to chide the kid for his foolishness, when the horse suddenly bucked hard, slamming him against the fence and he lost consciousness.

     

    *          *          *          *          *

     

    “What the hell you let him in there for?”

    “I’m sorry sir. He said the other horses was too big.”

    “Too big? They’re always too big. Is he riding them or are they riding him?”

    The boy gestured to the big man.

    “He just moved.”

    The big man opened his eyes. He was lying on a bed in the silver trailer. The kid was pressing a damp cloth to his head. A dull ache sat just above his eyes.

    A grey-haired man with a long black moustache in a dark suit stood over him, looking concerned.

    “You okay?”

    The big man sat up. He took the damp cloth from the kid and pressed it to the ache above his eyes.

    “I’ll live, I guess.”

    “You remember anything?”

    “I remember a little horse kicking the shit outta me.”

    “That’s Bobbin. He’s the devil himself if he don’t know you. Raúl had no business letting you go in there.”

    “I’ll live,” the man said and made to stand up.

    The grey-haired man put a hand on his chest to keep him gently on the bed.

    “You best take it easy sir. You had a sizeable bump. Doctor needs to check you out. Anyways, they told everyone to go home.”

    “Go home? You sure?”

    “Well, pretty certain. They’re all clearing out for the day.”

    He stared at the big man.

    “You recognize me?”

    “Sure I do. You’re Mitchell, the head wrangler, but,” he gestured at his own outfit—jeans, boots, spurs and all—then at the grey-haired man’s smart suit and tie, “there’s something wrong with this picture, cowboy.”

    “I had to attend a funeral,” the grey-haired man said, inspecting himself self-consciously.

    “Well,” the big man said, “I’m sorry for your loss.”

    “Thanks.”

    The big man rose to his feet.

    “I gotta get myself into one of them suits too, so I can attend the 45th Academy Awards. I got a thing I gotta do there.”

    “You sure you’re up for all that, sir?”

    The big man loosened a soft chuckle that scraped through the relative quiet of the trailer.

    “I guess I’m pretty certain,” he said.

     

    *          *          *          *          *

     

    The little hippy girl in the Red Indian getup walked slowly to the stage. She looked Apache. Chiricahua or maybe Western Apache. Jet black hair swung at her waist. A tan beaded dress. He’d killed lots of Apaches in his movies. No women, of course, though he’d probably widowed plenty.

    For a second, he wondered if he was seeing things.

    He was in the wings, getting ready for his bit when he saw the little Indian girl come up—almost float up—to receive the award and it was as though an invisible thread drew him to her. He moved closer to the stage, between a group of heavy-set security men. He was sweating heavy and breathing hard as she commenced her speech about Native Americans and respect, love and generosity, but then she said something about declining the award and booing broke out on the main floor.

    She looked so small and scared flanked by those two giant props of the Oscar statuette and she glanced nervously toward the wings, where he stood, and hesitated in her speech. The large sheet containing her speech quivered in her grasp and her sad little mouth saddened further.

    He moved toward her and one of the security guards, a dark-haired, squat fellow, placed a thick hand on his shoulder and pinched the flesh there urgently.

    The big man was listening to the speech. He absently shrugged the man’s hand away but another security man tugged at his elbow from behind and a taller, blonde haired security man stood beside him and tried for his other elbow.

    “Sir, you’d better stay here.”

    “And you’d better leave off,” the big man croaked as he yanked his elbows away. He tried to take another step but a fourth, a fifth then a sixth security man barred his path.

    “Sorry sir but we can’t let you do that?”

    “Do what?” the big man said with a grimace. “I’m just trying to talk to her.”

    “I’m sorry sir. We can’t allow that right now.”

    “It’s not your business,” the big man said but when he looked back at the stage the little Indian girl had vanished like a heat mirage in the desert.

    The band struck up and the audience applauded and, soon after, he found himself being introduced and he made his own speech and the filming wrapped up, but he kept thinking about the little Indian girl mirage he’d seen.

    When the ceremony was over, the stars mingled in small careful groups along political and historical and status lines. He kept an eye out for a reoccurrence of the Indian girl mirage. He didn’t see her again but, talking to other guests, he learned she wasn’t a mirage. She’d really been on stage. She’d really spoken those words. She’d really stood there, hands quivering lightly, while the audience heckled and booed her.

    He excused himself and waved for his personal driver, a quick, bright-eyed, sharp-faced man in his late twenties with slicked-back hair and a reluctant smile.

    “Get me into Brando’s party,” the big man said. “I don’t care how you do it.”

    His driver returned twenty minutes later.

    “You’re in,” he said.

    They drove to Mulholland Drive. He gave a lift to a couple of young up-and-coming actresses whose names he didn’t know and he couldn’t remember when they told him but who giggled and chatted carelessly the whole way to the Santa Monica Mountains. They all entered the large Spanish-style house together and the actresses’ laughter and general gaiety covered his entrance better than any gunpowder keg had in his pictures.

    The party was in full swing. People were drinking and shouting and laughing; little dabs of mirthful giggles and loud uncontrolled splashes of laughter as though emptied from a fire bucket. A haze of marijuana smoke clutched his nostrils as he wandered through the different rooms.

    A five-piece jazz band occupied a corner of the large open-plan living room and the lead singer, a tall, dark, graceful lady swirled effortlessly around a microphone stand, launching a series of winsome pleas into the warm night. On the other side of the house, by the pool, a keyboardist, guitarist and another singer performed a selection of modern hits. This singer—a pale, willowy fellow—decanted his soul into each song, almost collapsing into the outro before seemingly renewing his vigor for the next number.

    As the big man moved through the house the sound of one or other band would dominate and, each time, the conquered song would idle sedately into the background only to re-emerge moments later when he crossed some invisible threshold. As he made his way up the wide circular stairs, the two sounds grappled in the air around him, locked in close combat.

    A large dimly lit room of cushions and candelabras opened onto a long veranda. He picked a path through cushions and half-seen bodies which writhed with the apocalyptic fervor of drunken ardor.

    A set of thin white curtains floated across the wide doorway and the night air parted them just enough for him to see her standing on the balcony, looking out at the city lights in the distance.

    He approached cautiously. She was alone.

    “I heard your speech,” he said softly and she weaved back in surprise.

    He raised his hands.

    “I’m sorry, miss. I didn’t mean to startle you. I just wanted to speak to you, if that’s okay.”

    She looked at him for a long moment and eventually nodded slowly.

    He pointed to a metal table and chairs nearby.

    “Do you mind if we sit, miss?”

    She glanced about uncertainly then shook her head quickly. He pulled a chair out and gestured her into it before taking the seat opposite her.

    “You mind if I smoke,” he said, smiling. “I smoke when I’m nervous.”

    “No, it’s fine.”

    He smiled as he took out a pack of cigarettes then, smiling again, he offered her one, which she took, and he lit both their cigarettes with a light snap of his lighter.

    Out on the veranda, the modern music dominated again. The band were playing a song he’d never heard before called Peaceful Easy Feeling and the people around the pool below and the singer all swayed as if caught in the same mellow current.

    “This is nice,” he said.

    “Yes,” she replied, smiling timidly. Her dark eyes glittered in the light from half-a-dozen ornate lamps which stood at intervals along the balcony.

    He pulled his chair closer.

    “I heard your speech earlier,” he said.

    “Yes,” she said, her eyes staring unabashedly into his, “but did you see it?”

    “See it?”

    Her voice took on a dreamlike quality.

    “Did you see the oppression of the weak? The bloody war against nature? The long veil of hypocrisy that hangs over this nation? The thousands of bones lying unburied on the prairies?”

    He moved excitedly toward her, their faces inches apart.

    “I saw,” he said. “I saw all of it and I felt all of it, as though you were speaking just to me, directly into my brain.”

    “In a way, I was. I’ve seen all your pictures. I know you better than any man.”

    He frowned sadly.

    “You saw only a shadow of me in those movies. The shameful shadow of delusion. I decided today, I’ll never make another of those pictures. I’m done with that life. Do you believe me?”

    She smiled tenderly.

    “I believe we can be whoever and whatever we want to be, if we want it hard enough.”

    “I do want it. Truly, I do. It’s not something I thought about before today but so much has changed in this day. This morning I was an adolescent, knit in kin and afraid of the universe, and tonight I am become a man. The old me skulked in the shadows of that curtain, hiding in the wings, but then, bathed in your radiant candor I was baptized into the world and here I am.”

    Her eyes were aflame now. The music rose below them but neither of them heard it anymore.

    “I was drawn to you,” he said. “Like I’ve never been drawn to another. Like a celestial body stranded millennia in the cold immensity of space, suddenly feeling an urgent tug from somewhere in the vast emptiness. When those people started booing, I wanted to rush to your side. To be there with you.”

    “You did?”

    He stubbed out his cigarette and took her hand.

    “Yes, I did.”

    “And they stopped you?”

    “They tried to, but they can’t stop me now. Here I am. I want to be with you now, if I can. I can’t explain but something happened to me when I heard your speech. The scales fell from my eyes, and I suddenly saw the world, cold and hard, through your eyes. All the needless slaughter and butchery. All the lies and deceit. All the self-deceit. A world bereft of love or generosity waiting to be stocked. By us.”

    She urgently extinguished her own cigarette and placed her hand on his and their fingers intertwined.

    “I want that too,” she said and they stared long and hard into each other’s eyes, cataloguing the thousand mysteries there, counting each glimmer of light like beautiful little fireworks being tracked across the sky.

    An apprehensive cough came from behind them. They turned and his driver was there.

    “Your wife’s here,” the driver said.

    “Oh yeah,” the big man said. “Shit.”

  • Turkey, Journalism and Erdoğan

    The following is a Q and A between Luke Sheehan and Deniz Güngör.

    Can you summarize the political crisis in Turkey? 

    First, I must say that in Turkey, a person must have a university diploma to be eligible to run for president. After the main opposition CHP’s Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu announced his presidential candidacy, judicial operations were launched. First, İmamoğlu’s diploma was annulled, then he was detained on March 19 and subsequently arrested. Following this, a series of protest demonstrations were organized in Saraçhane, where the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality building is located.

    What is happening in Istanbul? What is the atmosphere like now? 

    The protests ended due to the interjection of the Ramadan holiday. However, it is safe to say that all these developments have awakened the social opposition. Turkey had not witnessed such large-scale, nearly nationwide protests since the 2013 Gezi Park resistance. Even though the protests have ended, the smallest decision from the government drives the opposition back to the streets.

    Recount the key moments of the last few months in your own experience? 

    One of the most critical moments of the last few months was the police violence during the Saraçhane protests on March 23. After a rally organized by the CHP in Saraçhane, the police attacked demonstrators and journalists near the Bozdoğan Aqueduct with pepper spray, plastic bullets, and batons. (The reason the protesters tried to push through the police stationed at the Bozdoğan Aqueduct was that they wanted to march to Taksim Square. The government has been banning all protests at Taksim Square since the Gezi Park resistance due to fear of its symbolic significance.) Many people were injured, including me. A police officer sprayed pepper gas directly into my face and kicked me in the stomach. Since that day, 301 university students and young people have been arrested and sent to prison. Most of them have now been released, but some are still imprisoned despite serious health issues. Calls for their release continue on social media.

    How would you recount İmamoğlu’s path in politics? How did he come to represent a threat to Erdoğan? 

    Before becoming the mayor of Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, İmamoğlu was the mayor of the Beylikdüzü district in Istanbul. He was hardly known before becoming the metropolitan mayor. Until the 2019 elections, Istanbul was governed by Erdoğan’s party, the AKP. Erdoğan once said, “Whoever wins Istanbul, wins Turkey.” For this reason, Istanbul holds great significance for them. When İmamoğlu narrowly defeated the AKP’s candidate Binali Yıldırım in 2019, he first caught Erdoğan’s attention. The election was annulled, and İmamoğlu was subjected to many provocations. However, in the re-run election in June 2019, İmamoğlu was elected mayor by a landslide. After CHP took over Istanbul, corruption under the AKP administration was exposed. Religious cults embedded within the municipality were removed, and a policy of social municipalism was adopted. Projects like municipal daycare centers and public canteens (designed to support the people suffering under the economic crisis) were developed. Despite all the AKP propaganda, İmamoğlu was re-elected in the 2024 local elections. 

    Since 2019, a large portion of society has expressed the desire to see İmamoğlu as president. This made him a target for Erdoğan. The AKP regime is terrified of losing power, especially since people still demand answers about the $128 billion that went missing from the Central Bank. If the AKP loses power, they know it won’t end well for them.

    Compared to previous flare ups and crises [Gezi Park protests 2013], what is different about these events? Apart from factual differences, how does it feel different? 

    The Gezi Park resistance began as a movement to protect Gezi Park, and the police violence and deaths deepened it. But Saraçhane is a direct response to political maneuvers, increasing repression, arrests, and is directly against Erdoğan. It still is. The protests found expression in universities through academic boycotts, and people from all walks of life took to the streets. The Saraçhane protests were a stand against Erdoğan and his Islamist, authoritarian policies.

    How is journalism functioning in this environment?

    The police try to prevent journalists from recording as much as possible. Their goal is to keep the torture they inflict from being documented. Often, journalists are detained together with protesters, surrounded by police.

    Your colleagues were detained in February, can you describe what happened? Was that business as usual for journalists in Turkey?

    Every month in Turkey, journalists are detained or prosecuted for the news they report or for their social media posts. This has become one of the regime’s mechanisms of repression and has sadly become normalized. It’s now rare to find a journalist who doesn’t have at least one lawsuit filed against them. In February, detentions were carried out after BirGün reported on a visit by Sabah newspaper to Istanbul’s Chief Public Prosecutor, Akın Gürlek, in his office. Sabah had also reported on the same visit.

    Uğur Koç, Berkant Gültekin, and Yaşar Gökdemir were taken to Istanbul Police Headquarters in Vatan in the evening to give statements and were initially denied access to their lawyers. None of the three were summoned; they were directly taken from their homes. After their statements at the police station were completed around noon, they were referred to the Istanbul Courthouse in Çağlayan. Berkant Gültekin was released after giving his statement to the prosecutor. Uğur Koç and Yaşar Gökdemir were also released by the court with judicial control measures. All they did was report a visit already published by Sabah.

    How is the violence being applied in the response to protest? Is it different to the past?

    Unfortunately, tactics like reverse handcuffing and pepper spray have become normalized forms of police brutality in Turkish protests.

    Can you single out a story of an ordinary family and how they have been affected?

    On April 8, university student Esila Ayık was arrested in Istanbul’s Kadıköy district for holding a sign that read “Dictator Erdoğan” at the Kadıköy Dayanışma Stage, accused of “insulting the president.” Ayık suffers from chronic heart and kidney disease. She has collapsed in prison and been hospitalized multiple times. Despite all these health problems, she has not been released. Her father repeatedly pleads, “Please release my daughter,” but Esila remains imprisoned.

    Do the pro-Imamoglu people feel a connection to any citizens elsewhere locked in some kind of struggle?

    Honestly, I don’t think so. People in Turkey see the struggle here as unique and particular to their own circumstances.

    You are 25. You have lived almost your whole life under the government of one leader. What does that feel like for your generation? Do you feel like Turkey can be called a democracy?

    Unfortunately, I have lived my entire life under the Erdoğan regime. From the moment he came to power, he embraced an Islamist political identity and had ties with the Gülen movement. However, after the 2016 coup attempt, he pretended those ties never existed and started accusing dissidents of being linked to FETÖ (Fetullahist Terrorist Organization). After the state of emergency was declared in 2016, repression increased, freedoms were restricted, and the economic crisis deepened. I believe this has especially impacted my generation and the ones after me. The generation before us wasn’t afraid to take to the streets to demand their rights. But until the Saraçhane protests, people were silenced by fear — “What if I get arrested, detained, what if I can’t find a job in the future?” Even something as simple as going to the cinema has become unaffordable for young people. Going out for a drink or to the theater has become a luxury. Most of us are unemployed university graduates. People no longer trust the election results, nor the judiciary. So no, as long as Erdoğan’s regime continues, it is not possible to talk about democracy in Turkey.

    If you could summarize the current situation with a metaphor, what would it be?

    The wall of fear the dictator built over 23 years had already cracked — now it’s crumbling.

    Images all copyright © BirGün

    Deniz Güngör graduated in 2023 from the Department of Journalism at the Faculty of Communication Sciences, Anadolu University in Eskişehir Turkey. Since 2021, Deniz has been working at BirGün Newspaper. She was awarded in the 65th Turkey Journalism Achievement Awards organized by the Turkish Journalists’ Association (TGC) for her interview “The Hope We Carry Is Our Reason to Live”, and again in the 66th TGC Awards for her news report titled “Unauthorized Surgery at a Private Hospital: They Lied to the Judiciary”.

  • Public Intellectuals: Charles Darwin

    In a court case in Kent recently I detoured to the small village of Down near Orpington where I had the privilege of visiting the Home of Charles Darwin. This is the residence where he wrote both The Voyage of The Beagle (1839) and The Origin of The Species (1859). It is a symptomatic of the controversy his name still arouses that my avowedly religious taxi driver expressed scepticism as to why anyone would entertain a trip to visit the house of The Great Satan, and proceeded to quiz me as to my belief in the bible.

    In fact, Darwin publicly indicated one could be both a theist and an evolutionist in 1879. Shortly before shuffling off this mortal coil he defined his position as an agnostic.

    Since these were not times an atheist would be put to death or socially shunned for declaring themselves there was no overwhelming need to abide by Victorian convention. Further, as is remarkably clear from the visit, he and his family were hugely influential and well connected. They were creatures of the enlightenment. Charles Darwin was a kind of evolutionary apotheosis of his clan.

    The crucial point to appreciate – as I explained to the taxi driver who maintained his vain attempts at spiritual conversion – is that Darwin is and was right. It remains one of the few works of science that has stood the test of time. The qualifier, an idea as old as Lamarck the spiritual father of genetics, is that the environment leads to genetic alterations and random mutations that generate the gene sequence for natural selection to act. Thus, our environment can influence DNA by altering phenotypic and genotypic variation. This is called epigenetics. Nature. Nurture. Genetics. But the citadel stands.

    His ideas evolved gradually. And common design was very much part of the reflection and collection exercise that was The Voyage of The Beagle, which occurred in spite of the reservations of his wealthy father, who funded the trip. On returning he was lionised, becoming a national hero. That almost five-year trip – particularly his observation on the different types of tortoises and mockingbirds and how certain species became extinct – led to the theory of evolution and the notion of the transition of the species. Thus, The Voyage nurtured the fundamental ideas, based on empirical findings of live specimens and fossils in South America.

    He published extensively on his return, but there is a paradigm shift in 1837 In July, with the development of his famous evolutionary drawing The Tree of Life, immortalising his notebook, which I viewed at first hand. The tree is prefaced in his bold handwriting with the words: I THINK.

    Watercolour by the Beagle’s artist Conrad Martens,

    Cartesian

    Well Descartes’ cogito ergo sum is the foundation of all human elevation. Centuries later, freedom of thought was central to Clarence Darrow’s famous speech in defence of Darwinism the Scopes Trial of 1925. Such thought distinguishes us, he said, from the sponge or the amoeba. In defending Darwin Darrow said:

    Can’t you understand? That if you take a law like evolution and you make it a crime to teach it in the public schools, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private schools? In addition, tomorrow you may make it a crime to read about it. Soon you may ban books and newspapers. Then you may turn Catholic against Protestant, and Protestant against Protestant, and try to foist your own religion upon the mind of man. If you can do one, you can do the other. Because fanaticism and ignorance are forever busy and needs feeding. And soon, your Honor, with banners flying and with drums beating we will be marching backward, BACKWARD, through the glorious ages of that Sixteenth Century when bigots burned the man who dared bring enlightenment and intelligence to the human mind!

    That seems like a description of what is being done in America and elsewhere in God’s name and, indeed, in the name of secular political correctness.

    After many papers and an exhaustive study of barnacles, Darwin developed the crucial idea of a homologue or variation, for it is variation and adaption that are crucial to evolution. His greatest work was only ultimately published after his fellow scientist Russel wrote to him with the same idea. He did not want to be gazumped, intellectually speaking. This led to a joint paper shortly followed by the bestselling masterwork, The Origin of The Species, which has became a secular bible.

    The book refutes completely creationism, the beautiful poetry of genesis as Darrow called it in The Scopes Trial that the world was created in seven days. Darwin was clearly right, but we are no longer in a secular age. All of this might have seemed trite and taken as accepted fact, save for the recrudescence of evangelical Christianity worldwide, which is creating a new auto de fe and inversion of the truth.

    Harvard Yard.

    The Trump administration is now defunding the academy. Harvard, in a last gasp of American liberalism, is fighting back. Yet its corporate sponsors resile. We are entering a new dark age. In the list of prohibited books of the future I expect The Origin of The Species to appear every bit as much as Nabokov’s Lolita or Joyce’s Ulysses. In the legendary American science fiction writer Ray Bradburys novel Fahrenheit 451 books are burned by firemen. Now we have a social media and controlled media auto de fe,

    Regarding the theory of evolution, it seems that the initial idea may have in genesis in his grandfather Erasmus. In 1794 his polymath grandfather book Zoonaamia made the same point, so the idea was implanted early:

    Would it be too bold to imagine that all warm-blooded animals have arisen from one living filament which the great first cause with animality with power of acquiring new parts, attended with new propensities …….and of delivering down these improvements by generation to its posterity.

    In fact, the entire family, represented by a tree on the wall in the museum, had a significant influence. Another grandfather, Josiah Wedgewood was one of the pioneers of the Industrial Revolution.

    The Darwin Museum is also littered with quotations, including the most obviously true about how one singular fact, or mutation, can lead to survival or the decline of a species, or an individual. In that respect let us confront the gorgons head and assess whether he bears responsibility for what has been done in his name. By that I mean Social Darwinism, the most centrally awful vogueish evil idea of our age.

    Erasmus Darwin.

    Social Darwinism

    Darwin drew a crisp distinction between his ideas as a scientist and social commentator. He never expressed the idea that evolutionary theory was a good idea for social policy. He also argued particularly in The Descent of Man that feelings, or social instincts, such as sympathy for one’s fellow man, and moral sentiments, were intrinsic to society. This is an important, if scientifically detached, concession

    On the other hand, he associated with various people including his cousin Martineau who were proponents of Malthusianism, the strict regulation of breeding and the need to confine the unfit in prisons and insane asylums. Swifts earlier A Modest Proposal (1729) demonstrates the absurd cruelty of these ideas.

    Social Darwinist ideas led the American business caste, including the Rockefellers and the Carnegies, to advocate for the triumph of the fittest, and apply selection criteria and concepts of struggle to the world of business, despising the weak and the defenceless. Richard Hofstadter’s famous 1944 book Social Darwinism in American Thought actually coined the phrase Social Darwinism. He used it to attack unregulated greed, oligarchical capital and racism. He also, in a subsequent book, equated it with populist ignorance. This reaches an apogee of awfulness with the quasi-scientific ideas of Ayn Rand, in books such as The Fountainhead (1943).

    Darwin’s half cousin friend, the polymath Francis Galton was the founder of eugenics, and in effect he argued for the coupling of superior minds. He also came perilously close to condoning genocide in arguing for the extinction of inferior races, though he did not consider other races as intrinsically degenerate. He believed immigration was needed and welcome, depending of course on the immigrant. The sense of falsetto superiority is clearly apparent. Such nonsense led to even the legendary socialist judge Oliver Wendell Holmes in Buck v, Bell (1921) – who was cited in the defence in the Nuremberg Trials – upholding the compulsory sterilisation of a mental defective, saying that three generations of imbeciles are quite enough.

    Darwin himself was quite specific that his theory of evolution did not apply to social policy and was undesirable. The Nazis endorsed social Darwinism One key high command proponent Alfred Rosenberg was hanged at Nuremberg.

    The Decline of the West

    Perhaps the most influential text of Social Darwinism came with Oswald Spengler’s The Decline of the West (1926), which suggested that much of the blame for the decline of European civilisation could be blamed on the Slavic and other ‘degenerate’ races.

    The counterpoint of the argument was that Aryan blue blood, whether Germanic or Anglo Saxon, was the emblem of purity and that the other races had corrupted the gene pool. Spengler influenced Hitler, and the snowball of fascism led to the extermination of those undesirable races and the nightmare of the Holocaust.

    Such matters were hitherto of historic concern, which until recently seemed like a distant epoch, but regrettably this form of Social Darwinism is back in fashion, as a new corporatised Shoah of economic liquidation and segmentation beckons, accentuated by the effect of lockdowns and the rise of the far right. In an age of chaos and uncertainty, the power grab of the strongman is evident for all to see.

    Intellectual ideas that gain traction are not necessarily good ideas. Social Darwinism and Malthusian ideas are back in vogue. But do not blame Charles Darwin at least exclusively.

    If forced or available for comment, what would he say I wonder. A contemporary scientist, the Italian physicist Carlo Rovelli, in Seven Brief Lessons on Physics wrote:

    I believe our species will not last long. It does not seem to be made of the stuff that has allowed the turtle, for example, to continue to exist unchanged for hundreds of millions of years; for hundreds of times longer, that is, than we have even been in existence. We belong to a short-lived genus of species. All our cousins are already extinct. What is more, we do damage. The brutal climate and environmental changes which we have triggered are unlikely to spare us. For the Earth they may turn out to be a small irrelevant blip, but I do not think that we will outlast them unscathed – especially since public and political opinion prefers to ignore the dangers which we are running, hiding our heads in the sand. We are the only species on Earth to be conscious of the inevitability of our individual mortality. I fear soon we shall also have to become the only species that will knowingly watch the coming of its own collective demise, or at least the demise of its civilisation.

    The late great Pope Francis’s experiences in the barrios of Buenos Aires appears to have shaped an empathy towards those afflicted with extreme poverty and subjected to degradation. He preached tolerance, engagement and social and economic justice.  Let us hope the liberation theology that is intrinsic in Francis’s legacy is not tainted by the dark money of the Vatican. He died several hours after meeting Mr Vance. Darwin would, I suspect, also have approved of Pope Francis but felt the ideas of Mr Vance deeply inappropriate.

  • Poem: ‘Oblique Landscape’

    Oblique Landscape

    JP Jacobsen, I read your poem
    of a boundless heath with mossy stones
    where you were born and where you returned
    with the tungsind poet
    that ‘died the death, the difficult death.’ 

    Shadowgraph naturalist, translator of Darwin
    enduring sufferer of tuberculosis
    who loved six enraged steadfast women
    for the poet to tune the mood to its core. 

    JP Jacobsen, can you tell me of my oblique landscape?
    the thick darkness envelopes the drastic day
    I am visited by the Intelligent Angel,
    the Neutral Angel, and the Terrifying Angel
    each one brings a gift impossible to decipher.  

    Follow the footprints.
    We are walking.
    Let us be crooked once again. 

    The trembling question is asked
    whether the fourth New Angel is
    localized or metastasized.
    Generalizations are for the Devil. 

    Let’s focus rather on the moment:
    see the spider on the web
    listen to the rain on the window pane
    let’s be wildly polylogic
    my soul-explosion expands in laughter
    and expounds out onto outrageous love. 

    This walk is not straight
    it is a crooked tale
    my feet and fingers wander wayward
    isn’t it good to be lost in the wood?
    with the mind’s ears and eyes of darkness
    the screech owl glides through the dusk
    searching for philosophers who have gone blind
    madness is a forgotten way
    so let us be crooked once again.  

    Pay attention.
    This is my dialectic. 

    Meeting a badger for the first time in the midnight rain
    loping between the wood and the retreating road
    before descending into the multi-chambered sett
    hearing the magnificent frog
    croaking on a leaf in the tepid pond
    then leaps down diving into another world. 

    JP Jacobsen, can you hear me still?
    this is my diremption
    my broken middle
    forever dwelling in the contradiction.

    Bartholomew Ryan is the author of Critical Lives: Fernando Pessoa (Reaktion Books, 2024).

    www.bartholomewryan.com

  • Rain in the Face

    Dawn sun, distant mountains, red cliffs near, white clouds scattered, still world, until a breeze caresses the desert floor, and a scorpion awakes, resting on a piece of earth where no human ever stood. In this wilderness stands a horse, and sitting on the horse a rider. Tail swishing, standing still, a motionless man watching, intently, an eagle high above, hunting, alive, living to fly. The warrior wears the painted face and the feathered headwear of his long fathers. He looks up at its broad wings, he smiles, the way eagles can’t.

    The dream maker is hiding. Morning departs, lifest part of the day, sleep distant, last night’s dreams evaporate. The man and his horse make the wilderness less lonely. Every day he starts at dawn. The man is thinking, no words, words know, within their boundaries. He wonders whether his friend, the horse, thinks thoughts. It is his destiny to be chieftain. Kick the stirrup, the horse moves on slowly, distant mountain west, snowy summits beckon, through sand, clip clop, the scorpion lifts her tail, otherwise still, the horse and man wander away, red cliffs of hues, scorpion watching, like she always does.

    Horse walking in the desert, solitary in the wilderness, desert sands have no mind, just beauty, the thirsty horse knows. The thirsty man sees the distant river. The world was made for him. He thinks. He doubts. The dream maker dances in the flames of the fire the man has made, to keep him warm in the night and to ward off evil spirits. He is safe near the fire, under the stars. His tribe is at home, sleeping in the teepee, but he must search, with his horse, for his spirit guide. Then he will discover his name, and finally reach manhood. Now they are far away, beyond horizons, past the setting sun. Four months he has been gone, alone, searching, travelling where the stars are strange, waiting for the spirit guide to reveal itself, now just wilderness, loneliness, risk becoming destiny. Look to the clouds, a formless shape, no sitting bull, no crazy horse, who found their spirits in the shapes of clouds. His spirit is hiding, somewhere in the world. Like the dream maker does.

    The horse drinks from the river, the man stoops beside it, water in a cup of hands, he drinks, life itself returning, fear turns to laughter, there was never a first time, there was never a last. The sun sets, night falls, the universe emerges from the sky, the horse sleeps, the man is awake, seeing other worlds, not understanding, only understanding here, this world that created him, from nothing. He watches the stars at night, he is life, as much as the horse, as much as the river and the forest, the bear, the antelope, the eagle riding high in the morning, and the stars become memory, in his learning mind. At night, by the fire, he searches for his spirit guide in the galaxy rain.

    He raises his head, they see mountains, the horse knows and they walk, through the day, upwards, high near the summit, stone cliff juts, they stand on the precipice together, horse and man, looking out, over the great valley below, and above, the grey wanderers, summoning thunder, electric flashes in the distance, their hair blows, they are unwavering, a galloping storm approaches, they alone are conscious, they remain still in the oncoming storm, the man looks up, the skies open, the spirit guide arrives, he looks to the universe hiding, down comes the water, beating like drums, front hooves rise high, and the man speaks for the first time in months, “Rain in the Face’. It is done.

    Feature Image: Frank Cone

  • Name-Calling and the Fall of the West

    The cultural commentator Konstantin Kisin said recently in a podcast that the left had destroyed language. For instance, the lazy use of the words “nazi” and “fascist” to condemn someone who holds differing views has only succeeded in draining those words of meaning. If everyone is a fascist then no one is; and what then do we call an actual fascist?

    But the distortion of language by the left goes far deeper than this and is, paradoxically, far simpler. Its roots appear to be in simple name-calling, a favourite weapon of both young girls and perhaps not surprisingly, radical feminists who gave us terms like male chauvinist “pigs”, casually de-humanising men while charging them with a “crime” of sorts. When I was a young man a favourite feminist darling of the left in Ireland was Nell McCafferty, a whiskey swigging ladette who made jokes about house-training men and so on, cheered on by her lesbian and misandrist supporters.

    By the way, the word “misandrist” is one that gets downplayed a lot in the culture. I once had a windows spell-checker that didn’t recognize the word. For those unfamiliar with the term, a misandrist is a woman who despises men, the dark sister of misogynist. A prime example was that loon Valerie Solanas who shot Andy Warhol, she a CEO for the Society for Cutting Up Men or SCUM. We don’t hear a whole lot about her in the culture, and yet, there she is, as large as life, living proof that even feminists can be toxic.

    Andy Warhol and his dachshund Archie Warhol, 1973.

    SCUM

    It was Jordan Peterson, a clinical psychologist and recipient of oodles of leftist insult and yet still standing, though admittedly prone to bursting into tears every now and then, who explained the difference between male and female aggression and how it is expressed. Feminist propagandists have gone a long way in persuading the culture that the female is devoid of aggression, that violence is strictly a male preserve, except for the occasional regrettable anomaly like the CEO of SCUM, who, feminists would argue, was so hurt by men that she was kind of infected by their innate violence, and so, the shooting of Andy Warhol and all violence of women against men is actually men’s fault, the women in question being “victims” of male violence responding in like for like form, the only language men understand.

    Jordan Peterson explained that while male aggression is generally expressed overtly, female aggression is more indirect, expressing itself in the form of relational aggression: speaking badly of someone, destroying their social links, setting out to inflict reputational damage and destruction, achieved for the most part through simple name-calling.

    “If you don’t vote me on to the board I’ll tell everyone you’re a nazi.”

    “Okay, I’ll vote for you, but just this once. And please, tell everyone I’m ‘nice’.”

    “I might. If you pretend really hard to be nice. You being an aggressive man an’ all.”

    King’s College London graduands with VivienneWestwood-designed academic dress.

    Homo Placidus

    There tends to be a more placid kind of man occupying the faculties of universities and they were a pushover for the aggressive feminists seeking power in the academy, the very workshop of language and thought. We all know what happened next, they took lots of seats of power in the academy and in publishing and in the media and, with postmodernism, succeeding in drenching reality in endless question marks: did it even exist, or is it just something some selfish man made to please himself? Which brings us more or less to today… except, that is, for one important factor which is often overlooked. Because in faraway places, people with an interest in taking power in the west noted that name-calling worked as a weapon for seizing power. It was a peculiar, almost comical Achilles heel of the western male. He could be toppled by calling him a pejorative name. How very interesting…

    The late Christoper Hitchens was probably the first to notice the danger. In 2011 he warned of a term that had been deliberately created to take advantage of this western weakness. A term that would have the effect of silencing dissent while delivering power to gleeful enemies of the west. The term was “Islamophobia”, a brilliant construction with in-built gaslighting. “There’s nothing wrong with Islam, you simply have a phobia.”

    Christopher Hitchens.

    Barbarians

    Hitchens said at the time “…this is very urgent business ladies and gentlemen. I beseech you, resist it while you still can, before the right to complain is taken away from you, which will be the next thing. You will be told you can’t complain because you’re Islamophobic. The term is already being introduced into the culture as if it was an accusation of race hatred or bigotry, whereas it’s only the objection to the preachings of a very extreme and absolutist religion …”

    Hitchens went on to show how the use of the term will open the way to power by silencing objections. And it works like a charm. But even so, it still needs help, and this help comes from those already holding cultural power and influence. Hitchens, finishing with a plea, describes how the power of the west will be taken:

    “…the barbarians never take a city till someone holds the gates open for them and it’s your own preachers who will do it for you and your own multicultural authorities who will do it for you. Resist. Resist it while you can.”

    It’s difficult not to believe sometimes now, especially when some girl is raped or some man gets his head lopped off, that our own elites and the liberal left, as well-intentioned as they may be, have inadvertently fallen into the role of gate-openers for the barbarian hordes, to put our current civilisational situation in a Romanesque context.

    What an ironic historical twist this could turn out to be. That the men of the west, helpfully agreeable in the feminist cause, inadvertently created the conditions for the takeover of the west by men whose main power gesture is the subjugation of women.

    Feature Image: Ipanemah Corella

  • Kneecapped at Coachella

    Kneecap caused a stir at Coachella this year—though you wouldn’t know it from the official festival footage. The Belfast rap trio opened their set with a searing visual: a burning police car, references to British imperialism, American complicity in Palestine, and a general tone of “we’re not here to play nice.” The response? Censorship. The land of the free doesn’t want freedom with a pulse.

    Now the Metropolitan Police are investigating them. For what, exactly? Performing a politically charged rap set in California? The timing is transparent. This isn’t just about bad vibes—it’s a coordinated attempt to silence a group that refused to dilute its politics for a global stage.

    It’s a tale as old as time. An artist speaks plainly and suddenly everyone forgets their free speech talking points. Protest is fine, apparently, as long as it’s vague, aesthetic, and monetizable. Hashtags are fine, but don’t actually use your platform to say something real.

    Let’s be honest, Kneecap was never a good fit for Coachella’s algorithm-optimized playlist of “vibe music for brand partnerships.” This is a festival that sells an illusion of bohemianism and alternative living: surface-level aesthetic progressivism, but just inoffensive enough for corporate sponsors.

    Real politics, especially the messy kind grounded in colonial trauma, don’t do numbers on TikTok.

    So, when Kneecap dared to connect U.S. foreign policy to real-world consequences in Gaza, or referenced the British state’s still-rotting legacy in the North, it wasn’t just disruptive. It was unprofitable, and Coachella was never going to protect art that costs money.

    Philip Anschutz, the billionaire owner of AEG and founder of Coachella, himself keeps a little black book full of far-right sponsors. He’s spent years quietly funding conservative and far-right causes, including anti-LGBTQ+, climate denialist, and anti-union organisations. When this became public in 2017, there was outcry, but no real reckoning, just a vague statement about “reviewing donations”,  then back to business as usual.

    It’s a real-time contradiction: we sell rebellion, but the money is filthy lucre. So, when an act like Kneecap turns up and delivers a protest that isn’t product-tested, the machine grinds to a halt.

    The hypocrisy is unreal. People will invoke “free speech” to defend actual ideological fascists on YouTube, but feel uneasy as soon as someone mentions the IRA or shouts “Tibet” in Shanghai.

    Björk did just that in 2008, ending her song “Declare Independence” with a cry of “Tibet! Tibet!” at a concert in Shanghai. Chinese authorities were livid. Western media downplayed it. Promoters distanced themselves. Her remaining tour dates in the region were effectively cancelled. It was a single, spontaneous act of solidarity, and it cost her.

    Sinead O’Connor tore up a photo of Pope John Paul II on Saturday Night Live in 1992, declaring, “Fight the real enemy,” in protest of abuse within the Catholic Church. She was vilified. Media outlets called her insane, radio stations boycotted her. Joe Pesci threatened to hit her during the very next episode of SNL. Madonna, herself no stranger to co-opting Catholic imagery or controversy in general, mocked her. The crowd at Madison Square Garden booed her offstage at a Bob Dylan tribute show. It took twenty odd years for the world to admit she was right, but she didn’t live to hear an apology.

    The problem isn’t just the festivals or the corporations. Green Day are another perfect example. They made a half-hearted nod to genocide and fascist governments during their set, altering a lyric or two. Fair play to them, I suppose, but it was so blatantly performative. “We stand with humanity,” Billie Joe said, He probably later stood at the bar with his mate, Mark Zuckerberg, too.

    Dissent is just content, now. Discourse is clickbait, and anything that can’t be simplified into a slogan or sold on a t-shirt is “too much.” But protest isn’t a playlist. It’s not supposed to make you comfortable. It’s supposed to make you act.

    If the music industry actually cared about free speech, it would protect artists like Kneecap. Instead, it gives us curated rebellion. Safety pins in ears. “Resist” T-shirts made in sweatshops. Festival stages that erase the parts of performances that weren’t “brand-aligned.”

    Kneecap didn’t ask for permission. They didn’t try to fit in.

    But let’s be honest. They’re not martyrs either. They’ve since walked back their most controversial comments, stating that they do not support Hamas or Hezbollah. It’s not betrayal as much as it is survival, however. They have a career to protect, fans to answer to, and possibly legal consequences on the table.

    There’s a case currently before the U.K. High Court to remove Hamas from the list of proscribed terrorist organisations. They could’ve used this moment to say, “Actually, let’s have that conversation” but they didn’t, and perhaps they couldn’t.

    After the fallout, Kneecap didn’t apologise. They didn’t roll out a PR strategy. They posted a defiant message: “We will not be silenced.” It’s not clean, it’s not simple, but it’s real, and in a culture obsessed with diet dissent, that’s rare enough to be worth defending.

    Thankfully, several of their peers have. Following the decision to drop the trio from Cornwall’s Eden Project festival this summer, more than 40 music acts signed an open letter in support of their unwavering stance. Those included come as no great surprise, given their public support for progressive causes.

    Art is inherently political. The fact that one act has not spoken but shouted their truth to power, with the endorsement of so many, some luminary and legendary, is not just worth defending. It’s worth celebrating.

  • Musician of the Month: Oscar Carmona

    Loose Notes with a Cup of Coffee

    “The bird fights its way out of the egg. The egg is the world.
    Who would be born must first destroy a world.”
    — Hermann Hesse, Demian

    1. The first time I ever touched a piano must have been when I was 10 or 12 years old. It was the piano at my school, set in the library. One day, I was there alone, opened it up, and pressed down some of its old ivory keys. Though out of tune, the sound had such an impact on me that, unknowingly, it would alter the course of my life forever.

    2. One day, still a child, I saw one of the many versions of The Phantom of the Opera on television. I didn’t know it at the time, but one of the pieces featured in that film was Bach’s Toccata and Fugue in D minor. I think that experience and the 1985 earthquake in Santiago de Chile are among the most powerful memories I have from those early years.

    3. I cannot live without making music. I don’t want to live without making music. I don’t want to, I can’t, I wouldn’t, I couldn’t.

    4. My relationship with music is constant, deep, intense, passionate, radical, playful, violent, cubist, serious, abstract, warm, tender, emotional, multifaceted, energetic, imaginative, luminous, dark, dense, fragile, mechanical, sweet, loving, experimental, eternal, fast-paced, arid, quick, vertiginous, surrealist, poetic. And so on.

    A brief journey through my work across formats, exploring contemporary composition, electronics, and music theatre.

    5. My mother encouraged my approach to classical music. She always suggested that I listen to it, saying it would be good for me. One day, with all her love, she handed me a cassette. Everything changed after that. I must have been around 12. I owe her so much.

    6. One day, my father bought me a piano. It was a significant financial effort at the time, but he did it with love, so I could dedicate myself to music, to learn and to play. I’m still making music. I owe him so much.

    7. Although classical music has been the core of my life, I’ve ventured in many directions. Classical, experimental, “neoclassical,” free improvisation, contemporary, graphic scores, improvisation guides, music theatre, electronics, hybrids of all kinds, music for dance, for film, ambient music, strange experiments for interactive installations, and on and on. There’s nothing better than navigating through different sonic worlds, getting to know them, playing with them, combining them, rejecting them, incorporating them.

    8. Sometimes I ask myself: what’s my tribe? And I respond: choose only one kind of music and you’ll have a tribe. So, I prefer to remain without a tribe and stop asking myself such useless questions.

    9. I’d say I’m a musical explorer, perhaps an adventurer, close to Ryuichi Sakamoto, who also ventured in countless directions, or to Bryce Dessner, or Laurie Anderson. But undoubtedly, I am much closer to Sakamoto than to anyone else. Thank you, Sakamoto-san.

    10. First Bach and Sakamoto, then Jarrett, Bruckner, and Mehldau. Later Sassetti, Satie, Fauré, Poulenc, Ligeti, Takemitsu, Awadis, Goebbels, Glass, Richter, Mompou, Johannsson, Lutoslawski, Feldman, Kilar and so many more. If only there were enough life for so much music.

    Memoria”, for piano and electronics, from my latest Ep Invisible (live version):

    11. I compose in different ways depending on the project I’m working on. Sometimes I do it by improvising at the piano and recording. Other times in Ableton, playing with sounds and ideas or provoking situations I can’t control to find things I didn’t know I could achieve. Mistakes are a fundamental part of my creative process.

    12. I read a lot—whatever I can, whatever interests me. Essays. Novels. Poetry. Philosophy. Astronomy. Science. Reading is a fundamental pillar of my creative practice.

    13. I listen to a huge amount of music. Sometimes, I even listen to music while I’m already listening to music. Sometimes, I listen to music while I’m composing. It might sound chaotic, but in my internal order, everything has its place. It’s like listening to myself and the world at the same time, making the right (or wrong) connections.

    14. Sometimes I read about music and different creative processes. I like developing new ways to approach creation. I copy everything that interests me, or rather, everything that resonates with me. Sometimes it’s just to learn an approach, but sometimes it’s to incorporate a new method. Sometimes I realize it doesn’t serve me, but the pleasure of knowing it and learning it outweighs everything. I’m full of useless knowledge.

    15. I use many notebooks to jot down ideas, thoughts, projects, lists, and whatever comes to mind. I try not to discard anything, no matter how exotic it may seem. I try to do the same with my musical ideas; I jot them all down when I come across something I like. My musical notation notebooks are full of ideas, scribbles, bits and pieces, unfinished works, moments, fragments, microfragments, sounds, chords, situations. Sometimes I feel like a collector of ideas.

    16. A good part of my music is basically literature. I’ll say no more, but first Cortázar, Bolaño, Tomeo. Then Aira, Auster, Perec, Manguso, and many more.

    17. My music, especially for piano, doesn’t usually begin with any specific emotion. I can create deeply sad music without feeling even the slightest sadness, or the other way around—I can create tremendously intense or joyful music without internally being in that state. I don’t believe one should always make catharsis and transfer their feelings to music. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. What fascinates me are the colors, the physical sensations of sound, the rhythm, the superimpositions, the harmonies, the modulations, the dissonances. Let emotions arise from the music for the listener—I am just an intermediary.

    18. Sometimes my music is based on concrete ideas, concepts, situations, constraints. In smaller pieces, sometimes I just want to explore solutions based on a rhythm or the exclusive use of certain notes that come to mind in the moment. But in my larger works, especially in music theatre, there are always concepts that carry significant research behind them. I never start composing until I’ve clarified everything that underpins the work. And most of the time, I write all the texts first (Insomnia, Microteatro, etc.).

    19. I borrow a lot from cinema: rhythm of the image, camera movements, time jumps, counterpoint, editing, transitions, lighting. Pure gold for making music. And yes, my music is often quite cinematic. Kubrick, Nolan, Hitchcock, Tarkovsky, Villeneuve, Wenders. Scorsese, Herzog, Eggers. Buñuel, Lanthimos, Garland, Joon-ho, Lang. More time, I need more time…

    20. I’ve had more failures than successes. I believe I have very few of the latter, or perhaps none at all. But failures—yes, plenty. And the big, resounding kind. It’s quite a long list.

    YouTube: “Artificial”, Part II, excerpt (violin, viola, percussion, electronics)

    21. My tempos are slow. Though I’ve been making music for many years, it’s only since the pandemic that my own voice, my sound, my true artistic self has begun to emerge. It’s not something static—far from it. It mutates, shifts, moves, transforms. But whatever makes it mine (something ineffable, perhaps) is always there. It wasn’t easy to find, nor did it happen overnight. It was a conscious, almost desperate search to uncover it. Some readings helped spiritually: La música os hará libres (R. Sakamoto), Words Without Music (P. Glass), Vertical Thoughts (M. Feldman). Others helped psychologically: Art and Fear (Orland, Bayles), The Artist’s Way (J. Cameron), La vía del creativo (G. Lamarre). But without a doubt, reading between the lines, listening, listening to myself, stripping away everything, and leaping—that was the most important thing. I went back to the basics (Sakamoto), and then everything else came.

    22. Although I always wanted to dedicate myself fully to music, for reasons I still haven’t entirely clarified (though I certainly understand them well), I spent 22 years in academia. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy teaching, but I am not a teacher. I am an artist.

    23. One of the most important moments of my life happened at the end of 2022. The Ensemble Vertixe Sonora premiered my piece Artificial in Spain. That was the year I decided to leave everything behind and devote myself 100% to music. I left my position as director and professor of a university program—with an excellent salary—to dedicate my whole mind and energy to making music, launching myself into total uncertainty. It was the best decision of my life, and luckily, I made it before turning 50.

    24. Once, my piano teacher told me I wasn’t cut out for piano—that I should dedicate myself to anything else. “I’ll study composition,” I said. He let out a loud, brief laugh while I crumbled inside. But a thousand years later, here I am, standing, happy, making music.

    25. My first trip outside of Chile was at 26, and it was to Japan. It was the most incredible and exotic experience of my life. It happened because I was selected to participate in a Contemporary Music Festival in Yokohama. They covered everything, and they performed my only string quartet. There’s definitely a before and after that trip.

    “Microteatro Psicopático” Teaser (Music Theatre)

    26. I stopped studying piano formally because of that teacher. Even so, I was never entirely distant from the instrument and managed to resume my studies seventeen years later. Since then, I not only play and record my own music, but I’ve also been able to perform it in concert.

    27. Since dedicating myself fully to music a little over two years ago, I’ve created more music than in all the 22 years before. I’ve published some of it, but there’s still so much waiting to come to light, much more waiting to be shaped, and much more waiting to be played live and shared.

    28. The next 50 years, I’ll make more music than in the previous 200. This is just the beginning.


    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/oscar.carmona.i/

    YouTube: @Oscar-Carmona

    www.oscarcarmona.cl

    Linktree: https://linktree.com/oscarcarmona

  • We Must Begin with the Land

    Review: We Must Begin with the Land: Seeking Abundance and Liberation through Social Ecology by Stephen E. Hunt (Zer0 books, 2025)

    Environmentalists find themselves in the paradoxical situation of living in a golden age of radical ecological thinking – even as our global economic system blasts through one climactic tipping-point after another, more or less guaranteeing the extinction of planetary life as we know it at present. A rich field of research and intellectual inquiry has sprung up from between the fault-lines of the emerging climate crisis, along with concomitant movements centred (among other aims) on food sovereignty, habitat protection, the democratization of land holdings, and anti-extractivist resistance. Joining in this spirit of stewardship and challenge, Stephen E. Hunt has produced a prospectus for what might be described as eco-socialist change, in an attempt to measure and mitigate “the profound reengineering of life on Earth” that capitalist food systems have wrought. In place of monopolistic land-hoarding and ever-expanding “agri-business” – which trace their roots to the era of settler colonialism – he makes the case for a not-for-profit, “circular economy”, based on the principle that “nutritious food” is “an essential human need.”

    If Hunt draws inspiration from “utopian” ideas – the notion, say, that local commoning could provide a vital food source for significant numbers of people in the U.K. (where he lives), in place of the corporate or commodified provisions they currently rely on – he is nothing if not clear-eyed about the scale and extremity of the climate catastrophe predicted to engulf our already warming world. The vitality of his analysis might be said to stem from its symbiotic pairing of transformative hopes with a deep-running awareness of natural necessities. It is simply not possible, he states, to reach or maintain “ecological integrity within planetary boundaries” without simultaneously “addressing profound social problems embedded in deep history.” Far from being inevitable, he argues in a similar vein, famine is “primarily a social problem that demands solutions founded on social justice.”

    If Hunt often focuses on the practicalities of ecological action – how to grow wholesome food, and nurture communal practices, in a durable way – he nevertheless situates his proposals within an internationalist horizon. His book draws as much on the lessons of the Kurdish revolutionaries in Rojava, say, or the grassroots agricultural labourers comprising La Via Campesina, as on the experience of local campaigners in Bristol, his home. We Must Begin with the Land is anything but parochial. In fact, by arguing for the radicalism of community gardening, foraging, the conversion of waste grounds into allotments, and the like, Hunt may find himself in the vanguard of progressive thinking. Some commentators – not without reason – have attempted to hitch the cause of ecological adaptation exclusively to the wagon of the nation-state, essentially envisaging climate adaptation as a matter of enlightened technocratic adjustments from on high. Hunt’s contrasting emphasis is on the importance of localised, grassroots environmentalism, with an anti-capitalistic edge – aligning him politically with the late Grace Lee Boggs, for example, whose campaigns for community-led ecological regeneration in Detroit offered a new model of labour agitation in that industrialised city.

    Hunt also invokes the “social ecology” of Murray Bookchin, a multi-faceted philosophy that advances a critique of “the historic turn towards hierarchy and patriarchy” within radical movements – often hampered, ironically, by rigid structures and internal power imbalances – as well as a diagnosis of the “statism” and “capitalism” that define wider social structures, particularly in the global north. By re-examining our conceptions of urban and rural, of agricultural production and consumption, Hunt observes (via Bookchin), reformers can “ensure that human and ecological well-being are at the heart of democratic initiatives”, bringing the grand ideals of socialist transformation down to earth – and into an actionable zone inhabited by actual communities. During the Occupy Wall Street protests, he recalls (perhaps with a tinge of nostalgic over-statement), the occupiers’ “self-managed food provision” merged into something of an improvised welfare service. The movement exposed the degree of social isolation in the twenty-first century’s metropolitan centres. One of the chief benefits of communal eating is to help to address alienation.

    Such schemes, of course, are driven as much by physiology as by psychological or socio-econonmic factors. Our ability not only to think beyond the present infrastructre of a capitalistic economy, but physically to survive, is directly connected to the attitudes we hold and the measures we take regarding food and the land it grows from. It was hunger, after all, and not just a spirit of experimentation and progressivism, that inspired the rebellious denizens of Kronstadt to cultivate the waste grounds of their city in 1921 – instituting a “horticultural commune”, according to the historian Voline, that the Bolsheviks, intent on centralization, were zealous in repressing, even after the famous mass of striking sailors there had been executed or dispersed. Then as now, democracy and ecology may be thought of as connected strands of any authentically revolutionary endeavour. As Kristin Ross has written:

    Land and the way it is worked is the most important factor in an alternative ecological society. Capital’s real war is against subsistence, because subsistence means a qualitatively different economy; it means people actually living differently, according to a different conception of what constitutes wealth and what constitutes deprivation.

    Such issues take on a palpable urgency in the age of climate change, as extreme weather events merge with the predicted decimation of habitats and food-chains. Whether or not we realise it, how we feed ourselves (and learn to live with one another) is a crucial question for communities everywhere – a question likely to turn into an existential dilemma if left unanswered. In Hunt’s words,

    as the food crisis worsens, it will be increasingly necessary to make productive use of urban or “peri-urban” land for local self-provisioning… it is wise to activate urban gardening as a collective form of commoning that transcends the atomisation of communities into clusters of individuals.

    Noting the explosion of factory farming and other for-profit models of meat production globally, he wonders: “Can the straight trajectory of relentless economic growth be bent into the spiralling plenty of truly regenerative production?” For readers in Ireland, these speculations hold special resonance. A nation-wide campaign centred on community-organised green spaces and vegetable allotments – such as Hunt envisions – could serve as an original, effective response to the expanding epidemic of dereliction afflicting Irish towns and cities (itself in part a symptom of the housing and cost-of-living crises that have caused concomitantly high levels of emigration and homelessness). As to the issue of food sovereignty, despite inspiring efforts by networks such as Talamh Beo to implement sustainable models of “agro-ecology” across the country, successive Irish governments seem to have remained in thrall to a meat (and dairy) industry operating on a commercial model hostile to workers’ rights and favouring large-scale operations that are emissions-intensive. Meanwhile, the goal of reaching even the minimum requirements for decarbonising our farming practices seems as illusory as it’s ever been. A dramatic re-set in local and national policy is needed – and soon.

    Among other things, there is arguably a risk of hubris in a progressive politics that centres its aims and actions solely on the state and its traditional organs of power. As Hunt suggests, in an era of drastic ecological and economic ruptures, a consumerist society that simultaneously “does not know how to feed and dress itself”, that destroys abundant eco-systems to make way for industrial-scale farming and vast monocultures, can hardly be taken as the sanest or safest of socio-environmental paradigms. We must begin with the land, he declares – and re-build our agricultural economy from the grassroots up. The change we need starts here and now.

  • Does Dublin Require 3 Railway Systems?

    The future of urban transport policy lies not in expansion but in the intelligent use of existing traffic areas.  The objective of ensuring mobility for people travelling to work and shopping and during leisure time requires urban traffic management based on modern information technology.
    Ernst Joos, Deputy Director of Zurich Transport. ‘Lessons in Transportation Planning from Zurich.  Economy and Ecology are not contradictions.’ (Lecture, Dublin Transportation Office, Embassy of Switzerland, Dublin, June 10 1999)

    Over the past twenty-five years, those responsible for managing Dublin have failed to draw any lessons from Zurich, one of the most desirable cities in the world in which to live. If they had, they would not now be seriously proposing to add yet another railway system to the two already existing. The proposed MetroLink is a completely different system to the existing LUAS (light rail) and DART/Commuter services (heavy rail). LUAS trams will be unable to run on the MetroLink rail, and vice versa (see About, Frequently Asked Questions, MetroLink – The Basics, par 6).

    Resources committed to MetroLink (€500m to date) have crowded out the development of other, less costly, options which would, by now, have made it easier to move around our capital city region.

    Place-making – an approach to urban planning and design that focuses on the people who use a space, rather than just the physical structures or buildings. The idea is to create places that are not just functional, but also beautiful and meaningful to the people who live, work, and play there. This has long been overlooked by the governing networks of politicians, senior public servants, policy makers, as well as the relevant planners, engineers, economists, architects, property developers and builders. Focusing on competitiveness alone will not make our capital city a pleasant place to live, work and linger.

    For some time, there has been a deliberate policy of removing through traffic from a small part of Dublin city centre. MetroLink is the most recent iteration by insiders/incumbents who did not follow through on the 1998 government decision to build a mainly on-street light rail system for Dublin.

    As proposed, MetroLink (costing anywhere from €12bn to €23bn) again fails to ensure that place-making objectives are applied consistently, and with equal force, throughout our capital city.

    Ballymun provides an excellent example of this failure. When the 1960s-built-suburb was regenerated during the 1990s, the main street of this residential area became a six-lane highway for through traffic. Such traffic is a major form of community severance.

    The proposed MetroLink will be in a tunnel, under the main street which will still have through traffic. National and local politicians, policymakers and interest groups support this. Yet the same people are actively restricting such through traffic from the city centre.

    The Government decision to extend LUAS to Finglas is an opportunity to reset the go-stop-go practices of the past twenty-five years. Our public authorities can use this to keep the experienced staff and supply chains needed to build LUAS networks serving other parts of Dublin (e.g. Drumcondra, Santry, Ballymun, Beaumont, Coolock, Edenmore, Lucan, Clondalkin, Ballyfermot, the south city centre, Harold’s Cross, Terenure, Rathfarnham, Dundrum). People in Cork and Galway would also benefit from this focus as they too adopt LUAS-type services.

    Sustaining urban areas requires the application of mutually reinforcing measures consistently over decades. Instead of being focused on the creation and maintenance of places which raise the quality of life, development in Dublin has been reduced to a very limited form of building control on a project-by-project basis.

    We can enhance our cities by adopting stable policies and continuous investment. But we cannot rely on what emerges from different programmes for government, each drawn up for a single electoral cycle of no more than five years. Rapid decision-making on arbitrary projects has not worked to make housing affordable, or available, in the Dublin area. Nor will similar incoherence deliver an attractive public transport network.

    LUAS Disconnect

    This perpetuates a lack of insight that resulted in two disconnected LUAS lines. There are no plans to remedy this lack of joined up thinking.

    On April 8, 2025 the Government approved the Revised National Planning Framework. This recognises the issue of Sustainable Mobility (National Strategic Outcome 5 p.161-2). Dublin and other Irish cities and major urban areas are heavily dependent on road and private, mainly car-based, transport with the result that there is more and more congestion.

    The National Development Plan makes provision for transformational investment in public transport and sustainable mobility solutions in the main urban centres that will progressively put in place a more sustainable alternative. For example, major public transport infrastructure projects identified in the Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area to 2042 – such as the MetroLink and DART+ as well as the Luas and Bus Connects investment programmes – will keep our capital and other key urban areas competitive.

    In the Greater Dublin Area Transport Strategy 2022 –2042, the National Transport Authority (NTA) continues to spin the idea that LUAS is networked, when our experience is otherwise (‘Greater Dublin Area Transport Strategy 2022-2042’ asserts that ‘in conjunction with Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII), in December 2017 we opened Luas Cross City, linking the Red and Green lines and providing an interchange between commuter rail and Luas at Broombridge.’ p.11).

    What is worse, NTA persists with this bluster despite their own strategy showing clearly that they propose more lines which are not interlinked.

    Figure 1. Dublin Light Rail (now LUAS) as proposed.

    In 1997, Dublin’s light rail was proposed as one interconnected system (see Figure 1). However, the Dublin Chamber of Commerce opposed on street LUAS. In May 1998, the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrat government decided to develop Dublin’s light rail system (now LUAS) as follows

    1. Phase 1 – Line A from Tallaght to Middle Abbey Street;
    2. Phase 2- Line B from Sandyford to Sr. Stephen’s Green;
    3. Phase 3 – an eastward extension of Line A from Middle Abbey Street to Connolly and perhaps then on to the Docklands;
    4. Phase 4 – an underground extension of Line A to Broadstone then continuing with surface running to Finglas and the Dublin Airport.

    This bizarre decision meant that another depot (for maintenance etc.) had to be built for Line B (now the Green Line), as the Red Cow depot (now on the Red line) could not service trams, although it was designed and built for three LUAS lines!

    At the time, I estimated that the cost of connecting the two lines was about the same as the cost of acquiring a site and building another depot. The only remaining green space next to the Sandyford Business district became the depot. Recently Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council re-zoned an existing brownfield site to create public open spaces.  This was a belated response to the growth of offices and residences in that area.

    Nothing was done to build the Phase 4 short tunnel under the city centre, as decided in 1998. Shortly afterwards, in 2001, the Government had an opportunity to correct its basic error when ‘A Platform for Change. Final Report An integrated transportation strategy for the Greater Dublin Area 2000 to 2016’ was published.

    Figure 2. LUAS-on-street light rail.

    This proposed an on-street LUAS network (see Figure 2) as one of a set of mutually reinforcing measures designed to make it easier to move around the Greater Dublin Area. Note that this report proposed, inter alia:

    1. A LUAS line through Drumcondra to Dublin Airport with a spur line to Howth Junction, which has DART and commuter rail services;
    2. A Docklands loop across a then proposed bridge at Macken Street– now the Samuel Beckett Bridge.
    3. The LUAS Green line was to be upgraded to Metro.
    Figure 3. METRO segregated light rail.

    The Metro then proposed is radically different to MetroLink. The decision to extend the Green LUAS line through Broadstone to Broombridge on-street foreclosed the possibility of having a short tunnel between Ranelagh and Broadstone, as the Government decided in 1998.

    To see what a mutually-reinforcing set of rail-based options for the Dublin looks like see Figure 4. Bus services were supposed to be designed to complement this.

    Figure 4 Integrated rail transport for Greater Dublin Area

    Back to the Future

    It is time for a reset for MetroLink, which it is projected will cost up to a staggering €23 billion, which is two or three times the original estimate, especially given the economic uncertainty that has arisen since Donald Trump became President in January 2025.

    The application to extend the Green Line LUAS to Finglas is an opportunity to extend that project to Dublin Airport, as Cathal Daughton pointed out in a recent article. While welcome, the extension of the LUAS Green Line from Broombridge in Cabra to Charlestown in Finglas should have continued the additional 3km to Dublin Airport to create a city centre-airport rail link while the Metro is being built.

    TII estimate that the 4km LUAS Finglas project will cost between €420 and €720 million. Getting to the Airport could be done by extending LUAS through Ballymun to the old airport road at Santry (see Figures 14 and 15). That route would avoid the cost of going over or under the M50, in addition to serving more residential and business areas.

    Is journey time between Dublin City Centre and the Airport an issue?

    NTA published a number of Dublin Airport passenger surveys over the past twenty-five years .  These reports show that most passengers: take less than one hour to get to the Airport (see Figure 5); are travelling for holiday/leisure/visiting family friends (see Figure 6); and are not going to Dublin City Centre (see Figure 7).

    Figure 5. Journey Times to Dublin Airport 2001-2022.
    Figure 6. Trip purpose Dublin Airport passengers 1998 – 2022.

    The NTA reports show the purpose of passenger travel has scarcely changed over the past twenty-five years. This suggests that most passengers are not pressed for time.

    As regards the landside origin/destination of these passengers, NTA collected the data in surveys done in 2001, 2011, 2016 and 2022. The published reports do not, however, contain summary data for the years 2016 and 2022. The reports of the 2016 and 2022 surveys do not contain any explanation for this omission. The published data from the 2001 and 2011 reports show that less than one-quarter were going to/coming from Dublin City Centre (See Figure 7).  Any passengers that need faster journey times between Dublin Airport and the city centre have the options of getting taxis which can go through the Port Tunnel and use bus lanes.

    Why has the National Transport Authority (NTA) stopped publishing data on the landside origins/destinations of Dublin Airport passengers? Without such data, how can trends be assessed as a basis for investment?

    This does not correspond with what Robert Watt (then Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform) wrote in 2017. Among the outputs in 2014 from these economists is the Comprehensive Expenditure Report 2015-2017, a review of agri-taxation measures, and an evidence-based Strategic Framework for Investment in Land Transport. This work is high-quality economic analysis undertaken by Irish Civil Servants [my emphasis].

    Figure 7. Dublin Airport Passengers landside origin 2001, 2011.

    Arrival times for passengers departing Dublin Airport

    TII claim that MetroLink will result in morning peak journey time savings of fourteen minutes from St. Stephen’s Green to Dublin Airport. During weekdays, the morning peak (mainly into Dublin) is from 07.00-10.00 with an evening peak from 16.00–19.00 (mainly out of Dublin).

    NTA reported on the departure times of departing passengers. The reports for 2001 and 2011 did not contain this data aligned with peak hour travel times, see Figure 8. However, the 2016 and 2022 reports did, see Figure 9.

    Figure 8. Time of Arrival at Dublin Airport for Departing Passengers 2001, 2011.

    The 2016 and 2022 results offers insight on the impact of airport travel at peak commuting times. Note that the fourteen minute time saving is on a journey that is in the opposite direction to the normal city-centre inbound traffic we hear about in traffic bulletins covering the 07.00-10.00 morning peak.

    For 2022 (see Figure 9), over 70% of departing passengers travelled to Dublin Airport outside the peak commuting times of 07.00-10.00 and 16.00-19.00. This is up from the 60% reported on for 2016. This lack of fit between peak commuting times and the times when most people travel between the Airport and the city centre is not a robust basis for offering a cost-benefit of this MetroLink project.

    Figure 9  Time of Arrival at Dublin Airport for Departing Passengers 2016, 2022

    Commuting in the Dublin area

    Census 2016 maps (Figures 10 and 11) suggest that most commuting within the Greater Dublin Area within the M50; along corridors; to the North West (Blanchardstown N3/M3 corridor); the west (north/south of the N4/M4 Lucan Clondalkin area); the south-west (N7 Naas Road, N82 Tallaght).

    Neither Dublin Airport nor Swords stand out as places which call for exceptional investment to enhance public transport for people who live and/or work in those locations.

    The reports of the latest Census do not reproduce these maps. The Central Statistics Office (CSO) did not give any reason for dropping these maps from the Census 2022 report on commuting.

    Figure 10. Feeder Towns into each Dublin Census 2016.
    Figure 11. Catchment area of major workplace locations.

    North Dublin Compared to other parts of Dublin

    More people live in the north part of Dublin City than in any other part the Dublin area (see Figures 12 and 13). This has been the case for the past thirty years.

    Why is this area getting less attention for enhancing public transport than the route to Swords?

    Figure 12 Dublin City North population compared to other areas in Dublin 1991-2022.
    Figure 13. Dublin City North population compared to Fingal 1991-2022.

    Fingal East and Fingal West are based on the study area used for the NTA/AECOM Fingal/North Dublin Transport Study. These areas do not correspond to the new Dáil constituencies, which replaced Dublin North for the 2024 General Election.

    Comparing the North part of Dublin City to Cork is revealing. Earlier this month, the NTA began public consultation on the Emerging Preferred Route (EPR) for an eighteen kilometre twenty-station LUAS line for Cork. This is to support the objective of Cork becoming the fastest-growing city in Ireland over the next twenty years, with a targeted growth in population of 50 to 60 percent.

    In 2022, Cork City had a population of just 224,000. Growing by 50% (to 336,000) would mean that Cork’s population would still be less than the 346,000 people now living in the north part of Dublin city in 2022.

    A LUAS loop for Dublin North City

    In 2015, I commissioned two maps from the All-Island Regional Observatory (AIRO). These showed the then existing and proposed rail-based commuter services superimposed on, firstly Dublin’s Economic Core were measured as having more than seven hundred jobs per square kilometre; and secondly population density in the Dublin area, based on the then most recent Census 2011.

    In March 2024, I recommissioned an update based on the 2022 Census and the proposed MetroLink. On these, I superimposed a proposal for a North City LUAS Loop (see Figures 14 and 15)

    This North City LUAS loop would better serve the over one and a half million people in the Greater Dublin Area than the proposed MetroLink, as it recognises that most commuting takes place within the M50.

    This forms a network with the existing LUAS system, unlike the proposed MetroLink. It also serves parts of Dublin in which most people live. Furthermore, it would cost about €7 billion, i.e. less than a third of the estimated €23 billion MetroLink is projected to cost, and extends the proposed Finglas LUAS to sustain a programme of experience and supply chains required for LUAS in other urban areas, such as Cork and Galway.

    Ever since the 1998 decision to build LUAS, siloed thinking has prevailed. The public authorities did not follow through on the decisions taken then. MetroLink is just the latest example of that kind of ‘ad-hocery.’

    They have misdirected investment, as is clear by the failure to create a single integrated LUAS network as the key element of a series of mutually -reinforcing measures to enhance our capital city region.

    Figure 14. LUAS Loop North Dublin’s Core Economic Area Census 2022.
    Figure 15. LUAS Loop North Dublin Population Density Census 2022.

    Firstly, this proposed North City LUAS loop serves the northern part of Dublin’s Core Economic Area and the populated areas comprehensively, taking in Phibsboro’, Cabra, Finglas; Poppintree, Charlestown, Ballymun, Northwood; Santry, Dublin Airport, Swords, Drumcondra; Coolock, Beaumont, Kilmore, Edenmore, Donaghmede;

    Secondly it is integrated with LUAS and could link with a Docklands (North and South) LUAS loop using the Samuel Becket Bridge which is designed to carry LUAS.

    Thirdly, it offers two rail-based links between the Central Business District and Dublin Airport in addition to transport services which use the Port Tunnel, i.e. a direct link on LUAS via either Drumcondra or LUAS CrossCity; an indirect using DART/Commuter services at Howth Junction. There are also links with heavy rail services on the Maynooth/Mullingar/Longford line at both Drumcondra and Broombridge.

    It would also serve important trip attractors/generators including Mater/Cappagh/Beaumont/UPMC medical centres, Croke and Tolka Parks, all the DCU campuses, the Marino Institute of Education in addition to industrial areas at Coolock/Clonshaugh and Santry Finally it offers services to more areas experiencing social deprivation than the proposed MetroLink route.

    It would also serve important landmarks including Mater/Cappagh/Beaumont hospitals, Croke and Tolka Parks, all of the DCU campuses, the Marino Institute of Education. Finally it offers services to more areas experiencing social deprivation than the proposed MetroLink route.

    In its January 2025 Annual Review AECOM – an international consultancy company – called for programmatic thinking as a basis for investment in our future:

    As the world of infrastructure evolves, programmatic thinking is reshaping how organisations across the world approach planning and delivery. This shift to a cohesive, programme-based perspective is also gaining traction across the island of Ireland  It requires not only consistent, multi-annual funding but also a cultural change within individual delivery organisations in how projects are planned, prioritised, and executed.

    As proposed, MetroLink is the polar opposite of this kind of thinking. It reflects the politics of grand gestures more than quiet competence applied consistently over many election cycles.

    Ten years ago, NTA summarised the case for light rail in Dublin see Figure 16.  Despite the population growth, this still makes sense.

    Figure 16. Extract from NTA/AECOM Fingal/North Dublin Transport Study First Appraisal ReportNovember 2014.