Iyah May’s late-2024 single Karmageddon didn't become an instant hit because of its musical originality. Instead, it resonated because it encapsulated, in just three minutes, the chaos an entire social stratum experienced. The song features a rapid succession of modern horrors: COVID-19, “Big Pharma,” Gaza, inflation, misogynistic violence, celebrity foolishness, and the ceaseless conflicts on social media. May (Marguerite Clark), who served as a hospital doctor during the pandemic, presents the track as a cry from someone overwhelmed by their experiences, a lament from someone who has witnessed institutions fail and people suffer. Its power comes less from technical mastery and more from its reflection of society’s fractured consciousness amid crises.
The way her song circulated reveals m middle-class
frustrations rather than working-class ones from her manager and label, which
is unusual in an industry that often censors political content. Ryan Fournier
of Students for Trump then shared the music video and promoted it to his large
following. Newsweek quickly called her “the new darling of the political
right,” and outlets like the Epoch Times and ZeroHedge also picked up the
story. Within days, her song criticising corporate greed and labelling Israel’s
destruction of Gaza as genocide was being spread by political groups directly
involved in those issues.
This is not a paradox, but a symptom of confusion when true
anger lacks a political outlet. Without a large socialist movement to address
social collapse, right-wing groups fill the void, co-opting any discontent that
can be framed as “anti-elite,” “anti-establishment,” or “anti-media.” The
political right didn't support Karmageddon because they agree with it, but
because they can weaponise its mood. A song that hints at corruption and
institutional failure can easily fit into the right’s narrative of cultural
decline and moral decay, even if its lyrics criticise governments and
billionaires those outlets defend.
The song’s structure enhances its message of ideological
flexibility. Karmageddon functions as a list or scroll-song, presenting a
catalogue of disjointed horrors. Each item is given equal prominence: Gaza is
placed next to celebrity gossip; inflation beside misogynistic violence;
pandemic profiteering alongside online outrage. The song offers no analysis,
context, or explanation. The scroll reproduces it without questioning. This
flattening of experience reflects the social media environment the song
criticises: a realm where crises become interchangeable content, lacking
causality and historical depth.
May’s account contains some truth: pharmaceutical monopolies
profited immensely during the pandemic, millions died, working people bore the
economic burden through inflation while billionaires’ wealth increased, and
Israel’s attack on Gaza, supported by Washington, London, and Canberra,
qualifies as genocide. However, the framework reflects a disoriented middle
class, not the working class. It recognises corruption but not capitalism;
suffering but not the social systems that cause it. The enemies are portrayed
as “elites,” “the media,” and vague institutions, with the pandemic seen as a
conspiracy rather than the consequence of deliberate state policies that
prioritise profit over human life. This is why the right accepts it: critique
without class analysis lacks direction, and despairing politics can shift
toward resentment, conspiracy theories, and reaction.
.jpg)
The songs
Currently, May’s musical output revolves around a single
theme. Her earlier works on Island Records, including XO Girl (2021), MF ILY,
and others, primarily featured typical pop anthems centred on self-empowerment,
friendship, and resilience. These tracks fit well within mainstream pop:
vibrant, polished, emotionally straightforward, and somewhat politically
disengaged. The only exception was her 2019 debut, Pray, which hinted at social
issues, especially reflecting on the pressures of constant online scrolling and
the suffocating feedback loop of digital life. However, even this piece's
critique was mostly personal, focusing on internal struggles rather than
broader social commentary.
Karmageddon, self-released on November 13, 2024, and
produced by Danny Duke, represents a distinct shift. It is a list song akin to
Billy Joel’s We Didn’t Start the Fire but updated for a digital age where
scrolls replace newspapers and feeds replace the world. The narrator wakes up,
picks up her phone, and is immediately bombarded with headlines: Elon Musk’s
latest stunt, outrage from “the left,” the Gaza genocide, celebrity antics, tax
demands, and society's overall chaos. The chorus shifts to critique the
pandemic, accusing pharmaceutical giants of profiting from an artificial virus
while ordinary people contend with inflation and declining living standards.
May described the track as an anthem for turbulent times,
born of despair at “a divided world and deceitful corporations.” Musically, it
is competent and catchy, built around a glossy alternative-pop arrangement that
makes its political message accessible to mainstream audiences. Structurally,
however, the song reflects the chaotic experience it criticises. Items flash
past in quick succession, each given the same weight, with no real connection.
Gaza sits alongside celebrity gossip; inflation next to misogynistic violence;
pandemic profiteering beside online outrage. The scroll isn't analysed; it is
reproduced.
This simplification of experience is deliberate,
highlighting the ideological boundaries of the social layer behind the song.
Karmageddon conveys the feeling of living amid crises without understanding the
forces behind them. The villains are portrayed as "elites,” “the media,”
and corrupt institutions, with the pandemic depicted as a conspiracy rather
than a result of deliberate state policies that prioritise profit over life.
The listed catastrophes- war, disease, inflation, social atomization- are
presented as separate symptoms rather than interconnected parts of a single social
system driven by private profit.
This is why the song appeals to the political right even as
it criticises crimes they support. A critique lacking class analysis loses
direction. A politics of despair becomes easy to manipulate and reframe.
Armageddon’s structure- its rapid succession of horrors and lack of connection-
makes it ideologically vulnerable. It captures a real sense of exhaustion and
distrust but cannot fully explain this mood, leaving it open to exploitation.
Thus, the song is both a sincere cry of distress and limited, shaped by the
confusion it aims to express.
What the song sees
and what it cannot
Karmageddon contains some truths. Pharmaceutical monopolies
earned huge profits during the pandemic. Millions lost their lives. Working
people bore the cost of inflation while billionaires' wealth increased.
Israel’s attack on Gaza, supported by Washington, London, and Canberra, is a
clear genocide. A pop song referencing this is significant.
However, the song’s structure centres on the frustrations of
the middle class rather than the working class. It never mentions 'class,'
'capitalism,' or suggests that the listed catastrophes have a common origin in
a social system driven by private profit. Instead, it blames a changing group
of “elites,” “the media,” and corrupt institutions, framing the problem as a
simple plot.
This is crucial. Laboratories or vaccines did not mainly
cause the pandemic's widespread fatalities. Instead, they resulted from a
calculated strategy embraced by governments across the spectrum: reopening
workplaces and schools to let the virus spread so profits could continue. The
anti-mandate and anti-vaccine movement that Karmageddon highlights did not
oppose this strategy; rather, it vocally supported it on the streets, calling
for the termination of all public health measures in the name of “freedom.”
The song’s professed even‑handedness between “left” and
“right” serves the same function. To treat the official liberal establishment
and the extreme right as two equal irritants on a phone screen is to leave the
field open to the latter. Hence the spectacle of Students for Trump circulating
a song denouncing a genocide their own patrons are financing.
Why it resonates
The popularity of Karmageddon should not be
dismissed. It reportedly reached the UK singles sales chart, and its clips drew
millions of views. It speaks to a real and widespread mood: exhaustion,
isolation, distrust of official institutions, and a sense that nothing can be
done.
This mood is objective, not psychological. Inflation has
eroded wages, and the pandemic shattered health systems. Across political
parties- Labour in Australia, the Democrats in the U.S., Tories and Labour in
Britain- there has been oversight of war, austerity, and neglect of public
health. In the void left by the lack of a strong socialist alternative,
right-wing demagogues fill the space with resentment instead of explanations.
May’s response to the controversy, claiming “God has a plan," highlights
her limited perspective. She turns despair into resignation and faith. The
narrative ends where it started: alone, scrolling, waiting.
Toward a genuinely critical art
Iyah May deserves credit for refusing to bow to her
management and for naming the Gaza genocide when much of the music industry
remains silent. In an environment where major labels, PR teams, and corporate
sponsors exert enormous pressure to keep artists politically neutral, her
insistence on retaining a single lyric is not trivial. It represents a small
but real act of resistance against an industry that has spent decades
depoliticising popular music and disciplining artists who step outside the
narrow bounds of marketable sentiment. Artists should be free to write what
they please, and the pressure brought to bear on her from managers, labels, and
the right‑wing outlets that sought to appropriate her work should be opposed
without qualification.
But sincerity is not enough. The great protest music of the
past, from Woody Guthrie’s ballads of working-class struggle to the anti-war
songs of the 1960s, drew its power from an orientation toward social forces that
could change the world. Guthrie’s “union songs” were not simply expressions of
outrage; they were tied to the organised movement of millions of workers
fighting for wages, dignity, and democratic rights. The folk revival of the
early 1960s gained its force from the civil‑rights movement, from sit‑ins,
strikes, and mass demonstrations. Even the more ambivalent figures of that era,
such as Bob Dylan, were shaped by a political landscape in which collective
action was visible, tangible, and capable of altering the course of events.
Protest music mattered because it was connected to a living struggle.
Iyah May’s refusal to alter a lyric in Karmageddon
and her decision to part ways with her manager and label have been widely
interpreted as an act of artistic integrity. In a music industry where
political content is routinely softened, depoliticised, or buried under
euphemism, her insistence on naming the Gaza genocide stands out. It is a small
but genuine act of defiance: a young artist, without the protection of a major
label, choosing to hold on to a political truth rather than submit to
commercial pressure. Her stance is not programmatic or rooted in a coherent
political worldview. Still, it is nonetheless a refusal- a moment in which an
artist declines to participate in the sanitisation of reality.
Ed Sheeran’s conduct in the Macklemore affair reveals the
opposite trajectory. When Macklemore was quietly dropped from Sheeran’s Loop
Tour after expressing solidarity with Palestinians, Sheeran did not defend him.
Instead, he retreated into the language of “inclusivity” and “different
approaches to advocating for peace,” a formulation that treats genocide as a
matter of tone rather than fact. His subsequent partnership with billionaire
NFL owner Robert Kraft to fund a Gaza relief initiative was widely read as an
attempt to launder the incident's optics without altering its political
substance. Sheeran’s camp includes figures such as Casey Wasserman, whose name
has resurfaced in Epstein‑related disclosures, and whose proximity to the
entertainment‑industrial complex exemplifies the dense web of corporate,
political, and financial interests surrounding global pop stardom.
The contrast between May and Sheeran is not primarily one of
personal courage. It is a contrast between two positions within the cultural
economy. May is a marginal figure, operating without the protective scaffolding
of corporate sponsorships, stadium tours, and billion‑dollar intermediaries.
Her refusal cost her a manager and a label, but she had little to lose beyond
that. Sheeran, by contrast, sits atop a vast commercial apparatus. His tours
are financed through sponsorship webs, insurance structures, and venue contracts
whose ownership interlocks with the same financial interests underwriting arms
manufacturers and occupation‑linked industries. An act of conscience from an
artist at that level does not merely risk a cancelled broadcast; it risks the
entire machinery that a nine-figure production depends on.
This is why Sheeran behaved exactly as the apparatus around
him was built to ensure he would behave. His “stand” was not a stand at all,
but a performance of neutrality designed to preserve commercial relationships.
May’s stand, however limited, was a genuine refusal not because she is more
virtuous, but because she is less integrated into the machinery that
disciplines artists into silence.
The deeper comparison lies in what each act reveals about
the era. Sheeran’s capitulation expresses mainstream pop's near-total
integration into corporate and geopolitical interests. May’s refusal expresses
the confused but real anger of a social layer that senses catastrophe but lacks
a political outlet. One reveals the apparatus; the other reveals the vacuum.
In that sense, May’s stand, however modest, points toward
the possibility of a critical art aligned with emerging working‑class struggle.
Sheeran’s reveals the cultural dead end of celebrity liberalism under late
capitalism.
Today, the working class is once again entering struggle
internationally, from strikes across Europe and North America to mass protests
against war and austerity. But this movement has not yet found clear artistic
expression. Much contemporary “political” music, including Karmageddon,
reflects the confusion of a social layer that senses catastrophe but cannot
locate its source. It catalogues horrors without connecting them, expresses
despair without pointing to agency, and gestures toward corruption without
identifying capitalism as the organising principle behind the crises it
describes. The result is a politics of mood rather than analysis, a protest the
right can easily appropriate because it lacks a coherent orientation toward the
forces capable of transforming society.
Artists who wish to speak truth about these dark times will
need to look beyond the phone screen, and beyond the confused populism that Karmageddon
both expresses and reinforces. The scroll, that endless stream of disconnected
outrage, is itself a mechanism of political disorientation. To reproduce it is
to remain trapped within it. The task of critical art is not to mirror
fragmentation but to overcome it, to reveal the underlying social relations
that produce war, inequality, and despair.
This requires an orientation toward the working class, the
only force capable of confronting the capitalist system that generates the
crises May describes. A genuinely critical art today would not simply list
horrors; it would illuminate their common root and point toward collective
action. It would reject the false equivalence of “left” and “right,” refuse the
conspiratorial shortcuts of anti‑mandate populism, and insist that the
suffering of millions is not the result of plots but of policies.
Iyah May’s defiance deserves recognition. But the path
toward meaningful protest art lies not in isolated cries of distress but in
aligning artistic expression with the emerging struggles of workers around the
world the only ground on which despair can be transformed into clarity, and
clarity into power.
Post Script
Iyah May’s Version of Wish You Were Here
Iyah May’s reinterpretation of Wish You Were Here is
not simply a cover of a canonical rock lament. It translates Pink Floyd’s
meditation on alienation into the fractured, crisis‑ridden landscape that
shapes her own work. Where the original song mourned the psychic dislocation of
the 1970s, the commodification of art, the pressures of fame, the loss of
authenticity, May’s version speaks from within a world in which alienation has
become total. Her performance is quieter, more intimate, and more exposed, as
though she is singing not to an absent friend but to a society that has stopped
recognising itself.
The most striking feature of May’s version is its emotional
framing. Pink Floyd’s recording is spacious, almost resigned, its acoustic
guitar lines drifting through a haze of studio ambience. May strips the song
down further, reducing it to voice and minimal accompaniment. The effect is
claustrophobic rather than expansive. She does not inhabit the song as a
nostalgic reflection on a lost era of authenticity; she inhabits it as someone
living through a present defined by fragmentation, misinformation, and
political despair. The line “We’re just two lost souls…” one of the few phrases she retains verbatim
becomes less a poetic metaphor than a literal description of the social
condition.
Her vocal delivery underscores this shift. Roger Waters sang
the original with bitterness and weary detachment. May sings it with a tremor
of exhaustion, as though the alienation described in the song is not a
philosophical problem but a lived experience of scrolling through catastrophe.
The emotional centre of her version is not the loss of artistic integrity but
the loss of collective meaning. The “wish” in Wish You Were Here becomes
a longing for clarity, solidarity, and connection in a world that has replaced
all three with algorithmic noise.
This is where May’s political sensibility enters. Her
version is not overtly political; she does not alter the lyrics to reference
Gaza, Big Pharma, or the pandemic, but the context of her work infuses the
performance. The alienation Pink Floyd described was artists' alienation within
the culture industry. The alienation May expresses is the alienation of ordinary
people living through overlapping crises: war, inflation, social atomisation,
and the collapse of public trust. Her delivery suggests that the missing “you”
is not a person but a political horizon, a sense of collective agency eroded by
decades of neoliberalism and intensified by the pandemic.
In this sense, May’s version is a companion piece to Karmageddon.
The latter catalogues horrors without connecting them; the former mourns the
absence of connection itself. Karmageddon is frantic, breathless, overwhelmed.
Wish You Were Here is still, suspended, almost paralysed. Together they
form a dialectic of contemporary despair: the scroll and the silence, the noise
of crisis and the numbness that follows.
Yet May’s interpretation also reveals the limits of her
outlook. Her performance is sincere, vulnerable, and politically charged by
implication, but it remains trapped within the framework of individual lament.
The song becomes a personal expression of disorientation rather than a bridge
toward collective understanding. Where Pink Floyd’s original hinted at the
possibility of artistic rebellion against commodification, May’s version hints
at resignation, a longing for someone, or something, that is not coming.
Still, her rendition matters. It shows how a younger artist,
shaped by pandemic trauma and political confusion, hears one of the great songs
of alienation. It is not a reinvention but a reframing: Wish You Were Here
as sung from inside the crisis rather than after it. In doing so, May reveals
both the depth of contemporary despair and the need for an artistic orientation
that moves beyond lament toward clarity and struggle.
1. Northern Exposure: “Iyah May, When a Reel
Becomes a Reckoning”
Core argument
This article presents Iyah May’s viral Instagram reel in
which she explains that her manager tried to censor references to Big Pharma,
genocide, and cancel culture as a moment of political rupture. The author
frames May’s refusal not merely as a personal stand but as a movement, a
disruption of the culture industry’s demand for silence and compliance.
Political framing
- May’s
art is described as diagnostic: a reading of a world afflicted by
misinformation, distraction, and systemic rot.
- Her
refusal to “water down” her lyrics is treated as a manifesto against
censorship and corporate control.
- The
article emphasises her background as a frontline doctor, arguing that her
political clarity comes from lived experience rather than ideology.
Significance
The piece positions May as a figure whose authenticity and
refusal to self‑censor resonate with audiences disillusioned by institutional
dishonesty. It is her most explicitly political profile to date.
2. Grokipedia: “Iyah May” (Fact‑checked profile)
Core argument
This encyclopaedic entry situates May’s politics within her
dual identity as a doctor and independent musician. It emphasises her
commitment to “uncompromised artistry” and her willingness to confront
political division, media manipulation, corporate greed, and genocide.
Political framing
- Karmageddon
is described as a protest song addressing political division, media
manipulation, corporate greed, and the Gaza genocide.
- The
article stresses that she refused to modify the song despite pressure,
framing her stance as a principled rejection of commercial sanitisation.
- Her
politics are presented as emerging from a blend of faith, truth‑telling,
and accountability rather than formal ideological alignment.
Significance
This profile helps explain how May’s political identity is
being codified in public reference sources: as a doctor‑artist whose work is
shaped by crisis, empathy, and resistance to institutional narratives.
3. The Nordic Times: “Iyah May shakes up the music
world with her fearless social commentary”
Core argument
This article frames Karmageddon as a socially
critical intervention that “stirred the pot” by addressing political division,
corporate greed, and public apathy. It emphasises her medical background and
her experience on the COVID frontlines as central to her artistic worldview.
Political framing
- May’s
critique of corporate greed and political division is foregrounded.
- Her
refusal to alter lyrics is presented as a decisive break with her manager
and a turning point in her career.
- The
article highlights her dual role as doctor and musician, suggesting that
her political clarity comes from witnessing institutional failure
firsthand.
