Anthony McIntyre 🔖Argentina, a society precariously perched on a fault line of violent political turbulence. 


Against a historical backdrop of military intervention, the period 1973-1983 was characterised by terror both before and after the military coup in March 1976. Buenos Aires, the South American city said to most resemble New York should have been redolent with night life. Instead, it was pungent with night death as the ubiquitous Ford Cortina favoured by the military death squads roamed the streets in search of victims to be hauled off to the School of Mechanics for a meeting with 'Susan', the name given to the cattle prod used for administering electric shocks to the genitalia of prisoners. The process of disappearing 'always happened at the hour of the day when dawn is just barely breaking.'

Gloria Lisé draws the reader into the heart of darkness with her novel Departing At Dawn. It emerged from the dark shadow cast by state terrorism twenty five years after the Argentine military rose to power. For a quarter of a century the author had struggled with helplessness in the face of military influence, even after civilian rule had returned. Then:

I decided that I could indeed do something: I could refuse to forget . . . this novel burst forth, surging up from my deepest being, where it had been stored in memories.

The 23rd March 1976 proved a horrendous day for Berta, a medical student. She watched as her boy friend Atilla, a trade union activist with the Tucumán Federation of Sugar Cane Workers and a Peronist, was hurled to his death by soldiers. 'Because of his beliefs, he had to fly off a balcony.' Crushed by having to walk away from the scene without revealing that she knew the murdered man, she fumed at him for not having listened to her advice, to get away from it all, to abandon any hope in justice.

Unlike sixteen of her friends and colleagues Berta had never joined a political party or guerrilla organisation. Not for her the path of eighteen year old Ana Marie Gonzales who killed the chief of police with a bomb concealed in an alarm clock as he slept in his bed. Poverty at home shaped her single mindedness to succeed in achieving her degree. It was the best a rural woman could do. Poverty, according to her mother was something that the individual was responsible for, not the military junta represented by the army officer her mother would vote for.

The government of national reconstruction began its mission of national destruction as soon as it came to power. Its death squads had been carrying out political assassinations for the three years previous. 'It seemed Peronism had finally come to an end and that from now on to call yourself a Peronist would be to say a bad word.' Even Jehovah's Witnesses had been outlawed. Andrew Graham-Yooll gave his book the title A State Of Fear, for reasons readily understandable; a state where 'when people are taken away, they never return, but they don't show up dead either or in the hospital.' If they reappeared it was usually in the mouth of the River Plate estuary, where they had been hurled from helicopters after being paralysed with drugs and their stomachs cut open so fish could feed on them.

In order to avoid ending up as fish food food Berta fled into hiding. She posed no threat but the military believed she had knowledge of the whereabouts of union funds her late boyfriend had been responsible for. She goes off to stay with an aunt, Avelina, and becomes immersed in the day to challenges of merely living. Her internal exile was lived under the dark shadow cast by the regime of Jorge Videla which blocked out the sunlight. There was always a chill.

A novel born in the Dirty War, it complements non-fiction work such as that produced by Jacobo Timerman in his memoir, Prisoner Without a Name, Cell Without a Number. Gloria Lisé masters the art of writing beautifully about an ugly subject.

Gloria Lisé, 2009, Departing at Dawn: A Novel of Argentina's Dirty War. The Feminist Press at CUNY. ISBN-13: 978-1558616479

Follow on Bluesky.


Departing At Dawn

Labour HeartlandsWritten by Paul Knaggs.

The Monster in the Cabinet: When ‘Family Values’ Mask Systematic Torture.

In May 2010, Philip Young stood before his constituents and resigned as Swindon’s Cabinet Member for Culture, Regeneration and Economic Development. His reason was noble, even touching. He needed, he claimed, to “devote more time” to his family. “I don’t think it is fair on my family,” he told the local press, “to put them bottom of that priority list.“

We now know exactly what he meant by priorities…

For the next 14 years, this respectable conservative politician did not cherish his wife, Joanne Young. He enslaved her. He drugged her. He raped her. And, in a grotesque parody of the free-market principles he once championed, he reportedly outsourced her abuse to a network of other men.

On Friday, at Winchester Crown Court, the mask finally slipped. The details are not merely criminal; they are a harrowing indictment of how easily status, wealth, and the veneer of “respectability” can hide the most depraved forms of barbarism.

A Catalogue of Depravity

The sheer scale of the abuse Young admitted to is difficult to comprehend. In a monotone roll call of sadism, he pleaded guilty to nearly 50 separate offences committed between 2010 and 2024.

Former Tory Councillor Admits Drugging And Raping Wife Over 14-Year Period

Guardian 📺 Written by Lucy Mangan

This delicate documentary about an Anglican’s child abuse is deeply harrowing.

It’s humbling to witness the eloquence and dignity of these survivors as they talk about their experiences with John Smyth – possibly the most prolific serial abuser ever associated with the Church of England

John Smyth was a sadistic predator who used to groom the boys in his care then beat them with such viciousness that he would have to provide adult nappies for them to wear afterwards lest they leave blood on the chairs in his home when he brought them back from his shed. He upgraded the shed at one point, to make it soundproof. 

One of the men who suffered at Smyth’s hands as a boy remembers bleeding for weeks after. Another says: “I honestly thought I was going to die.” Another says that despite the pain the worst part was afterwards, when Smyth would cover the boy’s bloodied body with his and nuzzle his sweaty face into the boy’s neck and give him butterfly kisses. In his nightmares it is “that draping” he relives.

Smyth, who died in 2018, was also a husband, a father of three children, a respected barrister, a prominent Christian evangelist, a moral campaigner . . .

Continue @ Guardian.

See No Evil

Right Wing Watch 👀 Written by Kyle Mantyla,



On Tuesday's episode of the American Family Association's "At The Core" program, Trump-loving Christian nationalist pseudo-historian and self-proclaimed "Constitution Coach" Rick Green urged President Donald Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act in response to the anti-ICE protests occurring in Minneapolis.

Green insisted that what is happening in Minnesota is "an actual insurrection," unlike when hordes of MAGA activists stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 in an effort to prevent Congress from certifying Trump's electoral loss, which Green declared was nothing more than American citizens simply "asking government to do its job."

"[There's a] small little thing going on in a little town there in Minnesota," Green said. "Like, an actual insurrection. We've thrown that word around a lot since 2021—Jan. 6th—and wrongly used for a long time."

Now, you're actually trying to prevent law enforcement and the nation from enforcing its laws and fulfilling its duty, whereas on Jan. 6, people were asking government to do its job, to actually do what it's called upon to do under the Constitution and under our law.

Rick Green Claims Jan. 6 'Was The Opposite Of An Insurrection'

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Nine Eight Hundred And Sixty One

 


Pastords @ 28

 

A Morning Thought @ 3038

Pádraig Drummond  
There’s a stink coming off the American empire, the kind you’d recognise from a damp bedsit after a long weekend of bad decisions and cheap whiskey. 

Only this isn’t a hangover, it’s policy. The Trump administration, under the twitchy command of The Faux-Führer, has turned the machinery of the state into a roaming protection racket, and ICE are the lads sent out to collect.

What’s happening in Minnesota isn’t some administrative hiccup or “border enforcement gone wrong.” It’s occupation. Plain and simple. Masked men lifting people off the streets, battering workers at their jobs, dumping human beings like rubbish bags miles from home. That’s not law enforcement, that’s counter-insurgency, the same dirty playbook the Yanks perfected from Da Nang to Baghdad and now feel bold enough to run at home.

They murdered Renee Nicole Good and then did what empires always do: they shot her twice, once with bullets and again with lies. Before her body was cold, the Faux-Führer and his mouthpieces were already smearing her as a threat, because empire cannot admit innocence among the dead. If the state kills you, you must be guilty. That’s the rule. Truth gets bundled into the van with the victim.

ICE, bloated with cash and staffed up like a pub brawl with a federal budget, has been reshaped into a loyalist militia, faces covered, badges hidden, fists swinging. Anyone from a Republican estate in the occupied six counties knows this look. We’ve seen it before: uniforms without accountability, authority without consent, violence without consequence. Call it homeland security if it helps you sleep. We call it what it is, state terror.

And still, the most dangerous thing facing them isn’t a brick or a slogan, it’s refusal. That’s why the call for a general strike in Minnesota matters. When workers stay home, when buses don’t run, and tills don’t ring, the empire starts to sweat. Labour withheld is the one weapon they can’t drone-strike or spin away. Profits dry up, and suddenly the men in suits start talking about “stability” and “dialogue.” Funny how that works.

But make no mistake, this brutality on America's home soil is stitched directly to slaughter abroad. The same hands funding raids in Minnesota are signing cheques for mass graves in Gaza. Just days ago, the Faux-Führer quietly pushed through another multi-billion-dollar weapons package for Bibi the Butcher, ensuring that Israeli jets, bombs, and missiles keep raining down on a trapped population already starved, bombed, and displaced beyond recognition.

This isn’t aid, it’s a supply line to genocide. Billions funnelled through “foreign military financing,” delivered at speed, no questions asked, while Palestinians are punished for daring to exist politically. Assistance to Palestinian communities is choked off unless they meet impossible loyalty tests, keep quiet about torture, and promise never to seek justice at international courts. Even the act of asking the world to recognise Palestine as a state is treated as a crime worthy of collective punishment.

The hypocrisy would be funny if it weren’t soaked in blood. Israel receives guaranteed military grants year after year, locked into long-term deals that stretch decades into the future, while Gaza is flattened and the West Bank is strangled inch by inch. Tens of billions have already been spent arming Israel since October 2023 alone, missile systems, ammunition, replacement stockpiles, expanded arms production, enough firepower to erase a people several times over. And more deals are queued up behind it, like orders at a weapons drive-through.

This is how empire works. The colonised are placed under a microscope, demanded to prove their humanity, while the occupying power is handed bombs and legal cover. Resistance is labelled terrorism. Survival is labelled extremism. And any attempt to seek justice outside Washington’s approval is crushed with financial blackmail.

Irish people should recognise this script instantly. Criminalise resistance. Starve the population. Arm the occupier. Call it peace. We lived it, and Palestine is living it now.

The same empire that bankrolls genocide in Gaza and bombs Venezuela for its oil is the one kidnapping workers in Minnesota. There is no contradiction here, only consistency. Imperial violence abroad always comes home eventually. You can’t normalise mass killing overseas and expect civil liberties to survive in your own streets.

So when workers strike in Minnesota, when students walk out, when communities refuse to cooperate with ICE, they’re not just fighting for migrants or civil rights; they’re striking a blow against the entire imperial system. The same system that funds apartheid, sanctions starving nations, and treats the world like a balance sheet soaked in blood.

The question isn’t whether a new world is coming. It is. The only question is who builds it. The Faux-Führer and his butchered alliances want a world ruled by force, fear, and permanent war. We want one built by solidarity, refusal, and memory.

Empires look eternal right up until the moment they crack. And history has shown, time and again, that organised working people can bring even the biggest, loudest, most violent machines to a halt.

They’re terrified of that. They should be.

Pádraig Drummond is an anti-racism activist.

January 23 🪶 Day of Truth and Freedom

Raw Story ★ Written by Ewan Gleadow. Recommended by Christy Walsh.

The UK government has hit back at a US administration official's threat over a probe into Elon Musk and X.

Online safety watchdog OFCOM is investigating the social media app for the sharing of non-consensual sex images which are artificially generated through the Grok tool, Sky News reported. Concerns over the deepfakes spread on the platform have since been aired in the UK's House of Commons, the elected house of representatives.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said:

I have been informed this morning that X is acting to ensure full compliance with UK law. If so, that is welcome, but we're not going to back down, and they must act . . .  We will take the necessary measures. We will strengthen existing laws and prepare for legislation if it needs to go further, and Ofcom will continue its independent investigation.

Donald Trump's administration representative, Sarah B. Rogers, weighed in on the investigation into X yesterday (January 13).

Rogers, an under secretary of state for public diplomacy, says the department will wait for the verdict of OFCOM on Musk's platform before it responds.

Continue @ Raw Story.

'We're Not Going To Back Down' 🪶 UK Hits Back At Trump Admin Over Elon Musk Probe

Róisín McAleer There is a growing tendency within liberal and pseudo-radical spaces to frame men, particularly working-class and politically militant men, as a problem to be managed rather than equal comrades in struggle. 

This tendency does not challenge patriarchy as a material system rooted in class and imperialism. Instead, it substitutes moral policing, behavioural surveillance, and individual shaming for revolutionary analysis and collective liberation.

Men are increasingly disciplined not for what they say, but for how they speak. A loud voice is labelled “aggression.” Anger at genocide, or injustice more broadly, is rebranded as “toxicity.” Passion in political struggle is pathologised as domination. When accused of being too gruff, I am often reminded of Yeats' line in the poem 'September 1913': "the best lack all conviction, the worst are full passionate intensity" where the poet observed the vilification of passion and dedication, and the elevation of the petty-bourgeois who "fumbled in the greasy till" and who were "born to pray and save".

The material conditions producing anger around oppression, such as precarity, dispossession, war, unemployment, or alienation are too often left untouched by those who pose as radical feminists. This is what liberal social control looks like.

This trend represents a shift away from structural analysis toward idealism. Patriarchy is treated as a set of personal traits embodied by men rather than a historical system tied to class rule and imperial power. Men are asked to police their tone, posture, and emotions, while capital, the state, and imperial violence go unchallenged. The result is a politics of manners instead of a politics of power.

This anti-men moralism disproportionately targets working-class men, racialised men, and men engaged in militant, anti-imperialist politics. The banker, the general, and the corporate executive are rarely told to “lower their voice.” But the trade unionist, the protester, the revolutionary speaker is. What is being disciplined is not masculinity in the abstract, but resistance.

Ironically, this reproduces the very gender essentialism it claims to oppose. Men are cast as inherently dangerous, emotionally suspect, and in need of constant correction. Women are positioned as moral arbiters and victims in waiting. This binary does not liberate anyone. It reinforces reactionary ideas about gender while fragmenting the working class along moral and identity lines.

I have been in many situations where I have experienced and witnessed an unspoken rule take hold the moment conflict emerges. If a woman frames herself as feeling uncomfortable, offended, or harmed, other women are expected to line up behind her, regardless of the political substance involved. In fact, one such incident at a protest at the British Embassy illustrates the point more clearly.

In December 2025, I chaired a demo organised by the Peadar O'Donnell Socialist Republican Forum in support of the five demands of several hunger strikers, who were, at the time, protesting British state collusion with the Zionist entity and its active participation in genocide. As the demo closed, calls for a protest encampment at the British Embassy were made by a woman. This seemed like a good time to remind the audience whom she was addressing—that an encampment was already in existence for over 100 days, five minutes down the road at UCD: the Break the Academic Chains of Zionism Encampment.

As I was encouraging the crowd to support, or just visit the camp over the Christmas holidays, another woman, unknown to me, who had taken to the railings and had been chanting repeatedly, interrupted me and shouted, "Do not support the racist camp at UCD." Naturally, I was not expecting such an attack, which was clearly designed to disrupt and divide.

When my comrade and I questioned her, in holding her serious accusations of racism to account, we were abruptly shut down—not with counterarguments, but with appeals to gendered harm. The woman who interrupted me, who threw the "racist" card at me and the encampment, was surrounded, protected, and minded, as if she were the victim.

To challenge this most serious and harmful accusation was treated as cruelty. When I asked for evidence or political clarity, I was recast as just siding with my comrade...who is a man, surprise, surprise.

What troubled me most was how quickly class analysis vanished in that moment when one woman, who cast serious aspersions on an on-going 24/7 hour encampment, the like of which has never happened before in Ireland, suddenly became the victim.

Our comrade’s material role at UCD Break the Academic Chains of Zionism, their principled, dedicated, political conduct, and their alignment with working-class interests all became secondary. I was expected to suspend my criticism of the provocateur, as an anti-imperialist, and speak only as a woman, and to automatically take the side of a woman claiming to be victim, irrespective of the fact that she attempted to politically damage our work, and reputation. That demand itself is reactionary. It reduces women to an identity bloc and strips us of political agency.

This is not feminism. It is a form of toxic femininity that mirrors bourgeois individualism, where emotion is elevated over analysis, identity supersedes principle, and sympathy trumps truth. It creates a culture where challenge of a female provocateur is treated as callous, and accountability as oppression. What is the overall outcome? This behaviour simply leaves movements weak, fragmented, and easily neutralized. Perhaps that was the intention on 18 December 2025.

Revolutionary movements have never been built by division, or through silencing, but are no strangers to these tactics. Passion for justice is not a male flaw; it is a human response to exploitation. The task of revolutionaries is not to suppress that energy, but to direct it toward collective struggle against the real enemy: capitalism and imperialism.

Anti-imperialist feminism does not fear men’s voices. It challenges men to break with chauvinism, yes, but also recognises them as fellow subjects of exploitation, not perpetual suspects. It understands that patriarchy harms women most severely, but it also damages men by stripping them of dignity, purpose, and humanity under capitalism. Liberation cannot be built on contempt.

The policing of tone, volume, and expression is especially corrosive in movements that claim to be radical. It replaces political line with social etiquette. It rewards conformity over clarity and passivity over courage. In doing so, it weakens movements at precisely the moment when boldness, discipline, and unity are required.

Revolutionary politics does not attack anti-imperialist protest. It does not hurl spurious, unfounded allegations at revolutionaries. It does not ask who spoke too loudly. It asks: who owns the land, the banks, the weapons, and the media? Who benefits from our division? Who fears a working class that speaks with confidence, anger, and collective force? The answer is not men. It is the system.

If our movements cannot provide space for righteous anger, principled confrontation, and unapologetic resistance from all genders, then they are being managed and reshaped to serve liberal order, not revolutionary change. We do not need quieter men. We need organised people, women and men speaking clearly, collectively, and without fear against imperialism and exploitation, without the weaponisation of identity politics. Anything else is not liberation. It is containment. As a working-class woman, I reject this logic.

Anti-imperialist women activists do not want protection from criticism. We want liberation, and liberation requires the courage to assess politics honestly, no matter who is speaking, or driving the movement forward (or backwards, as may well be the case by unknown disrupters).

Róisín McAleer is an activist with Social Rights Ireland. Follow @ Twitter & Instagram

Against Anti-Men Moralism

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Nine Eight Hundred And Sixty

 

A Morning Thought @ 3037

Gearóid Ó Loingsigh ☭ writing in Substack on 16-January-2026.

Photo: GOL. Zipacon, Colombia
When Petro’s presidency kicked off, he announced a grandiose proposal, which never really became a well thought out plan, of Total Peace, i.e. to reach demobilisation agreements with the insurgency of the ELN (in less than three months he said) and with the criminal groups such as the Clan del Golfo and others. It was never a viable proposal and now not even he talks much about his plan. The proposal now seems to be Total War as an ally of the US.

Before the attack on Venezuela and the kidnapping of its president Nicolás Maduro, Petro had already stated that the ELN made cocaine in Venezuela and that was the reason behind the missile attack in Maracaibo. It doesn’t matter that the said attack never occurred, nor that the cocaine lab never existed or that Petro had to retract his statement.[1] It seemed yet another of the stupidities and outbursts from Petro, who doesn’t filter what he thinks before he says it. But no, Petro was inopportunely doing a deliberate favour for Trump in his rapprochement with the Yankee government.

It turns out that whilst Petro was shouting and daring the US to try and kill or imprison him, his functionaries had secret contacts with Trump. Petro called on the Colombian people to march. He loudly and vehemently stated that if Trump attacked Colombia, it would awaken the jaguar. But that jaguar never woke up, rather Petro gave it a strong sedative and called Trump.

In a public square, like a little child being applauded by his father, Petro boasted that Trump had said it was a great honour to speak to him, and with his minister for foreign affairs smiling like a child that had just been given some sweets as a present when Petro said that she would have to go to Washington.[2] Meanwhile, the presidential candidate for the Historic Pact, Iván Cepeda said in Spain that:

Make no mistake, our government and our people will not be forced on its knees or bent to their will through insults, pressure, threats or military actions. We are not a US colony or protectorate.[3] 

It would seem that Cepeda has forgotten the history of Colombia. Colombia has been under US domination for a long time. It is precisely the task the of the Left to break that, both materially and ideologically. If it doesn’t answer to the US, then whey does it always have to justify its performance on drugs? Cepeda criticised US complicity in drug trafficking, mentioning Marco Rubio by name,[4] and it is worth pointing out that the latter’s family does have proven links to drug trafficking.[5] Germany supplies almost all the acid used to manufacture cocaine, but you won’t see statements from them begging the US to acknowledge their efforts in fighting drug trafficking. They are never ever going to put them on the Clinton List. The president who licks Yankee boots on this issue and many others is Petro, just like Duque, Santos, Uribe, Pastrana, Samper and every other reprobate to hold the post. A country that allows the US to maintain or use seven military bases in its territory is not independent and yes, it is a colony. This claim is not mine; it is similar to what Petro or Cepeda would have said at other times, perhaps at the time of Plan Colombia or when foreign companies bought land all over the place. The issue of the foreign takeover of land has been raised by Senator Wilson Arias for a long time and the current government has tried to regulate through legislation that has still not been passed[6]. Any study on the history of the oil industry would say the same, that the US dominates Colombia. Cepeda knows this, but he is a cynic willing to twist the truth.

Petro wants to make us believe that he is going to convince Trump to leave oil behind and plump for the clean energy sources and in order to persuade him he offers Latin America up on a platter.

I said in my letter to Trump, at the start of his government, and in person to Biden that an American alliance could be set up, if they took advantage of the great annual potential of clean energy in South America: 1400 GW, whilst US demand for energy that comes from oil and coal is 840 GW per annum, i.e. Latin America could generate 100% of the energy needs of the USA and that would be the greatest step made in the fight to halt the climate crisis in favour of Life.[7]


That is for public consumption. It is not real. Trump is not going to do any of that and he knows it. That statement is an attempt to simulate that he tried to talk about great things to Trump before ceding on key points on sovereignty and the armed conflict in the country.

Petro spoke a lot about how he would take up arms in the face of a Yankee invasion and also of his famous jaguar. But in reality, he is going to negotiate US meddling in the internal affairs of the country and perhaps allow their direct participation in the war on the ELN. From early on in his government Petro narcoticized his discourse on the ELN. In fact, that is what his Total Peace policy is about. He put the ELN in the same sack as drug traffickers and now he asks the US to take part in the conflict and help him finish off this group’s insurgency.

If needs be, Petro, instead of waking up the jaguar will ask the vet to put it down.

References


[1] La FM (13/01/2026) Petro retira denuncia contra Trump por bombardeo, pero acusa a EE.UU. de atacar un resguardo Wayúu. Marlon Barros. 

Esto es Histórico. Hablaremos con Trump, de la Paz del Continente, de la soberanía , de un Pacto por la Vida basado en las energías limpias. Se puede descarbonizar la matriz de EEUU si se vuelve real el potencial de energías limpias de Suramérica

4:25 AM · Jan 8, 2026 · 824K Views

2.46K Replies · 3.33K Reposts · 14.9K Likes


[3] See Santiago Barbosa 🇨🇴@smoelno
"Sr. Trump, No se equivoque. Nuestro pueblo no se arrodilla ni se doblega. ¡NO SOMOS UNA COLONIA DE EE.UU!". 👏🏻💯 El futuro presidente de Colombia, Iván Cepeda, le deja claro al gobierno yankee que aquí existe la DIGNIDAD y está por encima de todo 🇨🇴✊🏼 Así se habla, HPTA 👏🏻

9:29 PM · Jan 7, 2026 · 148K Views

360 Replies · 1.82K Reposts · 8.62K Likes


[4]

[5]

[6] See Extranjeración de tierras debe ser prioridad legislative: senador Arias 

[7] SeenGustavo Petro@petrogustavo
Entre las cosas que hablamos, el presidente Trump y yo, fue el desencuentro que tuvimos en su visión de la relación de EEUU con América Latina. Dije en mi carta escrita a Trump en el inicio de su gobierno, y a Biden personalmente que se podía establecer un alianza américana, si


2:27 AM · Jan 8, 2026 · 3.32M Views

6.23K Replies · 4.79K Reposts · 34.2K Likes

⏩ Gearóid Ó Loingsigh is a political and human rights activist with extensive experience in Latin America.

Colombia 🪶 From Total Peace To Total War With Trump’s Help