Ten links to a diverse range of opinion that might be of interest to TPQ readers. They are selected not to invite agreement but curiosity. Readers can submit links to pieces they find thought provoking.
The death of Searchlight’s founder Gerry Gable at the age of 88 marks the passing of a man without whom modern British anti-fascism would scarcely be recognisable. For more than sixty years, he stood at the centre of the struggle against fascism and the extreme right, as a relentless organiser, investigator and strategist.
To many, Gerry was anti-fascism: tireless, uncompromising, occasionally infuriating, and utterly driven by the belief that fascism had to be understood, exposed and defeated before it could take root.
Searchlight was his life’s work. For half a century, until he retired when it moved fully online in 2025, he poured his energy into building it into the most trusted source of information on the far right in Britain.
Intelligence service
It was never simply a magazine. It was an early-warning system, an archive, an anti-fascist intelligence service, and a weapon. Under Gerry’s guidance, Searchlight uncovered networks that preferred to remain hidden, revealed the true nature of organisations that tried to launder their image, and provided countless activists with the knowledge they needed to confront fascism and right-wing extremism locally and nationally.
Continue @ ESSF.
Shares in US energy companies have jumped as investors bet that the US seizure of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro will open opportunities to tap the country's oil reserves.
Shares in Chevron opened more than 4% higher, after surging more than 7% in pre-market trading, while other firms, including ConocoPhillips and Exxon also gained.
Precious metal prices and shares in defence stocks also rose as the intervention increased investors' concerns about geopolitical risks.
Gold was about 1.9% higher at $4,412 (£3,275) an ounce, while the price of silver was up by 3.6%, as money was moved into so-called "safe-haven" assets.
Prices of precious metals such as gold and silver often rise in times of uncertainty as they are seen as safer assets to hold.
The gold price saw its best annual performance last year since 1979 after rising by more than 60%, reaching an all-time high of $4,549.71 on 26 December.
Those gains were driven by several factors including expectations of more interest rate cuts, major purchases of bullion by central banks and investor concerns about global tensions and economic uncertainty.
Oil prices fluctuated on Monday as investors weighed whether Washington's intervention in Venezuela would affect crude supplies.
Into this febrile atmosphere has entered the Pink Ladies who subvert the language of feminism to pose the spectre of the threat to womanhood and child safety from sexually predatory single men from “backward cultures” who have arrived in the UK by small boats. It is a trope that was articulated by the Daily Mail columnist Sarah Vine in her column of 10th December 2025 after two Afghan asylum seekers were jailed for raping a 15 year-old girl : “For too long this country has ignored the reality of what happens when men from certain cultures are let loose in our liberal democracy.” She went on to state “I don’t care if I’m accused of scaremongering or worse. Facts are facts.”[1]
So behind all the politicians’ outrage at the immigration status of perpetrators and the anecdotal news stories of offences such as sexual assault often accompanied by police mugshots of brown and black men, what are the actual facts concerning asylum seekers and crime? It is certainly moot to point out that the available evidence shows that the ethnic group most likely to be violent and sexual offenders in the UK are white men. However the reality is that the UK government’s own data cannot reveal how many crimes are committed by asylum seekers because the Ministry of Justice does not record offences by immigration status.[2]
The proxy category “foreign nationals” agglomerates a wide mix of people: recent arrivals, long-settled immigrants, students, health and care workers, their dependents, as well as asylum seekers. Taking into account this caveat, the best figures available to us are those disseminated by the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford. They show that foreign nationals in England and Wales are incarcerated or convicted at roughly the same rate that British nationals. When adjusted for age and sex, the share of non-British citizens in prison is actually lower than the share of British citizens but there is no publicly available data on conviction rates after adjusting for age.[3]
Ben Brindle, the Migration Observatory’s lead researcher on its analysis, opines that “it’s more likely that asylum seekers are more likely to commit crimes” but attributes this “to some of the other characteristics that those people tend to have” While asylum seekers are more likely to be young men and while young men have a greater propensity to commit crime, Brindle states the lacunae in the statistics available makes comparing a young male Briton to a young male asylum seeker impossible.[4]
It is difficult to fully address the moral panics about the demographic amalgam of those arriving on British shores despite the availability of nationality data. The big gaps in the underlying population data makes comparisons shaky, if not invidious. The last census took place in 2021 – before the ‘Boris wave’ fuelled peak in migration - and the Office for National Statistics has been experiencing something of an institutional crisis in falling response rates in its main population surveys. These surveys do not include residents in communal accommodation such as asylum hotels which means that recent revivals are not recorded at all. Smaller groups of foreign nationals – for example, Afghans – are most likely to be misrepresented. Ben Brindle makes the further point that possible drivers of crime committed by young men (both Britons and migrants) such as trauma, mental health more generally and socio-economic status cannot be inferred from existing data.[5]
Such complexity of course does not prevent populist and unscrupulous politicians and tabloid newspaper editors from making sensationalist claims. A case in point was the assertion by Reform UK and the Tory Shadow Justice Secretary, Robert Jenrick that Afghan nationals were 22 times more likely than British nationals to be convicted of sex offences. This figure originated from the Centre for Migration Control and was extracted from data from the years 2021-23 (capturing 77 sexual offences committed by Afghan nationals in that period. However the population data was from the 2021 census and did not include the influx of Afghans into the UK after the fall of Kabul in August 2021. Madeleine Sumption, director of the Migration Observatory estimated the rate to be 14.5 times greater for Afghan nationals but even that figure comes with the qualification that there is no age breakdown, unlike for the prison population data. While still a striking difference, the lesson to be learned here is that where there is a relatively small number of offences, a small change in the population can shift the offending rate markedly.[6]
A better metric for assessing the linkage between asylum seekers and crime would be the methodology employed by migration expert Hein de Haas to assess the correlation between crime and (the admittedly broader category of migration). To evidence his claim that not only immigration lowers crime but that crime rates have actually decreased, de Hass cites a major study of trends in crime data between 1988 and 2004 across 26 Western countries showed reductions of 77.1 per cent in theft from cars, 60.3 per cent in theft from persons, 26 per cent in burglary, 20.6 in assault and 16.8 per cent in car theft. In the US, between 1990 and 2013, violent crime and property crime decreased by 50 and 46 per cent.
References
[1] Harron Siddique and Michael Goodier Do asylum seekers commit crimes at a higher rate? The Guardian.15 December 2025 p.21
[2] Ibid
[3] Ibid
[4] Ibid
[5] Ibid
[6] Ibid
Ten links to a diverse range of opinion that might be of interest to TPQ readers. They are selected not to invite agreement but curiosity. Readers can submit links to pieces they find thought provoking.
Before We Conform, Or Condemn, Let Us At Least Be Curious
![]() |
| ⏩Follow on Twitter @AnthonyMcIntyre. |
While in France Maud Gonne, who shared Millevoye’s politics, entered into an affair with the fascist, often having sex in semi-public places, perhaps not quite the Goddess Yeats thought! She had kept her anti-Semitism hidden from Connolly perhaps knowing the Marxist’s views on this form of anti-Jewish hatred. The surface of Gonne’s politics would not have had to be scratched very hard to reveal her true colours but nobody, not even Connolly, gave such an issue a second thought. Her work, certainly against British imperialism, and support for the poor of Dublin was second to none, an undeniable fact yet, alas, tarnished with closer examination.
Maude Gonne had two children to Lucien Millevoye, Georges Silvere, who died of meningitis at the age of one in 1891, and Iseult Lucille Germaine (1894-1954) who too later became a figure of W.B. Yeats attraction and, like her mother, Yeats proposed marriage to Iseult who turned him down. Did Iseult inherit her mother’s anti-Semitic politics? Later on Iseult had a rapport with the head of the Nazi Foreign Office, Eduard Hempel, but does this mean she shared the Nazi Party Minister’s views? Many questions could be asked, too many for this article. “Maud Gonne may have been sympathetic to the nationalist objectives which Connolly sought to achieve but she was opposed to his socialist politics” (James Connolly A Full Life Donal Nevin P.90). In a letter,1927, to her, Yeats wrote: “when I knew you first you were anti-Dreyfus and all for authoritative government – Boulanger – and so on; and I was Dreyfussard (sic) & more or less communist under the influence of William Morris.” Gonne’s reply was: “In the old days when you were Dreyfus you use to think it fine the thesis ‘Better France perish, than one man suffer injustice!’ I hold that Dreyfus was an uninteresting Jew & too much money was spent in his cause for it to be an honest cause & that greater injustice triumphed every day when poor men were sent to jail for theft of food and clothing for their families & I would prefer to raise the cry for them. Being a nationalist, I sympathised with French nationalists who objected to the Jews and international finance interfering in their country & upsetting their institutions” (James Connolly A Full Life: Donal Nevin P.90-91). As can be gleaned from this letter Maud Gonne’s anti-Semitism had not mellowed with time. Had she referred to raising the “cry” for the “injustice” suffered by the poor against the rich in general that would have made sense to any socialist. The fact she emphasised Dreyfus’s Jewishness highlighted her grotesque anti-Semitism.
“As a result of the successful anti-Jubilee demonstration he had organised, Maud Gonne invited Connolly to submit an article for the journal which she edited in Paris” (Nevin P.93). L’Irlande Libre was the Journal which she edited and Connolly, along with Michael Davitt, W.B. Yeats, William Field MP, and Lucien Millevoye along with Gonne herself all contributed and it is the last contributor, Lucien Millevoye, who raises questions. Either Connolly just viewed this man, a fascist, in all probability unknown to Connolly, as just another who contributed among many to Gonne’s journal? My view is Connolly had no cause to give Lucien Millevoye more than a passing thought as one who writes for Maud’s publication. James Connolly never met Lucien Millevoye so why would he have given the man any serious thought? He had not been furnished with the knowledge of Maud Gonne’s relationship with him so to Connolly he was just another individual who contributed to the journal. No doubt Gonne kept Millevoye and his views shared by her, a closely guarded secret from Connolly and other socialists in Ireland.
Millevoye died in 1918 but the ideology he followed lived on and almost conquered all of Europe starting in Italy when in 1922 Mussolini was appointed Prime Minister after his march on Rome. Eleven years later a far more aggressive form of fascism, in its generic sense, Nazism, became the government in Germany. Despite Maud Gonne’s anti-Semitism she did not support the Nazis during the Second World War. In fact she is on record as saying “she would not have been a Nazi even if she had lived in Germany during that period.”
Despite Maud Gonne’s dislike of Hitler’s Nazism in Germany the same could not be said of her view, at least initially, of Mussolini in Italy. To begin with she supported the Italian fascist leader however as time evolved, she began to question his authoritarian government and crushing of civil liberties. This is somewhat ironic because, according to Yeats’ letter in 1927, she once supported “authoritative government – Boulanger – and so on” this was in reference to her and Millevoye’s support for the French far-right activist. She must have known fascism was authoritarian and crushed civil liberties, particularly the right to organise in trade unions. Perhaps her own views were mellowing but not, it would appear, on anti-Semitism and that is an important negative from a socialist perception!
Ten links to a diverse range of opinion that might be of interest to TPQ readers. They are selected not to invite agreement but curiosity. Readers can submit links to pieces they find thought provoking.
Before We Conform, Or Condemn, Let Us At Least Be Curious
Venezuelan authorities dispute the account and demand proof. Those facts matter. But even accepting the U.S. claim at face value, the precedent it asserts is extraordinary — and profoundly destabilizing.
Because if “capturing” a sitting head of state by foreign force is now acceptable, then the entire grammar of international order collapses.
Imagine, for a moment, if South Africa announced it had bombed Tel Aviv and “captured” Benjamin Netanyahu for the sake of democracy. Or if a rival power struck Moscow and seized Vladimir Putin in the name of human rights. Or if a regional bloc attacked Kyiv to “capture” Volodymyr Zelenskyy, claiming it was necessary to stabilize Ukraine.
No Western government would treat such acts as law enforcement. They would call them what they are: acts of war, violations of sovereignty, and kidnappings masquerading as moral necessity/crusades.
Yet when the United States does it — or claims to — the language shifts. “Capture.” “Stabilization.” “Restoring democracy.” The euphemisms are not accidental; they are the grease that allows violence to pass as virtue.
This is the core hypocrisy of the so-called “free world.” Democracy is invoked not as a principle, but as a permission slip.
Regime change doesn’t produce democracy — it produces factions.
History is unambiguous on this point. Externally imposed regime change does not deliver stable democracy. It shatters institutions and replaces politics with force. Once the state is decapitated or delegitimized from the outside, society fractures inward.
The United States has already tested this logic— repeatedly, and the result was catastrophic
In Chile, U.S. backing of the 1973 coup against Salvador Allende did not “save democracy.” It dismantled it, ushering in years of dictatorship, repression, and social trauma whose effects lasted generations.
Iraq shows exactly where this logic leads. In Iraq, the 2003 invasion was explicitly framed around regime removal and the pursuit of Saddam Hussein. His eventual capture was presented as a decisive moment that would bring order, legitimacy, and democratic renewal.
Instead, it marked the implosion of the Iraqi state. The 2003 invasion obliterated state institutions under the banner of freedom. What followed was not democracy, but sectarian fragmentation, militias, insurgencies, and a civil war that killed hundreds of thousands and permanently destabilized the region.
By dismantling core institutions and forcibly removing leadership, the invasion shattered Iraq’s political centre. Saddam Hussein’s capture did not end violence; it accelerated fragmentation. Militias formed along sectarian and factional lines, rival authorities emerged, and civil society collapsed under the weight of insurgency, reprisals, and foreign occupation. What followed was a prolonged civil war, mass displacement, and the rise of extremist groups that fed on the vacuum left behind.
The lesson was clear then, and it remains clear now: decapitating a state does not create democracy — it creates factions.
In Libya, the 2011 NATO intervention removed Muammar Gaddafi without constructing a viable state to replace him. The result was not liberation but a collapsed country carved into rival governments, militias, and proxy battlefields — a civil war that still has no resolution.
The pattern is consistent: once an external power decides who rules, internal factions organize around violence rather than consent. Armed groups replace civic institutions. Legitimacy becomes a weapon. Civil society disintegrates.
To pretend Venezuela would be immune to this logic is not optimism; it is denial.
Regime change replaces politics with force.
Externally imposed regime change follows a consistent pattern. Once foreign powers decide who governs, legitimacy ceases to flow from domestic consent and instead becomes a function of force and external backing. Political disputes are no longer resolved through institutions but through arms.
Venezuela is not immune to this logic. Removing or abducting a head of state does not heal political divisions — it radicalizes them. It invites splits within the military, emboldens rival claimants to power, and dramatically increases the risk of civil conflict.
Those who speak casually about “liberation” will not be the ones living with the consequences. Ordinary people will.
Sanctions, bombs, and abductions are not democratic tools.
Washington and its allies insist that such actions are necessary because the targeted government is “illegitimate.” But legitimacy is not established by foreign recognition or removed by foreign bombs. It emerges — or collapses — through domestic political processes.
When the U.S. imposes sanctions that devastate civilian life, then points to the resulting hardship as proof of failure, it is not diagnosing collapse — it is engineering it. When it signals support for regime change, it invites internal actors to pursue power through force rather than compromise. When it attacks state infrastructure or claims to have removed leadership, it accelerates the slide toward civil conflict.
This is not democracy promotion. It is political demolition.
And looming behind the moral rhetoric is the motive Washington rarely states plainly: control. Venezuela’s strategic crime is not that it violates democratic norms — the U.S. maintains close relationships with far more repressive governments when it suits its interests. Venezuela’s crime is that it insists on sovereignty over its resources and political alignment.
A U.S.-favoured replacement guarantees nothing – there is no guarantee that replacing Nicolás Maduro with María Corina Machado would bring stability, economic recovery, or expanded civil freedoms.
Leadership change alone does not repair shattered institutions or reconcile a polarized society. Political alignment matters. Machado has aligned herself closely with U.S. foreign policy priorities, including strong support for Israel during its war on Gaza — a campaign that leading human rights organizations, UN officials, and legal scholars have described as genocidal, and which the International Court of Justice has ruled presents a plausible risk of genocide under international law. She has also publicly supported relocating Venezuela’s embassy to Jerusalem in line with the U.S. position.
Whatever one’s view of these stances, they underscore a basic reality: installing a U.S.-aligned leader does not equal democracy. In deeply divided societies, externally favoured replacements often deepen fractures rather than resolve them.
Democracy as slogan, not principle - A rule that applies only to enemies is not a rule.
If international norms apply only to adversaries, then they are not norms at all — they are tools of domination. A world where powerful states can bomb capitals and abduct leaders while invoking democracy is not a rules-based order. It is a hierarchy enforced by force.
That world is unstable by definition.
Because once such behaviour is normalized, others will imitate it. Precedent is contagious. And when every power claims the right to decide who governs whom, diplomacy collapses into permanent crisis.
If democracy is to mean anything, it must include a simple principle: no state has the right to decide another nation’s leadership at gunpoint.
Anything less is not freedom. It is empire — stripped of its slogans, finally honest about its methods even as it continues to lie about why.















