Social Items

TPQ

Right Wing Watch 👀 Written by Peter Montgomery.

Rob Pacienza, a Florida-based pastor who heads Coral Ridge Ministries, is devoting a series of his Truths That Transform podcast to the theme of “destroying strongholds.”

The first episode in the series, posted on Jan. 2, targeted progressive Christianity, which Pacienza called “one of the most deceptive strongholds of all.”

It’s a good example of a phenomenon Right Wing Watch has noted before: religious-right leaders are quick to claim that anyone who criticizes their political agendas or tactics is somehow attacking their faith or Christianity itself—but they have no qualms about attacking the faith of others, including Christians who don’t share their religious or political worldview.

Pacienza is deeply connected to the MAGA movement. He regularly interviews Christian nationalist figures on his “City of God” podcast. He is a senior fellow at the America First Policy Institute, a think tank that helped fill the current Trump cabinet. 

Last month, Pacienza and Coral Ridge’s Center for Christian Statesmanship honored Speaker of the House Mike Johnson with a Distinguished Christian Statesman Award, which claims to honor “public servants who demonstrate biblical convictions, courage, and integrity in public life.” (It’s highly debatable whether Johnson qualifies on those terms.)

Continue @ Right Wing Watch.

MAGA Pastor Rob Pacienza On ‘Destroying’ the ‘Stronghold’ of Progressive Christianity

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

 


Pastords @ 27

 

A Morning Thought @ 3031

Cam Ogie ✍The controversy surrounding the decision by Britain’s West Midlands Police to bar Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters from attending the Aston Villa fixture has exposed serious institutional failures—most notably in intelligence handling, evidentiary standards, and leadership oversight.

A preliminary review by Britain’s HMIC (His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary) confirmed that the force’s intelligence gathering suffered from “confirmation bias” and included multiple factual inaccuracies. Among the most serious errors was reference to a non-existent football fixture, which was later acknowledged not to have come from verified policing intelligence or open-source reporting, but from an AI-generated output produced using Microsoft Copilot.

Britain’s West Midlands chief constable later acknowledged that the error originated from Copilot rather than verified intelligence or conventional open-source research (Google). This matters because Copilot does not verify facts; it generates plausible-sounding text based on probability. When such output is accepted as intelligence without independent verification, the result is not a minor mistake but a collapse of evidentiary discipline.

In evidence initially given to British MPs, the chief constable suggested the erroneous information had been identified via a conventional Google search. He later corrected this account, explaining in a formal letter to the British Home Affairs Committee that the information was in fact produced through the use of Microsoft Copilot, an AI tool designed to generate text based on probabilistic pattern matching rather than factual verification.

This distinction is not trivial. Copilot does not “check” facts in the way human analysts or vetted intelligence sources do; it predicts plausible outputs based on training data. When such outputs are not independently verified, they can fabricate convincing but entirely false information—as occurred here. The inclusion of AI-generated fiction in a report used to inform a public safety decision represents a profound failure of professional standards and internal safeguards.

That failure fully justifies scrutiny of leadership and process.

The term “confirmation bias,” as used by Britain’s policing watchdog (HIMC), does not mean hostility toward a particular group. It refers to a well-documented cognitive error in which decision-makers:form:

  • an initial assumption or hypothesis, and then
  • give disproportionate weight to information that appears to support it, while
  • discounting, overlooking, or failing to rigorously test contradictory evidence.

In this case, confirmation bias meant that once Britain’s West Midlands Police force had identified Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters as a potential risk, insufficient scepticism was applied to material that appeared to reinforce that view, including unverified AI-generated content. The bias lay not in the existence of concern, but in the failure to adequately test the quality and provenance of evidence used to justify it.

Importantly, confirmation bias describes a process failure, not proof that the underlying risk assessment was invented or malicious.

While these procedural failures are serious, the political response has been unusually escalatory. The British Home Secretary publicly withdrew confidence in the chief constable before the conclusion of the parliamentary inquiry, and the episode was rapidly framed as a matter of “national importance.”

At the same time, prominent pro-Israel communal organisations moved rapidly to demand the chief constable’s dismissal (the Board of Deputies of British Jews called for him to be dismissed without delay). These interventions occurred within a well-documented context where organised pro-Israel advocacy groups maintain longstanding, open, and well-documented relationships across the British political establishment. Acknowledging this does not imply conspiracy; it reflects normal lobbying dynamics in Britain’s Westminster. However, it does help explain why scrutiny in this case has been unusually intense, narrowly focused, personalised, and politically charged — particularly when compared with responses to other serious policing failures. i.e.,

Hillsborough Disaster – A mass-fatality disaster involving evidence manipulation did not provoke instant ministerial declarations of lost confidence in police leadership. No immediate dismissal of the chief constable at the time, No Home Secretary publicly withdrew confidence during the initial revelations, and accountability took over 20 years, driven by victims’ families—not ministerial intervention.

Stephen Lawrence & Metropolitan Police - A finding of institutional racism across the UK’s largest police force did not trigger the same rapid, personalised political escalation. No immediate sacking of the Met Commissioner, reform recommendations were gradual and structural, and Ministers did not frame the issue as a sudden crisis of confidence in leadership.

The result has been a public narrative in which the collapse of a flawed police report is treated not merely as an institutional error, but as proof that the original risk assessment itself was illegitimate.

The collapse of the West Midlands Police report has increasingly been used to suggest that concerns about Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters were wholly unfounded or motivated by prejudice. That conclusion does not follow from the evidence.

Independent and verifiable sources—including UEFA disciplinary proceedings—show that Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters have, on multiple occasions, been sanctioned for racist or discriminatory behaviour. These are formal findings by football’s governing body, not speculative claims. They demonstrate that concerns about supporter behaviour were not conjured from thin air, even though the police failed to evidence those concerns properly in this instance. These findings do not excuse poor intelligence handling, but they do undermine the claim that police concern were illegitimate and arose from nothing. The current political framing risks replacing/substituting one form of confirmation bias with another - reverse confirmation bias which assumes that because the report was flawed, all underlying concern must have been baseless. Thus serving political reassurance rather than public safety. Public-order policing requires evidence-based assessment, not narrative absolution. The appropriate response to this episode is to demand higher evidentiary standards—not to erase documented patterns of supporter misconduct because acknowledging them is politically sensitive.

This case raises urgent questions for all of Britain’s police forces:

  • Are AI tools such as Microsoft Copilot being used elsewhere in intelligence preparation, briefings, or risk assessments?
  • What safeguards exist to prevent AI-generated fabrications from entering official records?
  • Is there any audit trail or disclosure requirement when AI tools are used?

Most seriously, the episode raises questions about past criminal cases. If AI-generated material has been used—directly or indirectly—in intelligence logs, surveillance justifications, charging decisions, or risk assessments, then the integrity of previous convictions may be open to challenge. Generative AI is not designed to meet evidential standards, and its unregulated use risks contaminating the justice process itself.

Conclusion

This case establishes two separates but connected failures:

  1. A policing failure, in which unverified AI-generated content from Microsoft Copilot was accepted into an intelligence product, compounded by confirmation bias and weak oversight.
  2. A political failure, in which that policing error has been leveraged—under sustained establishment pressure—to advance a one-sided narrative that shields certain actors from scrutiny while treating procedural failure as proof of moral innocence.

The lessons are clear:

💡 Accountability must be consistent.

💡AI tools must never substitute for verified intelligence.

💡 AI-generated content must never be treated as fact without rigorous verification.

💡 Policing accountability must be applied consistently—not intensified or softened from the disproportionate influence of well-connected interest groups— but insulated accordingly, regardless of the political sensitivities involved,

💡 Public institutions must not allow political pressure to transform due process into theatre.

💡 Decisions must be grounded in evidence.

💡 Tested against bias in all directions.

Until transparent national rules govern the use of generative AI in policing, the risk is not merely reputational. It is judicial

⏩ Cam Ogie is a Gaelic games enthusiast.

Confirmation Bias And AI - Specifically Microsoft’s Co-Pilot - The Real Concern For The British Politicised Response To The Maccabi Tel Aviv Report

Guardian ★ Written by Alex South.


A rise of murders is traumatising inmates and staff, and making life harder for staff. But even in prison, violence isn’t inevitable.

There are hotspots for violence in prison. The exercise yard, the showers. There are peak times, too. Mealtimes and association periods are particularly volatile.

But first thing in the morning is not when you expect to hear an alarm bell. I certainly didn’t, at 6am in my office on the residential wing of a high-security prison in late 2018. All prisoners were locked up at that time. But overcrowding has long been a problem in UK prisons, and keeping three men in cells designed for one can be a recipe for disaster.

When I reached the scene, I found one of my colleagues standing outside a cell with his keys in the lock, poised to open the door. The control panel next to the door showed a blinking orange light. The cell bell can be activated by prisoners inside to call for officer assistance. Normally this would be a request for toilet roll or paracetamol. But that day was different.

Inside the cell, one man sat trembling on the top bunk. 

Continue @ Guardian.

Death On The Inside 🪶 As A Prison Officer, I Saw How The System Perpetuates Violence

Matt Bowen ✍ I always immediately recall this very question being asked in the 1971 Dalton Trumbo movie Johnny Got His Gun, based on the 1939 novel of the same name and Author, to which an excerpt of the answer given is; "It’s got something to do with young men killing each other".

I would say that Johnny Got His Gun is primarily an anti-war movie, I can’t honestly say I enjoyed the film, but this is not a movie review, I’m more concerned with the themes it explores and the analysis of those themes. It critiques the use of democracy as a justification for war and explores how ideals such as democracy are manipulated by those in power. It suggests that if democracy is used to justify unimaginable suffering without consent or clarity, it becomes a hypocritical slogan, not a genuine principle. Not too dissimilar from that explored in Johnny Got His Gun, over fifty years after the movie was released, a recent well-written article here on TPQ(1) by Cam Ogie outlined concern for particular actions of late, and suggested that if these actions are democracy, then words have lost meaning. Indeed Cam suggests the same; “Democracy as slogan, not principle”.

I asked in the comments section under Cam’s article the same question from the movie; what is democracy?

I mentioned that democracy means different things to different people, but the intent of my question was more to do with; what is the definition of democracy? If we have a definition, then we can say whether the word has indeed lost it’s meaning, and then explore the differences between what it now means, and what it is supposed to mean. Easier said than done.

According to Wikipedia, a precise definition of democracy does not exist.(2)

Although democracy is generally understood to be defined by voting, no consensus exists on a precise definition of democracy. Karl Popper says that the "classical" view of democracy is, "in brief, the theory that democracy is the rule of the people and that the people have a right to rule". One study identified 2,234 adjectives used to describe democracy in the English language.

2,234 adjectives in the English language to describe democracy, that's a fair amount. Does this mean that everytime anyone uses the word "democracy" they have all 2,234 adjectives in mind? I would suggest not. In fact, whenever someone uses the word, without significant context it's very difficult to ascertain exactly what they mean. I have often sought clarification in personal discussions whenever someone uses the word, and more often than not, I fail to receive it. It seems that some are much more clear on what it isn't, rather than what it is.

Philosophers and Scholars have long discussed this topic.

Perhaps if we start with Popper's classical view and also the general understanding that democracy is defined by voting. I would suggest that the former has a certain amount of ambiguity but, from my understanding, it does not appear to me that in practice it's "the people" that rule, and as to whether the people can exercise "the right to rule" has it's own set of problems. But what about the latter; voting. It could be said that these two are intertwined. If it's the people that vote, then does that mean it's the people that rule? Again, I would say that it does not appear that way in practice to me.

We can contrast "direct democracy" where people can vote directly on policy, with "representative democracy" where people vote on representatives that will then decide policy. Some countries have a semi-direct system, but by-in-large in The West, the dominant system is representative. Elections are supposed to be free and fair, where each vote is equal, and the impression is given that the result is the majority rules.

A form of representative democracy is liberal democracy. Constitutional protections are supposed to be in place, such as an independent judiciary and legal institutions, due process and rule of law. These checks and balances are supposed to protect civil liberties, rights of the minority, safeguard against oppressive governmental over-reach and prevent the "tyranny of the majority".

Austrian Political Economist Joseph Schumpeter’s controversial suggestion(3) was that:

the formation of a government is the endpoint of the democratic process, which means that for the purposes of his democratic theory, he has no comment on what kinds of decisions that the government can take to be a democracy.

Let’s take a closer look at voting for the formation of government.

Suffrage or the right to vote, has changed throughout history all around the world. In modern times more people now have the right to vote, although disfranchisement or not having the right to vote still occurs. Within Schumpeter’s theory for the definition of democracy, his was more “the method by which people elect representatives in competitive elections to carry out their will.”

There are currently different systems that can be used to determine elections, the Single Transferable Vote (STV), First Past the Post (FPTP), Additional Member System (AMS), to name but a few.

The YouTube Channel Veritasium has a very interesting and informative video titled Why Democracy Is Mathematically Impossible.(4)In this video, various voting systems are analysed and explained along with visual aids to show mathematically why this looks very much to be the case, with FPTP in particular receiving criticism. However, that is only a mathematical analysis of voting systems. Of course when other various factors are also taken into account such as; subversion, voter manipulation, voter suppression, gerrymandering, voter intimidation, electoral fraud, voter fraud, election interference, election denial etc, we can add these to the equation, and if the result of the maths looked bad before, it’s now looking even worse.

Election manipulation, and election denial is nothing new. These terms along with election interference were thrown around fairly recently, notably in the U.S.

A 2018 article for The New York Times(5) by Scott Shane mentions a study by Carnegie Mellon scholar Dov H. Levin, where Levin found that from the years 1946-2000 there were 81 counts by the United States and 36 counts by the Soviet Union or Russia of both “overt and covert election influence operations”.

The article quotes Steven L. Hall who retired in 2015 after 30 years at the C.I.A. where he was the chief of Russian operations as saying;

if you ask an intelligence officer, did the Russians break the rules or do something bizarre, the answer is no, not at all,” The United States “absolutely” has carried out such election influence operations historically, he said, “and I hope we keep doing it”.

The dean of American Intelligence Scholars Loch K. Johnson is also quoted as saying “We’ve been doing this kind of thing since the C.I.A. was created in 1947”.
 
The article does state that both Hall and Johnson argue that the interference by the U.S. is not morally equivalent to that of Russia. Somehow that assertion does not surprise me.

I found it an interesting piece that contained other quotes and details, but also in this very same article by Shane, we see a similar question being asked; "what does democracy mean?"

The article does not offer an answer.

It’s not agreed that voting alone for the formation of government is the overall defining element of democracy. So let’s look at some other commonly described attributes.

Consider the following excerpt from Wikipedia(6);

Features of democracy often include freedom of assembly, association, personal property, freedom of religion and speech, citizenship, consent of the governed, voting rights, freedom from unwarranted governmental deprivation of the right to life and liberty, and minority rights.

Those attributes are not exhaustive. Remember that 2,234 adjectives have been found to describe democracy, to try and address all 2,234, it would be a very long article indeed. But have a look through that excerpt from Wikipedia, and whichever "democratic" country you happen to reside in, ask yourself, how many of those attributes do you actually have, or how many do you perceive to be under threat?

In the U.S. right now, is the killing of Renee Nicole Good by I.C.E agent Jonathan Ross not to be considered as unwarranted governmental deprivation of the right to life? Are there other examples of such acts? Does the consent of the governed exist? Do you still have freedom of speech, or freedom of association or assembly?

The answer to some of those questions I am sure would vary between different folk and different countries, but I think we are seeing an increasing amount of people that would claim, perhaps rightly so, that those rights are not being protected, they are being eroded or, they simply don’t exist. Which brings us back to the original question, if democracy is not solely about voting, and if so-called democratic countries are not upholding the other attributes, then what is democracy?

Maybe Cam Ogie was right, words have lost meaning. I would certainly say there are plenty of words that have lost meaning over time, but with democracy we can’t even define it.

I think that democracy in practice is an illusion, where the common people believe they have a say, when in reality it’s not the case, and much like the analysis of Johnny Got His Gun, it is also a hypocritical slogan, it's a trigger word. It can invoke something in people. In fact, to accuse someone of being anti-democratic is used as a slur. It is used hypocritically to justify atrocity. It can invoke a reflex reaction that it is something to defend, something to fight for, something to kill for, something to die for. Yet for those in which these feelings or actions are invoked, they struggle to articulate exactly what it is they are killing and dying for. Some so-called democratic countries will actually dictate what other countries can do, and if they don't comply, they're more than happy to bomb "democracy" into them, more so when those countries do not possess the ability to defend themselves and there is less fear of reprisal, they then interfere in their so-called democratic elections, if indeed these elections even take place. Justification for this with a single solitary word that is devoid of meaning just so happens to be sufficient enough for those that are still taken in by the illusion. "Democracy!"

In many ways, democracy can be considered a paradox. Some of these paradoxes are explored by the Belgian political theorist Chantal Mouffe in her collection of essays aptly titled The Democratic Paradox.(8)

Also, consider how Donald Trump is often labelled by some as a dictator. A recent image of him after the illegal invasion of Venezuela and the subsequent kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, shows Trump with a Hitler type moustache of dripping crude oil. Yet some will assert that the very fact Donald Trump is President of the U.S. is down to democratic processes. If a democratic process can result in a dictatorship, is that not paradoxical? We can even see in the U.K. and Europe that those elected and supposed to represent the people, are putting policies into place that are limiting ideals which seems far from representing the very people that voted for them, yet again, paradoxically, these are the results of so-called democratic processes.

Some may point out that democracy contrasts with a dictatorship in that there are checks and balances that limit the power of the elected. I would argue that these checks and balances are far from sufficient. One such check on power in a democracy in attempt to avoid dictatorship is "Term Limits". But is this just another part of the illusion? Do we simply replace one dictator with another after their term limit is reached? Or is the political figurehead the illusion and policy is being dictated elsewhere by others?

Critics argue that modern democracies may fail to be sufficiently democratic and instead function in practice as oligarchies, insofar as governments are more responsive to the preferences of economic elites than to those of ordinary citizens. Numerous empirical studies across various western democracies including the United States, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Canada, Norway and Germany have consistently found that elected representatives tend to respond more to the preferences of very affluent citizens for policy outcomes than those of the average voter.(7)

Some descriptors of democracy make it seem fair in theory, but in practice we can see a different picture. I would suggest, to avoid using the word if you do not also provide sufficient context to make it precisely clear what it is you mean, especially if you’re likely to fold under questioning when asked for clarification. If the word invokes some sort of sense or feeling, perhaps your mind can steer away from being triggered by the word democracy and instead focus on the specific liberal attributes instead; rights, equity, equality, justice, liberty, freedom, and so on. Values like these make sense, but to invoke the word democracy if it doesn’t contain such values, does not make sense at all.

What does democracy mean to you?

The Veritasium video I previously mentioned concludes with the statement;

Democracy is not perfect, but it’s the best thing we’ve got. The game might be crooked, but it’s the only game in town.

If the only game in town is crooked, then it desperately needs repaired, and if it can’t be repaired, then is it time for a new game?

References

(1) The Pensive Quill - Cam Ogie - If This Is “Democracy,” Then Words No Longer Mean Anything - 

(2) Democracy.

(3) Joseph Schumpeter.

(4) Why Democracy is mathematically Impossible.

(5) Scott Shane for the New York Times.

(6) Democracy.

(7) Democracy - Criticism.

(8) Chantal Mouffe – The Democratic Paradox 

⏩Matt Bowen is a researcher and commentator.

What Is Democracy?

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

 

A Morning Thought @ 3030

Gearóid Ó Loingsigh ☭ writing in Substack on 1-January-2026.

Photo: G.O.L. Bag of coca leaves Catatumbo, Colombia 2006

Petro earned a worldwide fame for challenging the powerful with his speeches on Palestine, climate change and also changes to the drug prohibitionist paradigm. He became famous for his speeches against Trump. He challenged the US government to imprison him and put on him one of the infamous orange uniforms of Guantanamo and other lugubrious places in the US penal gulag. He challenged the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, to put the orange pyjama on him, to try it, if he dared.[1] He compares himself to the slain president of Chile, Salvador Allende, murdered in a coup d’etat orchestrated by the CIA and he has publicly stated that they want to kill him.[2] He raises his hand with that pencil that he uses to draw attention and point to the path we have to go along as if it were Harry Potter’s wand. Some psychologist can explain that pencil to us and his talk of being on the same level as Allende.

But this has little to do with reality. Petro is not willing to die in his post. That discourse is reserved for public meetings, not for diplomacy and less still for state policy. As with many, though not all the militants of the former guerrilla group M-19, Petro is above all pragmatic, particularly when it has to do with his own welfare. There are those who like to say that the M-19 people were studious, they read, they were cultured, in a nutshell they were cadres unlike the majority of the other groups. It is true, that they were cultured and studied, but all that remains of that is their sense of smell, they can sense personal advantage and the gravy train at a distance. So, Petro will not sacrifice himself and even less so will the M-19 functionaries in his government. A lot of anti-imperialist talk, but when it comes to it, they come down on the side of those they believe will win. And in the case of Venezuela, rightly or wrongly Petro believes Trump will win.

In response to the right-wing journalist Patricia Janiot who took him to task for describing Kast, the president elect of Chile as a Nazi and never having called Maduro a dictator, Petro replied stating that Kast was the child of a Nazi who arrived after the second world war and that Maduro was a dictator but not a drug trafficker.[3] It was another step to put some distance between him and Maduro, as the first step was the decision not to attend Maduro’s swearing in ceremony as president. Now he highlights that he does not agree with the reasons given by Trump, but he does believe that Maduro should resign his presidency. He stated Venezuela needed a democratic revolution and a transitional government and furthermore offered to receive Maduro, a clear signal that even if the Venezuelans voted for Maduro, Petro believes he should step down from the government.[4] Another step from he who will not die at his post, to tell Trump that if he wants to take out Maduro well don’t lump me together with him, at least not in the same coffin.

In recent declarations he took another step in relation to Venezuela, regarding possible and actual attacks against the country by the US. According to Petro, nobody is to blame other than the ELN. In twisted declarations he said that the land attack carried out by Trump in Venezuela was in reality an attack on the ELN and a centre for processing their cocaine and that the ELN was to blame for allowing an invasion of Venezuela.[5] There is something worth clarifying. Up till 2016 when the FARC signed their peace agreement, they were according to the press, the Colombian government and various NGOs the main drug traffickers in the world, the largest cartel the world had ever seen. After signing the agreement, overnight, the ELN miraculously became the main cartel. The FARC lent themselves to that myth, as did their unarmed political militants, many of whom are functionaries in Petro’s government without ever acknowledging their militancy in the former guerrilla group and they continue their fight with the ELN guerrilla group. At least this time they are not shooting at the ELN and trying to liquidate another guerrilla group. This time they have left the task to the Colombian state and Trump, just like the NGOs who used to preach about peace, fought against fumigation and did not accept the narcoticised discourse about the Colombian armed conflict. This time they are part of the government.

Petro said the ELN was to blame for Trump killing Colombian citizens in the Pacific and the Caribbean. But he changed a key element. He accepted that they weren’t fishermen. He said that they weren’t transporting cocaine but rather cannabis. How he knows this, we do not know and given his deliriums on the issue, maybe he doesn’t know either.

According to the president, many of the boats attacked with missiles in anti-drugs operations - including seizures carried out by Colombia or with international support – were not carrying cocaine, but rather cannabis, a substance that “is legal in many parts of the US”.

Petro contended that by keeping cannabis illegal in Colombia, Congress had made a mistake and warned that that decision “has cost the lives of many humble boatmen”.

On that basis, Petro directly called into question President Donald Trump in stating that “he is totally wrong”, as he said that the cocaine going to Europe is leaving in submarines and containers, whilst “cannabis is being illegitimately attacked”.[6]

Once more Petro has shown his complete ignorance on the issue of drugs. It would seem he is advised by first year sociology students destined to fail the course, or he smokes a lot of what he criticises. No serious analyst on the issue would state what Petro said.

Yes, it is true that the recreational use of cannabis is legal in various US states, but at a federal level it is illegal. Furthermore, any substance covered by the Single Convention of 1961 cannot cross international borders without the backing of the INCB (International Narcotics Control Board). The international trade in medicinal heroin and cocaine has always been allowed and in recent years medicinal cannabis in some countries. Whilst some states in the US and countries like Uruguay allow the controlled sale of cannabis for recreational use, its international trade is not permitted. Only trade in medicinal use substances is allowed and in the USA there are no medicinal uses for cannabis at a federal level.

It is just not true that if the Colombian Congress had legalised recreational cannabis that would have resulted in a significant change in the attitude of the US. Firstly, at a federal level, the sale of recreational cannabis is not permitted and this causes problems for the sellers themselves in Colorado when they try to put their legal profits into the banking system. They have to resort to strategies more akin to drug trafficking and operate cash only businesses.[7] The legislation which would allow the cannabis sellers to access the federal banking system has not been passed.

Moreover, even in the case of the legal sale of controlled substances, its international sale is severely regulated and everything that takes place outside of that is drug trafficking. That is what the Colombian law, covered by international treaties says, as Colombia ratified the Single Convention a long time ago. It is also a gross stupidity to think that if Colombia had legalised cannabis that Trump would not have attacked the boats.

Additionally, if those boats were carrying cannabis, where were they going? Nobody says those boats were capable of travelling thousands of kilometres to the US. Are they fishermen or cannabis traffickers? Petro’s discourse makes no sense. He stated that:

With the increase in coca leaf crops in Latin America in response to a growing demand in Europe, the price of cocaine has collapsed. Cannabis and illegal gold are now more profitable than cocaine. It is time for substitution.[8]

When he started his presidency, he said the same of fentanyl. The reports from the UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) say the exact opposite. Cannabis has always been the most consumed drug in the world, but the UNODC says that market that has most increased is the cocaine market. With both drugs the price has decreased slightly in the last decade but the purity of the cocaine and the potency of cannabis have increased. In the case of cannabis it has almost doubled and the purity of cocaine has increased by 34%.[9] Once again, Petro makes it up. His delirious statements on drugs would make anyone doubt themselves and ask whether he made those statements under the influence of the same drugs.

But there is another aspect, that the USA is practically self-sufficient in Cannabis for the illegal market. More nonsense from Petro, but one that is very dangerous because he is telling Trump that the boats were carrying illegal drugs. In the hippy parties of M-19 cannabis might be well thought of, but in the US legal system it is just as illegal as cocaine.

When Petro says that if they had legalised cannabis, something which should be done, Trump would not have attacked the boats, he lies to us, he deceives us. Trafficking in recreational cannabis is not permitted in the USA. The countries that tolerate or have legalised recreational use do not allow for its international sale.

The ELN is not to blame for the attacks in Venezuela. Petro’s discourse on drugs continues to be incoherent and in the context of the murder of Colombians on the high seas it is dangerous.

So much talk about his anti-imperialism, dying at his post, that they want to kill or imprison him and he ends up doing a favour to Trump by giving him excuses to attack Venezuela. And it turns out that the supposed laboratory in Maracaibo doesn’t exist and there isn’t even a report of an attack in the area.[10] All just to bow down to Trump hoping that he lifts the sanctions imposed on Petro. He has neither pride nor dignity and he is willing to sacrifice Maduro and Venezuela to save his own skin.

References

[1] El Nacional (23/11/2025) Petro envía contundente mensaje a Marco Rubio: “Si me va a meter preso, a ver si puede: si me quiere poner el piyama naranja, inténtelo”.

[2] Publimetro (23/09/2025) “Por esto me quieren matar”: Petro dice que es por hablar del narcotráfico y de Gaza. 

[3] El Tiempo (17/12/2025) Presidente Gustavo Petro llama ‘dictador’ a Nicolás Maduro, pero dice que ‘no hay evidencia de que sea narcotraficante’ como afirma Estados Unidos.

[4] CNN (11/12/2025) Colombia recibiría a Maduro si sale de Venezuela para una transición en el poder, dice el Gobierno de Petro. 

[5] W Radio (30/12/2025) Petro confirm que EE.UU. bombardeó fábrica y acusó al ELN de permitir una “invasion”. José David Rodríguez.

[6] Ibíd.,

[7] US Congress (2023) Marijuana Banking: Legal Issues and the SAFE(R) Banking Acts. 

[8] W Radio op. cit.

[9] EUDA (2025) European Drug Report 2025: Trends and Developments. h

[10] El País (31/12/2025) Petro señala que el ELN fue blanco de un ataque de Trump en Venezuela: “Tememos que mezclan la pasta de coca para hacerla cocaína. Camila Osorio. 

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

Venezuela 🪶 Petro On His Knees To Trump

Craig Murray ★ The mainstream media covered Venezuela non-stop yesterday. 

They many times mentioned Delcy Rodríguez, Vice President, because Trump stated she is now in charge. They never mentioned that 2026 marks the 50th anniversary of the torture to death of her father, socialist activist Jorge Rodríguez, by the CIA-backed security services of the US-aligned Pérez regime in Venezuela.

That would of course spoil the evil communists versus nice democrats narrative that is being forced down everybody’s throats.

Nor did they mention that the elected governments of Hugo Chávez reduced extreme poverty by over 70%, reduced poverty by 50%, halved unemployment, quadrupled the number receiving a state pension and achieved 100% literacy. Chávez took Venezuela from the most unequal society for wealth distribution in Latin America to the most equal.

Nor have they mentioned that María Corina Machado is from one of Venezuela’s wealthiest families, which dominated the electricity and steel industries before nationalisation, and that her backers are the very families that were behind those CIA-controlled murderous regimes.

Economic sanctions imposed by the West – and another thing they have not mentioned is that the UK has confiscated over £2 billion of the Venezuelan government’s assets – have made it difficult for the Maduro government to do much more than shore up the gains of the Chávez years.

Continue @ Craig Murray.

Venezuela And Truth

Christopher Owens 🏴I'm reaching out again and clutching flowers thrown in the breeze/They're all quite meaningless and yet they mean so much to me/We slipped up again by not recalling all the pain/And I wanna know why, I wanna know why. - The Mob
Petesy Burns
Petesy Burns is no more.

Receiving that message on New Year’s Day did put a dent in the day’s proceedings.

For those of us interested in punk rock and its visible manifestations in Belfast, Petesy Burns was the equivalent of a totem pole: someone who represented a rich heritage but could still inspire those who interacted with him.

From Good Vibrations through to the Harp Bar, the Manhattan, the Anarchy Centre and through three variations on Giros/Warzone Centre, Petesy helped to create and nurture not just punk rock in Belfast but also an alternative lifestyle and way of thinking during a time of intense conflict and ideological rigidness. Eternal respect is due.

♩ ♪♫ 🎹 🎷🎸🎻 🎺

From Sheridan Street in the New Lodge, his path in life was altered whenever he discovered punk rock. Speaking to Stuart Bailie in 2017 he said that the Sex Pistols ‘God Save the Queen’ offered a way out for him because:

…coming from the Republican tradition that sort of pricked my ears because music wasn’t really big on the agenda round our way. It was more sorta clodding things at the army. And I remember just being in the bedroom one day, and I used to listen to my ma and da’s radio in their bedroom, I used to listen to the charts every week and then this week’s Number Two was ‘God Save the Queen’ by the Sex Pistols. But then it was banned and I’d never heard it on the radio either. And it being Jubilee year, at first I thought it must be some sort of song, celebrating the Jubilee. And then I thought, the Sex Pistols? I’m not too sure about that. And then when I thought about it, I had heard of Johnny Rotten but never really heard who they were. And then when I got it, there was an affinity initially with where I was coming from. You know, that whole anti-establishment, anti-monarchy, anti-British thing. As it was then – ‘God Save the Queen, the fascist regime’. The argument was won at that point.

Soon making his way to Good Vibrations in Great Victoria Street, then onto the Harp Bar in Hill Street, it wasn’t long before he became involved in music. Beginning with the Stillborns before morphing into Stalag 17, their ferocious take on punk can be summarised with ‘Smash the Front’.



Beginning life as a Stillborns tune, it became Stalag 17’s most famous number.

It’s worth noting that, although small in numbers, the NF did have a hold in Protestant areas where the Shankill skins (including the likes of Johnny Adair, Sam ‘Skelly’ McCrory and Donald Hodgen) would have the NF logo on their jackets. While it is true that Adair helped forge those links (particularly with his band, Offensive Weapon) I’ve been repeatedly told by those who were either their or part of the general subculture that emerged after 1977 in Belfast that it was the anti-IRA/pro-British angle that attracted so many loyalists.

Regardless, adopting an anti-fascist stance whenever genuine fascists were trying to organise in the North was a brave and bold move. Unsurprisingly, this led to manys a confrontation whenever the two groups were on the circuit.

There were many other bands: FUAL, Sledgehammer, Shame Academy, The Outcasts, A-Political, A.R.S.E, The Hoakers. All of them embedded with the same love of music, the same excitement of picking up an instrument and the same glee of performing live.

Check out this tribute from Hillary Midgley from Sledgehammer.

♩ ♪♫ 🎹 🎷🎸🎻 🎺

The opening of the Anarchy Centre in November 1981 was another seminal moment in the history of Belfast. It was somewhere the punks who had been just a little too young for the Harp and the Pound could convalesce on a Saturday afternoon, watch a film (like the banned Monty Python's Life of Brian) and see gigs by local legends as well as the likes of Crass and Poison Girls while getting up to all sorts.

Stalag 17 played as support to the latter two which had an even bigger impact on Petesy who was barely 20 years old because

…at that point I was still firmly entrenched in the sorta, not what I would call the fashion end of punk but the apolitical, the hedonistic sorta chaos type thing, and that was the first time … and I would have always dismissed Crass…just took the line from the media, basically saying they were middle-class hippies. And just took that line without really having met them or thought about it, and then when they came I met them and saw how engaged they were just with people, outside of being on the stage, sitting about, not being stars, just being really interesting and interested, you know. And then seeing the band and the spectacle of it – because they had all their films and banners and them themselves, just completely engaging, it was just like a completely different kind of experience and you sorta thought, that's what punk’s about.

This led to the idea of collectivisation, especially after meeting people like Roy Wallace from Toxic Waste who were running the Rathcoole Self Help Group. Thus the catalyst for what became the Warzone Collective came into play and what happened next would change the lives of manys a person in Belfast.
♩ ♪♫ 🎹 🎷🎸🎻 🎺

Talking to Ian Glasper in 2009, Petesy noted that while:

…Belfast was less of a grim place in the Eighties than it had been in the Seventies...there was still virtually nothing in terms of a non-sectarian shared space in the city centre. Youth culture - and especially punk youth culture - was still a dirty word, and there was fuck-all means of people exploring their creativity in a way that wasn’t controlled. Everything we wrote at the time was a reflection of how we viewed Belfast and Northern Ireland, the punk scene, and people’s perception of our situation.
Belfast always had a fairly healthy punk scene, the only problem being that we could never secure a venue or practice space. The Warzone collective had been running the café in the anarchist bookshop, Just Books, but when it became apparent that we needed much more space, we got a room in the newly opened Centre for the Unemployed and annoyed them - mostly through noise pollution - until they helped us acquire our own premises. We got down to building a practice room, café and art workshop; it was truly unbelievable the mix of people and ideas Giro’s brought together, the sense of enthusiasm and possibilities was palpable…”

While such places were common amongst squatters in Britain and Europe, Belfast had never had such a place before. One that consciously didn’t designate itself as one or the other. One that offered vegan/vegetarian food. One where artists could have exhibitions. One where you could make your own T-shirts and posters. One where you could see life changing gigs from incendiary acts.

Giros inspired the dreamers of Belfast and, as one of the main architects of this alternative way of thinking, Petesy put it in stark but simple terms: DIY not UDA/IRA!


Summing up the importance of punk, Petesy put it in utilitarian terms:

It took me out of a lifestyle that I would have, for not knowing any better that I would have just followed and done what everyone around me was doing. And followed that track. That everyone was following you know. It sorta took me away from that and showed me other possibilities.

Petesy Burns, lest we forget.


⏩ Christopher Owens was a reviewer for Metal Ireland and finds time to study the history and inherent contradictions of Ireland. He is currently the TPQ Friday columnist and is the author of A Vortex of Securocrats and “dethrone god”.

Petesy Burns

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

Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)