With the exception—perhaps of Afghanistan, whose fate was determined to some degree by the UN—nobody these days needs an excuse or a real reason to start a war. Nowadays the UN looks as impotent as it ever really was in averting conflict. Once some self-deluded autocrat decides war is a good thing, nothing gets in the way, least of all logic. Back in 2003 we ended up in a war because it was said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. This year war on Iran is happening to stop their nuclear programme, which Trump claimed had been ‘obliterated.’ If you ‘ave ‘em or you ‘aven’t it makes no difference. This war of course is what Israel’s government has been itching for since the Islamic revolution in 1979. The likes of Netanyahu will point to long standing statements from Iranian leaders that they wanted to eradicate the state of Israel, and the clearly aggressive behaviours of Iran’s proxies was seen as evidence of that. But then Israel has not done anything to address its own addiction to warfare, always aided and abetted and funded by the US, albeit with a brief respite after Israel shot up the USS Liberty and killed dozens of US service personnel back in 1967. The US ship was in international waters at the time. All par for the course.
 
At least it looks like Starmer has grown a wee bit of spine in this latest bout of blood letting, so much so Trump has basically called him a useless idiot, and now with Sir Tony ‘WMD’ Blair chiming in. So SAD. AREN’T THEY CHUMS ANYMORE? Tony at least now has the excuse as a member of Trump’s Board of Peace (as they say, you couldn’t make it up) of becoming one of Trump’s useful idiots. Watch out Melania, Tony’s coming!*
 
*Nothing untoward is suggested here, but Melania should consider fixing an Oddjob rim to one of her wide-brimmed hats just to be on the safe side. 

Belgium as such rarely makes the news, so I thought it might be a nice short break destination, especially since this last week it has not experienced any rail—or general—strikes. A warning from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office advised that disruption could happen almost any time. What Belgians are striking for I don’t know. In Brussels and Antwerp one gets a slight impression of orderly chaos, where things work but could go off the rails (forgive the pun) at any time. My Englishperson’s impressions are partly formed by not having a clear idea of what language is being spoken. These are truly cosmopolitan features of a society which superficially at least has accepted ‘integration.’ Having said which I am sure that historical enmities lurk beneath the surface which some politicians will inflame. Such people could do no worse than visit a current exhibition in Antwerp’s MAS museum which looks at the treatment of Jews during WWII. The exhibition looks at the domestic life of individual Jewish residents, and its descent from ordinariness to horror. For much of the non-Jewish population life went on as best it could, and this for some meant accommodations being made with the occupiers. A German propaganda newsreel showed German troops marching down a street being given Nazi salutes by civilian onlookers. Cinemas could still offer some hope of escape, even if films had to be approved. Such approval might be easier to obtain if the proposed film didn’t touch on the war at all, or at least presented the situation as normal, with healthy fraternisation between occupiers and occupied.
 
At least Belgium hasn’t started any wars recently or invaded anywhere, at least not by force. Near the MAS museum is the Red Star Line museum, which tells the story of the eponymous shipping line which ferried hundreds of thousands of emigrants to the US and Canada. Not just Belgians, but people from as far away as Eastern Europe. In this sense Belgium has been at the crossroads of modern European history. ‘Free movement’ was a reality long before the EU came along. In the case of the US their open door policy was closed in 1954. I believe Canada still welcomes migrants. But the borders are closing up. No more ‘world citizenship’ nonsense!
 
The Magritte Museum in Brussels is worth visiting in this general political context. René Magritte (1898-1967) maybe best known for his surrealistic paintings but he was also anti-Fascist (one reason amongst many why I prefer him to Dali). In one of his short films he presents himself in the style of a lunatic giving an impassioned speech, funny and sinister at the same time, given its basis in the real life nut job who sought world domination. In this regard, with the help of Co-pilot I have recreated one of Magritte’s posters for the contemporary era, below. Enjoy!

​

Wishful thinking. It may be sneered at, but doesn’t hope depend on something like it? Here’s a plan: let’s declare an ambition to make the Middle East a nuclear free zone. This would mean all countries coming to the negotiating table and abandoning nuclear weapon ambitions—and existing stocks. Some may argue that a rogue state like Iran would never agree to it, or couldn’t be trusted. Of course, other rogue states—Israel for example—would just carry on denying they had any nuclear weapons, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Another barrier to such an agreement is that there are simply too many religious nutters who hate each other in the Middle East. I wonder why this is, why has history become so stuck it forms a barrier against any intelligent solutions? Perhaps they really do believe in Armageddon. That too is a form of wishful thinking which could result in more than they wished for.
 

​Everybody has had their say about the Gorton and Denton by-election result by now, so it must be my turn. Suffice to say it’s hard to disagree with much of the left-wing analysis of Labour’s slaughter. As a former party worker one thing that made me cringe was Labour putting out false ’bar chart’ leaflets which claimed that only Labour could beat Reform, when actually the Greens were on course to do that. Labour had even set up a false website promoting tactical voting to support its case. Another form of astro-turfing. But if the only positive reason to vote Labour, after a year and a half in government, is to appeal to tactical voting then it tells the electorate all they need to know. An appeal to tactical voting is an appeal to a voter’s freedom from old constraints. Starmer’s response to this defeat is typically dead-handed. Apparently the result was all George Galloway’s fault for endorsing the Green Party, that being the pro-Gaza choice in this constituency with a large Muslim population. Starmer has given up on the Muslim vote which will not disappoint some people.
 
After this result, who now (in the interim) will fill Starmer’s head with soothing platitudes? He’s still on track to be turned out after May’s local elections. I can only imagine the turmoil in the Parliamentary Labour Party. The rightwing got what they wanted and it turned out, to coin a phrase, to be a crock of shit. It has to be said though that this is a moment when the left could overplay its hand. The failure of the current leadership is not in itself a pointer to a convincing new direction. That direction needs to spelt out now before the inevitable crash happens. Who will do it? 

The vile regime in Iran may now be entering its end days—but that is hard to say. The latest target of America’s never-ending wars is probably not going to go without some sort of fight. Just at the moment when commentators were suggesting a diplomatic solution was on hand one can only assume that the Trump whisperer Netanyahu convinced the idiot to go in all guns blazing. The last thing Bibi wanted was to attack Iran on his own. That there is, as usual it seems no plan for whatever happens if the regime is ousted, another interminable post-war disaster awaits. That there is no plan is evidenced by both Trump and Netanyahu’s calls for the Iranian people to ’take control’ and enjoy the fruits of their new found freedom, as did Libyans, Iraqis and Syrians, not to mention Afghanistan whose invasion of course at least had the legal imprimatur of the UN.
 
Some people have suggested that the Shah’s son, who has lived in the United States for most of his life could become the figurehead of a new democratic Iran. He reminds me of the US’s once favoured Iraqi Ahmed Chalabi who helped convince George W. & Co  to invade Iraq. Chalabi hardly got a hero’s welcome in the new ’liberated’ Iraq and subsequently was found guilty of fraud and sentenced to 22 years in prison. I am not suggesting the Shah’s son is a fraudster of course. I am suggesting vultures are already circling Tehran.

​Naturally, none of this has anything to do with the Epstein files. That would be a gratuitous suggestion! 

I am struggling to understand how the 72 year old man of the moment, Dark Lord and Prince of Darkness whatisname rationalises his situation. The BBC reported:
 
“Lord Mandelson has not publicly commented in recent weeks on the Epstein files, but the BBC understands his position is he has not acted in any way criminally and that he was not motivated by financial gain.”
 
It seems Mandelson’s boss at the time of his alleged ‘misconduct in public office’ disagrees with Mandy’s profession of innocence. No doubt the police will get to the bottom of it. So what drove Mandy to share sensitive information whilst Business Secretary? I expect he’ll tell us it was purely about friendship. That friendship, as we know helped Epstein to meet a wider network of power brokers, including Tony Blair. Epstein’s Rolodex clearly expanded with such compliant friends of friends. That will certainly have helped Epstein to a financial gain. In the meantime Mandy will have told himself so many times, over and over again that he was simply and naively a friend of the paedo and all his interactions were totally innocent he will go to his grave believing it and that he has been done a great injustice. The same will be true of Mr Windsor, although his behaviour seems to have been more skewed to the pleasures of the flesh.

I asked the internet ‘what is a nation state?’ Whether the response was from Wikipedia or ChatGTP the answer was the same: ‘just about anything really.’ In my simple imagination I thought the definition may depend on things like having a common language, control of one’s own laws, the means to defend the population, possibly even your own currency—well, it might include all of these things but a lot more besides. And of course ‘controlling your own laws’ doesn’t necessarily mean you can’t share that responsibility with other nation states, nor even your currency or any other number of policies. But ultimately even if you had shared those things you might retain the right to withdraw from sharing them, as the UK foolishly did with Brexit.
 
I am prompted to ask the question ‘what is a nation state’ by coverage of the Epstein scandal, particularly some reporting of it in the Byline Times. Much of this looks at the paedo’s international connections, and the manner in which he used these connections to promote interests outwith the control of any particular nation state. Prominent here is his relationship with the Techbros and the development of cryptocurrency. Choosing your own currency, and the controls under which it is employed is a significant national governance issue. So the development of cryptocurrency, which doesn’t submit itself to any form of regulation is a concern, not least in advancing the cause of ne’r do wells. But it seems to me the likes of Epstein, and others, such as Peter Thiel of Palantir fame are bent on creating their own crypto empires, reliant on and facilitated by technology and supplicated for the time being by pliant governments.. What other explanation can there be for Epstein’s so-called ’philanthropic’ donations to academic institutions working on complex technological issues if not to understand this new world?
 
We are already well in to the era where technology outpaces regulation. Legislators struggle to keep up (and some are bought off, of course). Indeed, if legislators could keep up with the technology, we might find that real democratic oversight would have to be sidelined if not abandoned. The Epstein files give us an invaluable insight into how the techbro-industrial complex meshes together. I maintain my view that the offering up of Mr Windsor, and now even Mandy’s heads will be seen by some as a necessary sacrifice to keep their show on the road. And that road leads to the utter evisceration of what has previously been known as ‘sovereign power.’
 
There’s a huge irony that for the likes of Farage and the populist right the language of sovereign power is crafted to accelerate the emergence of the crypto-state. 

My parliamentary successor but two, Mark Seward MP (the constituency is now called Leeds South West and Morley) has the distinction of being an ‘Honorary Chair of Labour Friends of Israel’ and has just written an article for LabourList in which he trots out the well worn line about the ‘two state solution.’ It barely needs reiterating that the Israeli government (as a whole, not just one or two rogue rightwing ministers) is fanatically opposed to the ‘two state solution’ and is doing all within its power to make it a practical impossibility. But it suits the Israeli government to see innocent consumers of the idea to spout it around where they believe it will help tame the opposition to their rapacious policies. Netanyahu’s government has made it plain with its Jewish state law that even Arabs still living in Israel are de facto second class citizens dwelling under an apartheid regime. As for the West Bank, this has long since ceased to be a contiguous entity and violent evictions of Palestinians from their land continue at an alarming pace. Mr Seward thinks that boycotting Israel is wrong (trotting out the usual ‘what aboutery’ line which suggests e.g. BDS is more about anti-Semitism than anything else). I think if he did his research he would find that boycotts happen all the time, indeed I read only yesterday in Canada’s Globe and Mail that many Canadians are boycotting the United States (and the Canadian government stopped selling US products in state-run liquor stores). In Mr Seward’s assessment if there is any issue with Israel’s approach to the Palestinians it just comes down to a few bad actors (some of whom he approves being sanctioned). He fails to see the institutional issue. This blindness lies at the root of the problem.

In a very sad, deplorable and counter-intuitive way we owe Epstein a debt of gratitude. In death, his life has opened a can of worms so revealing it has got everybody (well, nearly everybody there’ll always be those who aren’t interested) thinking about the form and character of our elite human compatriots and the structures of their networks. As we wait all agog to find out whether Mandelson will have his collar felt we can also reflect on the simple truth that these people (and e.g. their fellow travellers the ‘Masters of the Universe’ who through greed and pure self-interest brought on the financial crisis) are utterly flawed and deserve no more respect than anyone else. So the question is: how do they get away with it? (Query: is Mr Mountbatten-Windsor being offered up to save a few skins? Despite his prominence, he was seen by many as pretty useless.) Perhaps if he’s found guilty and put away (at His Majesty’s Pleasure, as they say) will the powers that be breathe a sigh of relief and hope that this small sacrifice will help them preserve their privileges and nexus? How exactly will this episode pass into history?

+One of these days Starmer is going to tell us that he never knew who he was, or what his job was. He has said, (in relation to  the revelation that his covert campaign group in the Labour Party, the so-called ‘think tank’ Labour Together,’ run by Morgan McSweeney) that he wasn’t aware the group had commissioned a private company to investigate journalists looking into Labour Together’s secretive funding model. “I didn’t know anything about this investigation” Starmer said. Of course, the sum of money at issue, £700,000 is small change. Who would dream of asking where it was all coming from? Just like Jimmy Savile (never crossed my desk), Peter Mandelson (he lied to me) or Jeremy Corbyn (never knew him), Prime Ministerial amnesia and its consequential evasiveness reveal a deeply cynical abuse of public trust.
 
+Chancellor Rachel Reeves showed off her full grasp of economics today after news that the inflation rate had fallen from 3.4% to 3%. She said it was great that prices were falling. No, Rachel, if that were the case it would be called ‘deflation.’ All that’s happened is the rate of increase has slowed down a little—prices are still going up. One of the components in the reduced overall rate of inflation is a reduction in the price of petrol but I’ve not heard quite how government policy has achieved this.

UPDATE 19th February: Inflation figures in Canada also dipped a little, with fuel prices being much of the story. Conclusive evidence I think that that has nothing whatsoever to do with UK government policy. Unless of of course Rachel also runs the Canadian economy.