New labour – more of the same

In the UK its rare we get any good news these days. But with a worsening cost of brexit living crisis, it looks all but certain the Tories will lose the next election, as there’s no real way for them to fix the mess. But equally, there are some worrying signs from within labour, which suggest a labour government isn’t really going to make much of a difference, in fact it will probably be a short lived administration.

The main driver of this crisis is inflation, which is mostly driven by windfall profits for banks, energy & retail corporations (and not wages as the government claims). Indeed its getting so bad they are starting to call it greedflation. Hence raising interest rates or restricting wages isn’t going to do anything, other than hurt those who aren’t rich. On the other hand, a windfall tax or an increase in the top rate of tax (or perhaps a capital gains tax or a one off wealth tax) all probably would do the trick. But these are the things the Tories won’t do. They serve the wealthy & nobody else. If it means driving the economy into the ground, just so that the billionaire class can buy a new lambo, then so be it.

The end result is the Tories are tanking in the polls. The situation is so bad, there’s even talk of an early election. Yes the Tories would lose such an election, But if they wait until the impact of these interest rate hikes hit (meaning many will not be able to afford to refinance their mortgages once the fixed rate term ends, likely causing house prices to crash), they could be looking at a total wipe out.

Under Starmer, labour has been moving increasingly further and further to the right, to the point where its now questionable whether they still count as a centre left party anymore. He’s abandoned numerous promises he made to get elected as leader, such as abolishing tuition fees, scraping the de-humanising system of universal credit or increasing income tax on high earners. Labour have also made clear they have no plans of reversing Tory policies, even controversial policies such as their anti-strike laws, anti-demonstration laws), anti-migration rules (which likely breach human right legislation and aren’t actually reducing net migration in any way) nor will they reverse brexit (they’ve effectively ruled out even a customs union). They’ve even suggested there will be no substantial rise in public spending under a labour government (then how are they going to solve the cost of living crisis, organise a whip round?).

And they’ve also had many opportunities to thwart the Tories more unlawful and fascist policies. For example, the Greens in the house of lords, submitted a fatal motion against the Tories anti-protest legislation (a story that the BBC effectively censored). This would have likely succeeded had labour not blocked it (yes they helped the Tories get a fascist bill passed!), arguing that the lord’s shouldn’t be blocking common’s legislation. Actually this particular bill hadn’t been through the common’s (that was the point of trying to block it!). And if you think the Tories won’t use every dirty trick they can to block labour legislation, I’ve got some magic beans I can sell you.

They also failed to intervene as regards Johnson’s honours list. Promising to get rid of the house of lords if Johnson’s honours went through, would have forced Sunak to throw out the list (the Tories have been using the honours list to reward their cronies for years, its abolishment would mean hundreds of angry Tory donors, so Sunak won’t have much of a choice).

In short, what’s the point of a labour government if they aren’t going to actually change anything? Ultimate victory for the Tories is not to get their policies passed, but to get labour to adopt them. Not least because it allows the Tories and their client media to assign blame to labour for those policies. This was after all the fatal mistake of the Tony Blair government. He gets a lot stick these days (as does Clinton or Obama in the US), but often for policies that weren’t his idea in the first place. It was the Tories who deregulated the markets, turning once thriving working class communities into welfare colonies. And (ironically enough) it was the Tories who signed up to greater freedom of movement within the EU. Even the Iraq war wasn’t his idea (that was G. W. Bush).

The problem was Blair, despite having a massive majority in the commons, did very little to reverse these policies (he did something, just not enough), largely because he was terrified of being labelled “old labour” by the Tory press. Hence he adopted Tory policies, thus allowing the Tory media to blame his government for Tory mistakes, while also pouring poison into people’s ears regarding the EU and migrants. Hence many in the effected communities blamed labour (and the EU) for them being left behind. Which, alongside the austerity of the Tory coalition government (again nothing to do with labour), led to the strong leave vote in certain parts of the country (along side the actual Tories & the bigot brigade).

Starmer seems to be setting himself up to repeat Blair’s mistake (case in point, Starmer recently attended a party hosted by the Murdoch’s). He’s going to adopt a number of Tory policies even thought he knows they are deeply damaging and unsustainable long term, because he’s afraid of the media saying mean things about him. Well I hate to break it too you, the media are always going to be on the side of the Tories. While the briefly pretended to be on labours side in the run up to the 1997 election, this was merely a survival tactic (they knew labour were going to win anyways, so they wanted to reduce the chances of labour taking revenge on them for all the lies they’d spent the last few decades spreading).

The same is true today, the media will pretend to support labour once its clear Sunak’s goose is cooked, but only to placate Starmer. After that, they will quickly resume normal service, aiming that by the time the subsequent election rolls around everyone will be blaming Starmer for brexit, the costing of living crisis, the collapse of the NHS, the undermining of democracy, etc. And given that his plan seems to be to get elected and then put his trotter’s up, they’ll have a point.

Now there’s some in labour who will say, no this is all part of a big clever plan. We are playing drafts while Starmer is playing 3D chess. Well I doubt that. For example, if he is secretly planning on joining a customs union (as I’ve heard several suggest) he’d need to put that in the labour manifesto. Why? Because if he doesn’t the Tories can use their control of the lords, the courts, the civil service, the police, security services, banks and ultimately the Royals to block such legislation. And besides, the EU won’t give him the time of day without it being a campaign promise, as it will have no democratic mandate. The only way such a policy can become law (or anything else labour supporters want for that matter) is if he goes to the country and wins an electoral mandate for it.

There are three basically 3 ways to grow an economy and thus increase tax revenue – grow the workforce, grow your exports or encourage inward investment. With near full employment (many forced into the gig economy by the Tories, meaning they earn poverty wages and thus don’t pay alot in taxes), the only way to grow the workforce is through mass inward migration. In fact ironically, its probably the unchecked growth in this under the Tories which is keeping the UK economy out of recession (and can somebody explain to me how a few thousand desperate refugees coming across in small boats is a swarm, but hundreds of thousands of migrants, many from India like the PM, doesn’t count?).

Similarly, growing exports or inward investment would require better trade links with the UK’s primary trading partner….the EU. So adopting the Tories failed brexit policy just means inward investment and exports will continue to lag behind, meaning no growth in tax revenue. Starmer is setting labour up to fail.

Another common claim is that labour are trying to reconnect with working class voters. Many in labour have this vision of blue collar workers coming home from the mine, or the factory, to the tune of the music from the Hovis advert. Well between the Tories and Blair the UK working class ceased to exist. Those who used to belong to that class are now in their 60’s-70’s and retired (so they ain’t working and the main predictor for voting Tory is age).

I’m reminded of how the Bolshevik’s (or Maoists), who’d often never met a rural peasant in their life, had a sort of idealised vision of the peasant’s. They were unaware that most peasants were religious conservatives who were deeply suspicious of townies, especially Bolshevik’s. Hence they resisted Communist policies often leading to conflict, civil strife and ultimately genocide. Starmers master plan is much the same, go looking for votes in all the wrong places and impose policies that nobody wants.

By contrast there is a substantial number of millennial and generation Z’ voters who DO support labour and have been severely effected by Tory policies. They now have little chance of ever owning their own home and saving for retirement isn’t possible when you are living pay check to pay check. Yet these are the very people who Starmer is going to shaft once he gets into power. How do you think that’s going to work out? Likely by them feeling betrayed and they’ll go fishing for another party, likely the lib dems, greens or some hard left socialists….or perhaps fall into the same trap their parents did and back the far right.

And speaking of which, some division of votes on the left is always to be expected. Not least because that’s how the Tory media work. In the election they’ll try to sow discord, knowing that while they ain’t going to convince many to vote Tory, they might convince them to vote for another third party instead This is why it is essential labour does an election deal with the greens and lib dems.

And once the election is over, switch to proportional representation. Because while PR does make it harder for labour to win an out right majority, it does mean the Tories can’t get back into power without a majority of votes (they’ve never polled more than 45% since the 1920’s). Yes labour would have to share power with some of the smaller parties, but so what if they can get their policies passed and stay in power one election after another. But again Starmer has ruled this out.

Now to be clear, I’m not some salty Corbyn supporter, I was critical of him too. Indeed I predicted the likely outcome of Corbyn’s reign of error was a labour party that would lurch even further to the right (I’m only surprised it happened so quickly). That said, there’s been a purge of the left wing of the labour party using tactics which Stalin would approve of. For example, not only did Starmer expel Ken Loach (who directed the critically acclaimed film “I Daniel Blake“), but even kicked out a labour mayor for just showing up on a platform with Ken (worth noting Ken Loach was recently invited to the Sistine chapel by the Pope and praised for his fight against disinformation…so presumably the Pope is now going to be “cancelled” by Starmer too). This is allegedly due to his criticism of Israel, but on the other hand it is a proven fact that both sides within labour have been using anti-antisemitism as a factional weapon.

All in all, labour seem to be morphing into a centre right party. The UK equivalent of the democrats, who can’t find their ar$e with both hands. And are sitting by passively while the republicans turn the US into an autocratic neo-fascist Oligarchy. Or we have the equally ineffective Australian Labor party….aka the $hit lite party. And should you think the present Tory party is a bit too right wing for your liking, wait awhile. The one that comes to power in 5 years time will be many times worse (they are already talking about a referendum on withdrawing from the human rights convention). So its likely Starmer is putting at risk the very survival of British democracy, just so he can satisfy his ego.

Hence until I see some serious changes in labour policy, I won’t be voting labour. Granted I’m not in a marginal seat (mine is usually a toss up between the SNP and the Tories) and I’d understand why someone in such a seat would still vote labour. But I’d urge everyone else to vote against them and support a third party candidate. Its only when confronted with a threat to their potential majority will we see a panicked change of policy from Starmer.

Netflix’s Cleopatra bombs

I mentioned the Netflix series on Cleopatra in my last post, but oh boy has this story blown up. Its managed to get itself a score of 1% on rotten tomatoes (although its recovered somewhat since then….to 2%!). They also appear to have enraged the entire country of Egypt (perhaps not surprising, given they have border disputes and water disputes with several sub-Saharan nations). And quite a number of Greeks and several historians seem to be none too pleased either.

I previously suggested that this series has to be judged on the basis of whether or not they are presenting it as historical fiction (in which case, if you don’t like it, I can call you a Wambulance), or something that could be mistaken for historical fact. Well apparently they went the full ancient aliens on this one. Bringing in so-called “experts” to talk a load of BS, one of whom is actually a Fallist (who doesn’t believe in the scientific method because its racist, because it was invented by white men….we’ll just ignore the ancient African and Asian scientists who used it long before then).

They also make a whole host of unsubstantiated claims, e.g. that Cleopatra was some sort of great military leader (then why did she need the support of Caesar and Mark Antony?). Or that she invented the Julian calendar (and presumably she also invented the question mark). Incidentally, if you want to learn some actual history, check out History Civilis YouTube channel, which does a pretty good job of explaining the history of this period (including Cleopatra).

So ya its bad, and pretty dumb. But aren’t people overreacting? Why isn’t everyone getting equally upset about Liz Taylor portraying Cleopatra? Or the half dozen or so other movies about Cleopatra (which also didn’t have a Greek or Egyptian actress playing the role). Or white European actors playing Emperor Ramses in Exodus:Gods and Kings (2014) or Egyptian gods in Gods of Egypt (2016). Or what about Ben Afleck playing the role of a Hispanic American in Argo. While these casting decisions are definitely questionable, in fairness none of these productions presented themselves as a documentary. So while yes, there does seem to be a bit of an over reaction, but there’s no smoke without fire. And the cast and crew going out and calling anyone who criticises their show as racist has hardly helped. Learn to read the crowd!

But seriously, can we also drop the whole “woke Hollywood” agenda conspiracy theory. Firstly, you might want to look up the term woke, because I don’t think it means what you think in means (it basically means being aware of racism). Among those who are actually racist (and don’t like being outed as such) its become something of a right wing dog whistle used to vilify whoever happens to be their particular enemy of the month. And this last month or so the following have been declared to be woke: Anti-capitalist protesters, bankers, trans people, the archbishop of Canterbury (he’s supposed to stand up for Christian doctrine, if you don’t like that, there are other religions you can follow instead), the King, anti-royalists protesters, the police (not fascist enough apparently!), the Tories (they are fighting over brexit again…), labour, UK car makers, the civil service, more Tories (…and fighting over who is going to be the next Tory leader) and now everyone in Hollywood. You want to make yourself look like a brain dead sheeple online, claim you are anti-woke and bring up the usual tired right wing talking points.

In reality Hollywood’s a bit more of a mixed bag. After all, how many rich people do you know who like paying more in tax? We’ve got plenty of prominent republicans who are Hollywood stars. Notably Mel Gibson, Bruce Willis, The Rock and Kelsey Grammer to name a few. Meanwhile Ronald Reagan, Donald Trump and Arnold Schwarzenegger were all elected to high office. And there’s been plenty of movies that were blatant republican propaganda, such as the Green Beret’s, Battle of LA, 24, Zero Dark Thirty, Red Dawn (including the 2012 remake) and anything made by Michael Bay. The reality is that right wingers have no problem with Hollywood values, or movies which push a particular political agenda….so long as its one they agree with. If its something they don’t agree with, then they throw a toddler temper tantrum.

However, there is a serious point here, in terms of the lack of good roles for black actors. Western literature and history does not mention non-whites particularly often (and then only as minor characters). So there’s a limited number of roles for black actors to play. One solution to this is to be race blind in casting (a common tactic in the theatre). For example, you do know the character Red in the Shawshank Redemption (played by Morgan Freeman) was supposed to be Irish?

Another idea is to tell more African-American or African centric stories (Hidden Figures, Amistad Moonlight, etc.). The issue with this tactic is getting funding (and here’s where we see the true “Hollywood values” come into play). Hollywood producers are often reluctant to commit funding to a project where most of the cast is black and the few white guys are probably the villains (so they know that’s going to piss off a lot of WASP’s). They worry that it simply won’t be appealing to a mostly white American audience. Many of the examples of white washing I mentioned earlier came about because Hollywood executives were unwilling to commit funds without a major star on board (and specifically a white one).

In fact this may explain this whole issue with this production of Cleopatra. You see this Netflix production is merely the 2nd season of a series covering African queens. But most of these Queens are historical figures the average Joe has probably never heard off. So its reasonable to speculate that they had to shoehorn in Cleopatra, otherwise the project would have never been funded (and portraying her authentically would be confusing, at least to your average American, who is only vaguely aware of where Africa is on a map, less so the history of late Ptolemaic Egypt).

So in short, its all a bit of a mess. But its not like Hollywood hasn’t done far worse before (if Egypt is suing Hollywood over this, can the rest of us sue them over the movie Cats?). Because ultimately all Hollywood really cares about is making money. That’s the real “Hollywood values”.

News round up

Police state

So the UK is now officially a police state. In the last few months the government has passed laws prohibiting noisy protests or anything which could cause disruption. Which does sort of raise the question, how can you protest in a way that doesn’t make noise and doesn’t cause disruption? Are we supposed to walk on tip toe single file down the side of the footpath? Are ambulance drivers now expected to not use their siren and obey the rules of the road? After all, they might otherwise cause disruption and distress.

And who is the judge of what counts as a disruptive protest? Why the Met police, an organisation that has been officially branded as institutional racist, homophobic and misogynistic by investigations into its conduct (notably hundreds of rape allegations against its officers). So unsurprisingly they immediately began arresting anti-monarchy protesters, some before they’d even gotten the banners out of their vans. Others, who were handing out rape alarms (probably useful given how many rapists there are on the force!), also got arrested. Of course the police aren’t going to stop a far right march or or a violent anti-trans rights protest (i.e. people who actually have a history of violent protest). After all, that would mean the cops would be arresting many of their own colleagues. In fact, why don’t the Met just arrest themselves and leave the rest of us alone?

This is the sort of thing we’d expect to see in Russia or other repressive regimes. But I think the Tories seem to be forgetting why it is that repressive regimes ban protests. It is because these regimes often don’t enjoy majority support. Yes they control the media (like the Tories) and there’s a core group of supporters who have done well out of their regime (like the Tories), but the silent majority of the population hate their guts. And based on the results of the local elections, factoring in voter apathy and voter suppression measures (a pensioner can use their bus pass as ID, a young person’s railcard doesn’t count!), I’d argue in the UK Tory support is probably at a level of roughly a quarter of the population. The rest hate the Tories.

What any regime in this sort of situation doesn’t want is for this to become common knowledge. Because if it does, then such regimes can collapse remarkably quickly. Previously I’d have argued that anyone talking of replacing the monarchy in the UK was living in cloud cuckoo land. However now, thanks to the heavy handed police tactics during the coronation, I’d say its more like a 50/50 chance.

Neo-Blairism

But aren’t labour going to just repeal this anti-protest legislation? Actually, no they’ve not committed to that, nor are they going to block the illegal migration bill in the house of lords. Why? Because the press might say mean things about Starmer (spoiler, he could single handedly capture Putin, solve world hunger, cure cancer and the Daily Mail would still find a reason to criticise him). Basically Starmer can’t tie his shoelaces now without first consulting with the Murdoch’s.

The trouble with Corbyn was that he wasn’t tactical, he had no idea how to win an election. The problem with Starmer is he’s way too tactical, even if he has to sell his soul to get into power. In fact he’s not only embraced Blairism, he’s talked about going beyond it basically turning labour into a centre right party that recycles.

However, I’d argue why labour lost support in the north (and the brexit vote), was a rejection of Blairism (and neo-liberalism in general). So this might look good for the newspapers, but it might not translate into a route to power. Without some sort of clear vision to motivate people (other than, I’m not the Tories), he raises the risk of the left wing vote splitting (and a significant proportion voted green or lib dem in the local elections), or they just don’t bother showing up on election day and the Tories win by default.

Recall the Tories aren’t going to fight fair in any election. They will take any opportunity to sow division (and painting Starmer as a Blairite is an obvious one). They will make promises they have no intention of ever fulfilling (such as promising to bring in protectionist measures or massive public spending & tax cuts, while Starmer is preaching austerity). And even if labour wins, every mistake the Tories made will be blamed on the new labour government. And in fairness, if labour’s plan is to not undo any Tory policy, they will sort of own it. Its no good complaining, about post-brexit shortages, or an NHS on its knees, or asylum seekers coming over in small boats, when you’ve done nothing to reverse these policies.

That said, it does unfortunately go to prove my point regarding Corbyn. That the likely outcome of his reign of error won’t be to move labour further too the left, but actually the most likely outcome would be for labour to embrace Blairism again.

Coronation hypocrisy

And we also need to remember, that the only reason why the Tories and their client media support the king, is because he’s seen as a useful idiot. If he was to start inviting Corbyn around for tea and crumpets, the same Tory media who were idealising him and the royals last week (doesn’t Kate look lovely), would turn on him and vilify the royals tomorrow (probably by mentioning princess Diana every two seconds). Much like they did to Harry and Meghan.

For example we had a story about the king mentioning his dislike of the Rwanda deportation policy, but then being rebuked by Boris Johnson and “made to squirm”. Now imagine that happened but it was Corbyn or Starmer who rebuked the monarch, what would the reaction of the Tory press be? Likely they’d be calling for his head. What was we saw last week wasn’t a coronation, but a pageant in hypocrisy of the right putting a crown on a puppet.

ChatBOT’s or chat but?

So we’ve all heard the warnings about how Chat bots are going to get super intelligent and how this is a massive threat. On the other hand some of the senior staff in our uni are encouraging students to use them and for us as lecturers to integrate chat bots into our teaching. After all, students are going to have to compete against others using chat bots in the work place, just go with the flow.

However, this does raise the question, if AI is doing the actual work, who is responsible? In engineering, in the event of some sort of cock up, the buck stops with the engineers. On every engineering drawing there’s a box in the corner which says who created the drawing, who checked it and who approved it for construction.

This is important, as a lot of the work we do in engineering is checking each other’s work, notably any calculations, to make sure they are correct. This is also the whole reason why you have two pilots up front on any airliner, even thought technically only one is needed to fly the plane (or none at all in fact). They are both supposed to be checking what the other is doing as well as monitoring what the computer is doing. This should hopefully catch a mistake before it becomes something fatal.

In fact we’ve been using computer simulations for decades in the engineering, either for stress analysis, flow analysis or even design analysis (the computer proposes a solution to minimise material while still supporting the applied loads). However, its almost unheard of for the computer designed solution to be taken as gospel. Generally engineers will use these tools more to verify their own calculations, as well as to look for anything they might have overlooked. And the reason why is because someone is going to have to take responsibility for the design and sign their name in that approved box.

So regardless of how smart this AI gets, we’ll still need someone to take responsibility and approve the work, which means they need to understand it, not just cutting and pasting stuff off the internet.

Texas swing

One issue I didn’t address as regards the Musk 420 rocket drill was why is he launching from Texas in the first place, what’s wrong with Cape Canaveral? And why the hell did the FAA grant him permission to launch from inside a wildlife refuge in the first place? Well this is US politics at work. Texas, while currently a solid red state, is gradually becoming more of a battle ground state thanks to demographics. Young millennial’s moving into the state and a rising urban population (many of the state’s big cities are democrat leaning) is gradually moving Texas toward the left.

By contrast Florida is becoming less of a swing state and more of a red state, due to retirees moving in (who tend to vote republican). At least it will be until all the boomers die off and then it will become a swing state again. So it makes sense politically for him to base himself in Texas and get access to government contracts. The fact its a stupid place to try launching from is irrelevant.

Debt ceiling

And speaking of US politics, we have the debate about the debt ceiling and whether or not the US will default. Its funny how this is only ever an issue when the republicans control Congress and its a democrat as president. Trump running up the largest deficit in history is fine, make America great again, et al. Biden wants to raise it a little, mostly so he can refinance the debts run up by republicans and no, that’s communism.

Well actually, what would be communism would be not raising the debt ceiling and defaulting on your loans, as this might be unconstitutional. And who is the main holder of US debt? American banks, pension funds and the Fed itself. Do you really think they republicans are going to bite the hand that feeds them? So no, the democrat’s shouldn’t back down, they should double down. In fact I’d go to court and seek an injunction requiring the debt ceiling be raised to avoid a default. Yes the Republicans control the supreme court. But if they rule the government can legally default on its debts then woe to the plutocrats if any genuinely left wing politician ever gets into office (as they will be legally within their rights to default on all government debts and run the money printer at full speed).

In short, if the republicans want to bankrupt their own party donors and put pensioners in the poor house, let em. But unfortunately the democrats won’t, they’ll concede at the last minute, which is exactly why they are going to lose the next election.

Child labour

And should you be wondering what the republicans have in store once they get back in the white house, well several US states are looking to relax child labour laws. Their strong anti-immigration stance, an unwillingness to pay a living wage and restrictions on abortion (when women are forced to have kids they tend to leave the work force), combined with the fact millennial’s are now moving to places where they can live more cheaply (ideally in left leaning cities), has conspired to create labour shortages in parts of the US. And the republican solution? Should we maybe reverse these policies? No, send orphans back down into coal mines again. What could possibly go wrong!

Cultural appropriation?

Finally we have the story about a new Netflix documentary, that casts a black British actress as Cleopatra. While ancient Egypt was fairly racially diverse (as I’ve discussed before our modern views on race and nationality didn’t really exist until a few centuries ago), its rulers during Cleopatra’s time were generally of Greek descent. Oh, and they also practised incest, often marrying sisters to their brothers (a horrible histories fun fact!).

So, the argument goes, if you think its racist to cast some white American actor as say an Egyptian pharaoh, or Moses (when there’s plenty of good Egyptian or Israeli actors who could play these parts), surely this casting must be viewed in the same light. I’d argue it depends on the context, are they trying to be historically accurate or not? Is it a historic series (that someone might mistake for actual history), or a historic fantasy?

Xena warrior princess has episodes set in Egypt and I don’t remember them using Egyptian actors either. But Xena (a fairly camp low budget production made in New Zealand) wasn’t even pretending to be historically accurate. Hell, Churchill the Hollywood years, has Churchill played by American Christian Slater. But again, it isn’t trying to be historically accurate (oddly enough one of the film’s songs is “Hitler’s got one ball”, which is a song they sang during the war). In fact, given that its a parody of other US war movies (and their habit of casting American actors), Slater as Churchill is part of the joke.

As for this Cleopatra series as I’ve not seen it, so I can’t really comment on whether its trying to be historically accurate or not. But given past performances and casting, it can’t be any worse.

Debunking right wing myths – the great replacement

One rather bizarre and dangerous conspiracy theory propagated by the far right is that of the great replacement. The idea is that the whites are being gradually and quite deliberately replaced by non-whites (notably Muslims). It has been cited by several spree shooters as justifying their actions, not to mention Trump supporters (notably Tucker Carlson) and euroskeptics. As a result, it can’t really be seen as a fringe idea anymore, so it does need debunking.

Firstly, like so many racist conspiracy theories its not a new idea (e.g. Qnon is just a repacking of the protocols of Zion). It is similar to conspiracy theories levelled at Jews in Europe over many centuries (which led to the Holocaust). As well as against catholic immigrants (notably Italians and Irish) to the United States (which meant they stopped trusting the authorities, which was one of the factors behind the rise of the US Mafia). And later on the same thing was levelled against Chinese migrants. Not to mention against freed slaves after the civil war (which led to the the rise of the KKK, the Jim Crow laws and a social and economic stratification in US society the country is still paying the price for to this day). So there is a certain boy who cried wolf element at play here.

But okay, let’s ignore that and focus on the current flavour of the month, Islamophobia. Well contrary to popular opinion the Muslim population in European countries is just 6%, typically in a range of 2-9% for most EU/EEA states. Meanwhile in Israel (you know the country that’s constantly at war with its Muslim neighbours) its 18%.

That’s said, there is a strong perception that there’s a lot more Muslims than there actually are. The French think 30% of the country is Muslim, when its only 8%. Brit’s think its 21% when its actually 5%. And those are the median answers (so there’s probably some racists who gave a figure of 120%!). In terms of the ethnic make-up of countries, the UK is 87% white and 13% non-white, with similar kinds of ratio’s across the rest of Europe.

In the US the Muslim population is at most 1%, with it well under that in most US states. And furthermore even this figure has to be put into the correct context, as some would belong to the Nation of Islam. These are mostly US born African American converts to Islam, often from the southern states. You see when you start burning crosses in people lawns it can put them off Christianity. Yes the racists have probably led to more Americans becoming Muslim through their actions!

And how is this great replacement being organised? Do they have a WhatsApp group?….with several million members, none of whom have ever let the cat out of the bag! Why has the CIA or any other government spying agency figured it out? Can I join? I mean ok, the giving up alcohol might be a bit rough, but I like Middle eastern food and they seem to have a good social network and health plan.

As for terrorism, yes there have been a number of terrorist attacks carried out by Muslims. However, fairness would dictate that we have to classify any attack carried out for religious or political reasons as terrorism. In which case the vast majority of recent attacks have come from the far right and not Muslims. And even this has to be put in the context that the authorities tend to be a lot quicker to call any action by Muslims or the left as “terrorism” (upon which they freak out and commit massive resources to it), while they tend to not react the same way when its right wingers causing the violence.

When in Rome

And how long has this been going on for? Well lets look at history. Ancient Roman was a melting pot of different races. Indeed several Roman emperors were generals from provinces like Africa or Antolia, who worked their way up through the ranks. Romans would likely find modern day views on race as frankly bizarre (there was still discrimination back then, but it was based more on social class and whether or not you were a Roman citizen, race was largely irrelevant to them).

And I bring this up, as quite a number of these right wing terrorist groups have a strange obsession with the Roman empire, seeing it as a white empire (clearly they took those Hollywood movies from the 70’s way too seriously!), when (as noted) it was anything but. The Roman empire was a an amalgamation of several Mediterranean based empires, whose key advantage was its ability to trade across the Mediterranean and with the lands beyond in Asia and Africa. In fact the more developed, wealthy and scientifically advanced parts of the Roman empire were in the East (Egypt, Antolia, the Levant, etc.).

Case in point, when the empire was split at the end of the crisis of the third century, Emperor Diocletian took the Eastern Empire, later to be called the Byzantine empire, as his kingdom. Meanwhile he gave the poorer and less advanced Western Empire (including Rome itself) to his subordinate…..which collapsed within a century or two. This was mostly due to infighting and civil wars which left them unable to prevent fend off barbarian invasions (mostly Gothic mercenaries whom the Romans had been hiring out as their personal goon squad). Strangely enough this sort of chaotic downfall of the Western Roman empire is the sort of thing some of the alt-right want to start …even thought that would only benefit countries like Russia (whom I’m totally sure aren’t in any way manipulating these groups behind the scenes).

Turkish delight

Also, you do know there were periods in history where Islamic nations literally controlled all of the Balkans and most of the Iberian Peninsula and held those territories for hundreds of years? And while that has left some countries (such as Albania or Bosnia) with a Muslim majority, these are the exceptions (its closer to 10-20% in most Balkan states). So a thousand years of effort and planning and Islam’s managed to get a narrow majority in two small European states and a establish a tiny population in the rest of Europe. Well either they are kind of crap at this and so I won’t worry, or maybe this “great replacement” is all just the paranoid delusions of some xenophobic bigots.

I thing the real answer here is the fallacy of assigning skin colour, race and culture as the same thing, because they are not. As I mentioned, the Roman empire was something of a ethnic melting pot. Well that is also true of many empires throughout history. We need to understand that our current understanding of national identity is a very new thing in the span of history, as the borders of most empires weren’t well defined. Nor was it entirely clear who was part of a nation or not.

No Borders

Given these factors population movements across ancient borders were quite common. People moved around to escape war, famine or economic hard times. Meanwhile rulers at the time were often facing labour shortages (due to the after effects of plagues, wars, invasions, etc.), which meant they tended to be pragmatic. So if for example you are the ruler of an upcoming Polish kingdom and a bunch of Jewish merchants and craftsmen start showing up (fleeing persecution), you were likely to welcome them (so long as they paid their taxes and understand whose in charge of course!). And Ottoman rulers were no different when it came to dealing with Christians within their lands. Why mess up a good thing?

I recall seeing this UK TV show, in which a bunch of your usual brexiter bigot types were given a DNA test and were shocked to discover that their genetic makeup was mostly Eastern European, African or Asian. Well actually, if you’d paid attention in history class, this should come as no surprise. Most of us are unlikely to have any sort of genetic connection to the land we live in.

By way of example, in Iceland (a nation you’d assume to be pretty much as genetically isolated as you can get) they did a study which showed that, while the majority were likely of Norse origin (although that’s a discussion in itself as many Norse came originally from lands further east), a significant proportion of the Icelandic population had Celtic origins (so Irish, Pict, Breton, Basque, etc.). And speaking of which, blond hair is NOT a Nordic trait, likely it is of Eurasian origin. My point is, its a bit hypocritical complaining about someone else not being the right race or ethnic group…when you likely came from somewhere similar a few generations ago.

And as for religion, remind me who did the Norse worship? Or the Romans? Cos it wasn’t Christianity! In fact modern Christianity is very different from the version practised even a few centuries ago (e.g. interesting piece here about the origins of thanksgiving, which was supposed to be a day of prayer and fasting, not indulgent meals). This is especially true of some recent religious movements, such as evangelicalism and the prosperity gospel, which have been considered little short of heresy a few centuries ago. And if you’ve been following recent trends the religions practised in the West are likely to change again over time.

Intergrated solution

Granted there is a problem with the integration of some recent immigrants into the wider community. But I would argue this is mostly down to the racist discrimination they’ve been on the receiving end of. This is something that many other migrants have had to deal with over the years (the Irish, Chinese, Jews, Hispanics, etc.). Its why you’ve got places like Chinatown or Little Italy. The solution is to reign in the racists. Its also true that some minority communities have a high fertility rate. But that’s also true of some white communities…notably Catholics and in particular the Irish (so I’m hardly in a position to judge!). And there is a strong inverse relationship between fertility rates and wealth. So if you stop discriminating against ethnic minorities and they get wealthier, the birth rate will decline.

A Pew study also predicted that one of the key determinants to Europe’s long term Muslim population was immigration and refugees, not fertility rates. Or in other words, stop starting wars over oil and people won’t have to flee their homes. This after all is what stemmed the flow of Irish immigrants. We got independence, joined the EU, got rich and suddenly the flow went into reverse (Ireland is now a net receiver of immigrants who are needed to meet recruitment shortages).

At this point, the bigot brigade will usually throw their toys out of the pram and dispute the statistics (all a conspiracy! oh the irony!) or claim that big business is in on it, as they want to use migrants to keep wages down. However, there are a couple of problems with this. Firstly, why then pick the likes of Trump (who actively employs lots of low wage migrant workers over Americans) as your leader? That’s like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. Secondly, this is precisely the point of left wing policies such as minimum wages and improved workers rights – To stop employers engaging in a race to the bottom. Migrants generally don’t compete with locals for jobs. In fact, they create far more jobs than they take.

So this conspiracy theory has simply no basis in fact. It ignores the fact that similar claims have been levelled at numerous migrant groups before throughout history. And it also ignores certain historical realities, notably that borders and nations, as we now understand them, are a relatively new creation.

Ukraine, tankies & the left

The situation in Ukraine creates a bit of a problem for both those on the left (who tend to be anti-war), and ironically enough, those on the far right (as they are actual fascists and fans of Putin, but don’t want to out themselves by admitting this). This leads them into the trap of buying into Russian propaganda. For example, Amnesty international criticising Ukraine for having military facilities in civilian areas, which endangers civilians… even thought its the Russians who are indiscriminately shelling civilian areas. Plus its not uncommon for such facilities to be based in cities in other countries (there’s at least 2 British military bases down the road from me). And more recently the Russians have been aiming at power stations and cultural landmarks, clearly attempting to maximise civilian causalities, regardless of the strategic significance.

On the internet such people are referred to as “tankies”, a reference to how some on the left tried to justify the soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia to put down the Prague spring, or when they invaded Hungary. Of course the situation in Ukraine is fairly complicated. But that in itself is the problem, there are no easy solutions to this crisis. Hence its unlikely to resolve itself quickly. But tankies, unaware of the realities on the ground, can end up proposing unworkable solutions. And then, when inevitably the Ukrainians say no, they conclude that the Ukrainians are the aggressors, not the Russians.

Musk’s proposed solution is a good example of this. He proposed re-holding the referendum’s in the ceased regions. That Ukraine would guarantee Crimea’s access to water, while also remaining neutral. While he may have had an ulterior motive for this, i.e. he’s been forced to buy twitter and was likely trying to piss off the Ukrainians so he can get out of paying for this Starlink network he’d promised (plus if it turns out to be crap, he’s in trouble). But it kind of highlights the problems here and is therefore worth picking apart.

Firstly, allowing Russia to claim any amount of Ukrainian territory amounts to rewarding bad behaviour. In fact arguably we are only in this position because the west failed to react to previous Russian aggression in the Caucuses or in Crimea. This risks giving the green light to not just Russia, but other powers as well, to engage in Salami tactics.You can start a war, grab as much as you can and then simply hang onto it. Then repeat again in a few years time.

Imagine if Mexico, on the pretext that there’s lots of Spanish speakers in Arizona, Texas & southern California, decided to launch a surprise invasion of the US, ceasing a chunk of US territory. And then, about the same time they started losing, they insisted on a referendum in these areas to see who they belonged too (and actually they’d have a claim to this, as much of this territory was part of Mexico prior to the war in 1846). Is Musk (whose launch site in Texas would be effected) seriously going to suggest he’d be okay with that.

And a side note here. Yes it is true there are parts of Ukraine where large numbers of the people speak Russian. That doesn’t necessarily make them Russians. After all, as noted, there are lots of Spanish speakers in the US, who consider themselves American. In Ireland the first language of most people is English, yet few if any would consider themselves English. If Musk doesn’t believe me, there are some republican bars I could recommend he goes into, where he can tell the locals how they must yearn to be part of the UK again (and that would be the last time he’d ever be seen alive!). This Russian claim based on language is simply absurd.

As for holding a referendum, well last time the Russian army went around with the ballot boxes and pointed with their gun to the correct box. There is no possibility of a free and fair vote in any territory under Russian military occupation. So they’d have to withdraw first and they ain’t going to do that. Also a lot of the Ukrainians in these regions have either fled, or been deported to other parts of Russia, with Russians also moved in. So they’d have to be allowed back in and the Russians bared from voting. How are you going to even implement that? And we are assuming neither side will try to influence the vote, which seems unlikely given the Russians have “form” as it were in manipulating referendums. And given that the likely outcome will be indecisive or a narrow vote one way or the other, its unlikely the losing side will abide by the result.

A more realistic end state is that the disputed regions (including Crimea and the Donetsk) are placed under UN control and a number of power sharing governments elected. But again, the Russians aren’t going to agree to that (Putin might not believe in this greater Russia BS, but he needs to pander to those who do). And its also unlikely that the Ukrainians would agree to it either, not unless they are given some sort of firm security guarantees.

On which point, Ukrainian neutrality is a red herring. As I’ve pointed out before, just because you are neutral doesn’t stop the US stationing troops in the country, or giving the Ukrainians access to western weapons. And that’s even before we consider the options as regards proxy forces (such as Russia’s own Wagner group mercenaries). Plus, you are expecting Ukraine to sacrifice their own security for the benefit of Russia and the west (like Czechoslovakia in 1938, remind me, how did that work out?).

On which point, after the fall of communism the west pressured Ukraine into giving up not just the nuclear weapon’s they’d inherited, but a large arsenal of conventional weapons too (including lots of aircraft, air defence, tank units, artillery, or in other words the sort of stuff that would have prevented a Russian invasion in the first place). All on the basis of some vague promises from Yeltsin (well if you can’t trust an alcoholic on his 2nd Vodka bottle of the morning, who can you trust). So I don’t think they are going to go along with that. And can you blame them.

As for water rights for Crimea, the situation is a bit more complicated that Musk suggests. A bit of background first. Crimea has long been scarce of water resources, so the Soviets built a canal from Ukraine into Crimea. In fact this was part of the reason for transferring Crimea from the Russian soviet to the Ukrainian one. After Russia ceased the peninsula in 2014, Ukraine blocked the canal, claiming Russia stopped paying for water or the canal’s upkeep.

The issue here is that water is a valuable resource. Every litre of water Ukraine sends to Russia is a litre not available for use by Ukraine. Which would impact on power production (as most of it is sourced from a reservoir), as well as industrial and agricultural use downstream (which could be a big problem in a drought). Its worth noting that 82% of the water that flowed to Crimea via the canal was used for agricultural and industrial purposes, not drinking water. So you are burdening Ukraine with a cost (forever!) that they do not benefit from. The odds of such an agreement lasting long term are slim to nil.

Not least because there is an alternative – if Russia wants Crimea that badly, why don’t they build an aqueduct from Russia across the straits and provide the water that way? Or why don’t they set up desalination plants in Crimea to provide the water. Israel for example is able to supply 55% of their water supply via desalination (for a considerably large population than live on Crimea). In fact, you have to question why they haven’t done this already. It would consolidate their hold over the peninsula and render the need for a land bridge to Donetsk moot.

Well I think the answer to this question tells us a lot about the reality on the ground. Russia is a mafia state. Don Putin doesn’t give crap about the Crimean’s, nor any others with Russian sympathies in the occupied regions. They are merely pawns to him (the Russian’s even have a term for this Matrosov’s). While the Crimea bridge made sense for strategic purposes, providing infrastructure such as aqueducts or desalination plants, are you for real? Every penny he spends on those, is a penny not going into his pocket (paying for his palaces) or the pockets of his Oligarch allies (those who hold the keys to keeping him in power). After all its far easier to just steal the water off the Ukrainians. I mean that’s what mafia gangs do.

And Putin’s only in power because of the fact that various neo-liberal’s guru’s advising the Yeltsin government turned Russia into some sort of free market, shrink the state laboratory. Which, predictably collapsed the economy and left most of its wealth concentrated in the hands of a handful of oligarchs. Most of whom were former party big wigs, petty criminals and gangsters, creating the mafia state in the first place.

The reason why Crimea was ceased was less about liberating Crimea and more about punishing Ukraine for defying Moscow in the 2014 revolution. After all if word got out that paying for Moscow’s “protection” was somehow optional, pretty soon everyone would opt out and then where would Putin be. Also there’s some gas & oil reserves off the coast of Crimea, which the Ukrainians had been looking at drilling (with the aid of western oil majors) and they had to protect their cosy little energy cartel. .

Similarly, further defiance by Ukraine with the election of Zelenskyy required further punishment with this invasion. Its likely the Russians miscalculated and overstretched themselves (by believing their own propaganda), but the reason for this invasion was the same – to make an example of the Ukrainians to keep the oligarchs and other former soviet states in line.

This also explains why its so hard for Putin to back down. He’d be seen to be bowing to the west and declaring open season on the rest of his empire. He’d upset the Russian nationalists, meaning an attempt to remove him from power because almost certain. Similarly however, these is a need for realism on the part of the Ukrainians and western governments. Recapturing all of their lost territory is going to take a lot of time and effort. And Crimea is likely to be a bridge too far (its essentially an Island, you’d need a naval force to attack it and Ukraine doesn’t have that).

The assumption seems to be that Putin will fall, the Russian opposition will take over and everything can go back to normal. Actually no, its more likely you’ll just get another strongman taking over from Putin as the don. Indeed the destruction of the Nord stream pipeline may have been a move by the hardliners to counter any possible attempt by moderates to re-engage with the west (given that the energy blackmail card failed to work, what’s the point in having the pipeline anymore?).

And you’d have to be a pretty dumb European leader to want to get hooked on Russian gas again, regardless of whose in charge. It makes far more sense to simply bare the economic pain for a few years, establish alternative energy supplies while building up enough renewables to eliminate the need for Russian imports. So no, things aren’t going to go back to normal any time soon.

This is not a crisis that is going to resolve itself quickly. Not even the removal of Putin would necessarily change things by much. Yes, some sort of messy compromise is going to have to be applied eventually. But putting pressure on Ukraine to accept that now, risks them going rogue (after all they’ve been stitched up before). And Russia will see any weakening of the the western alliance as proof that their strategy is working. Because realistically its only when the leadership in Moscow (whoever that is) calculates they need to take the off ramp, that this crisis will resolve itself.

Downgrading Christmas

Another Christmas and another covid wave, with the UK in the centre of the storm.

I discussed before how the Tories vaccination strategy, coupled with a rapid re-opening, was something of a gamble. Yes it meant vaccinating those more likely to die from the disease first (who just happen to be mostly Tory voters). But those are also the people least likely to catch and circulate the virus. Focusing on killing off the virus and removing opportunities for super-spreader events (by focusing vaccinations on NHS staff, students, teachers, kids, shop workers, etc.) before re-opening, might have made more sense (to be clear, you’d still be doing the old people, but also focusing on these super-spreader groups before easing restrictions). Because vaccines don’t give immunity forever. Once it wears off (the very problem we have now, as two jabs provides no real protection from Omicron) you risk simply moving the problem to another time. Meaning another lockdown, so you end up extending the pandemic and all its effects.

And speaking of which, there is little to be gained by wealthy countries hoarding vaccines, something the UK is particularly guilty of. Until everyone gains some level of immunity, outbreaks like this will continue to pop up. And furthermore, as we’ve not seen a large flu outbreak for two years, I’ve heard it argued that the next one might be particularly bad. So its quite possible we’ll be facing another outbreak of some sort next Christmas.

But why do these outbreaks always seem to spike in mid-winter? Well you’ve got the perfect conditions for the virus to spread more easily, with the cold weather, suppressed immune systems and more people indoors or crowding onto public transport. Throw in a few drunken Christmas parties, lots of people travelling home to see the folks (notably students, the age group most likely to be infected with Omicron) and you are practically ringing the dinner bell for any virus. In short, we need to recognise that in a post-covid world, outbreaks like this are going to pop up from time to time and ruin Christmas.

So perhaps the solution is to adapt to this new reality. Such as either moving Christmas, or downgrading it to a more low key event. And in return, making another festival at a more favourable time of year the main yearly festival for things like big parties or family gatherings.

Christmas, like many things, was not originally a christian event. Many civilisations throughout history viewed the winter solstice as a chance to eat drink, be merry, and celebrate the fact they’d made it through half of the winter without dying of some disgusting disease. In fact there are an awful lot of similarities between the Christian Christmas and the Roman festival of Saturnalia, including feasting, partying and the exchange of gifts (interesting video on that here).

Originally the christian Christmas was a fairly modest event (in part to make a distinct break from the decadence and debauchery of the pagan mid-winter festivals). Which is somewhat ironic given how some conservatives keep going on about the “war on Christmas”. Well actually, in more traditional christian countries, Spain, Italy and Greece being good examples, Christmas is a more low key family focused event. There are celebrations yes, but with less days off and no total shutdown as is the case in the UK or North America. Generally shops will close early Christmas eve and will either reopen late on Christmas day or first thing on St Stephens day (which the British call Boxing day for some reason…presumably due to the boxing matches that take place as people’s drunken confessions come back to haunt them).

In fact its worth noting that our modern Christmas (with Turkey’s, Christmas trees, black Friday, etc.) is more of an American import, heavily influenced by traditions copied from central European countries (mention that to your eurosceptic uncle around the Christmas table!). Certainly, if you are from the UK or Ireland, this is not a long standing tradition.

So essentially, what I’m saying is a return to a traditional Christmas. A low key family focused event, at most two days off, then back to work on the 26th, with maybe another day off on the 1st of January. No more of this full scale national shutdown for 2-3 weeks. Which I might add, is a huge problem for people from outside of Europe (or from those parts of Europe where, as noted, they are used to celebrating a more low key Christmas).

Now before you call me a humbug, I’m suggesting downgrading Christmas, but upgrading another festival (with more holidays and days off) at a more convenient time of year. Easter would be an obvious choice. And it may come as little surprise to learn that many of those cultures who celebrate a low key Christmas, make a big deal out of Easter. In Spain for example, it goes on for over a week, with parades through the streets every night.

So if you are going to shut down the country and close offices, this would be the time of year to do it There is less likely to be a pandemic in circulation. And the weather is usually warmer, so events can be moved outside. It would also mean the effective end of year for companies would coincide with the end of the tax year. And for universities (assuming we can start teaching earlier without the long break at Christmas), it will line up with the end of teaching for the spring term.

The one downside would be the need to tie down Easter to some specific date (say nearest Sunday to the 15th of April), which could also be set to coincide with the Jewish Passover. Of course the problem with this is, you’d need to get different religions to agree to something and good luck with that one (if Roman emperors couldn’t do that, I don’t see how anyone else will). Of course governments could simply legislate and tell the churches to go suck a lemon, but that’s going to require some brave forward thinking politicians.

Another alternative is the summer solstice, which is also another key date for many festivals both non-Christian, pre-Christian ones as well as post-christian adaptions. Most notably with Scandinavia’s Midsommar, or the bonfire festivals of St John. Again a disease outbreak is less likely this time of year and events could be easily moved outside (imagine having the big Christmas dinner outside with a barbecue).

There is also the massive strain Christmas places on supply chains, the environmental impact of Christmas and the pressure it puts on family finances (as you have a big jump in spending in mid-winter just when bills such as winter heating and annual payments for various services are all coming due). So there would be numerous environmental and social benefits to a more low key Christmas.

Would you rather try take your big yearly break in the middle of winter, facing all the difficulties with long distance travel to make it home for Christmas. Or instead move these events to sometime in the spring or summer, when the weather is better, the days longer and you can actually do things outside. So maybe we should see some potential positives out of this Christmas wash out.

How lies can bring down a state

An element at work in the panic buying in the UK has to be, somewhat ironically, the government constantly telling people everything is okay and not to panic…which caused a spree of panic buying! Because when a government who routinely lies to people tells you everything is ok, that’s probably the point where you should start panicking! And this has been a trend that has played out many time before throughout history. And it helps to explain why Boris and the brexiters should have resigned or been booted out the minute it became clear they’d sold brexit on a web of lies.

Why did Afghanistan fall so quickly to the Taliban? Well, as the Economist points out, because it was a Potemkin village, hollowed out by corruption. Corruption was so bad even the honest military commanders had to bribe their corrupt superiors in order to receive ammunition and supplies to fight the Taliban. The whole country was build on a web of lies where the priority was more with satisfying American desires for nation building than actually trying to create a viable and credible government. In short it collapsed like a house of cards, because it was a house of cards.

The most notable example of how lies can destroy a empire however, would have to be the downfall of the communist block. While there were many reasons why the iron curtain fell, the constant lies and gaslighting of the public from the communist bloc governments eventually made its collapse an inevitability.

A common misconception is that the government opposition in the soviet block were all anti-communists. In reality, they weren’t, at least not initially. Many wanted to stay socialists, but with a government that was actually competent in charge and with more public representation. Of course the Politburo constantly labelling them as anti-communists, which gave them an excuse for the various crackdowns, simply meant these groups increasingly became just that.

Eventually even the leaders of the various eastern block nations could see the writing on the wall and began to make reforms. The trouble was, nobody believed they were serious. It was assumed by many that this was just a ploy to fob off the opposition, get the protesters to go home, so they could then launch another crackdown, as had happened before in East Germany in the 1950’s, the Hungarian revolution or the Prague spring. Which meant the opposition kept asking for more and more and the leadership had to concede more and more in order to try and prove they were actually committed to reform.

A good example of this was the Hungarian government’s decision to take down its border fence with Austria. This was intended as a good will gesture, but many East Europeans, most notably those in East Germany, saw it as a chance to defect before the inevitable soviet crackdown. This put huge pressure on other Eastern bloc governments to do something, or they’d soon see their counties basically empty of people.

This pressure was felt most acutely by the East German government. So they decided to allow more freedom of movement to avoid their citizens defecting via Hungary. That would mean East Germans could travel too or even work in the West yet take advantage of the lower living costs by living in East Germany. There would be checks and some paperwork yes (this was East Germany after all), but it would mean there would be no reason for anyone to flee.

And who knows maybe it might have worked. Trouble was, nobody believed they were serious. And, as if to compound matters, the GDR official sent out to inform the public about this new policy hadn’t been properly briefed (inevitable given such a hasty change in policy) and gave the impression that the new measures were now in effect (they weren’t) and failed to mention anything about the paperwork (as he hadn’t been told about that). The end result was that on hearing this vast crowds went to the border, where the guards (who were probably as sick of the constant lies as everyone else) were left with conflicting orders and crowds too big for them to control. So they took the path of least resistance and opened the gates. And the rest, as they say, is history.

The collapse of British rule in Ireland is another good example. Again, its a common misconception to believe that the majority of Irish wanted independence (at least initially). In fact the supporters of full independence were considered to be radicals, nicknamed “diehards” in Ireland. The majority wanted home rule (basically devolution) and were promised this by the Westminster government. However, before it could be implemented, the first world war happened and Ireland got dragged into a war of imperial ambitions because some Archduke took a wrong turn in Sarajevo. And while the British media were usually fairly restrained, the Irish media were happy to point out the obvious lies and hypocrisy (such as the fact the British King and the Kaiser were close relations).

Meanwhile Tory politicians would sound off to the UK press about how as soon as the war was over they’d kill the home rule bill. This helped to provoke the Easter rising. The vast overreaction to this merely destroyed any faith the Irish had in Westminster. Yes there was a war of independence, but that was really a matter of how long it took for the British to realise they’d lost control of Ireland. If the Irish had an issue, they’d take it up with the provisional Irish government, not the British officials. Sure the British army could occupy towns, but as soon as they left Sinn Fein/IRA would move right back in.

And the British didn’t learn the lessons, as something very similar played out when the rest of the empire collapsed after the 2nd world war. The locals had lost faith the British administration and hence the UK was in control in name only. The same was true in much of Vietnam during America’s intervention there. The Vietcong would come into a village and tell the locals they were free and the land was theirs. The Americans would show up with the landlord so he could collect back rent, guess who ended up winning that war?

My point is that there is a reason why its been traditional that any politician who misleads parliament or abuses their office is expected to resign. Because it has long been understood that if they don’t do so, they destroy the credibility of the government itself. Sure with enough media control and the right level of authoritarianism you can retain control of a country, but not indefinitely. And the collapse when it comes will likely be very sudden. Largely because the actual damage was done sometime ago when people lost faith in the government.

Afghanistan: anatomy of a fool’s errand

The algorithm’s running social media seem to be getting darn smart. Because just the other day, 55 days: the fall of Saigon popped into my feed. And to say this is eerily similar to events in Afghanistan is an understatement. You even had incidences of desperate people trying to hang on to a rescue aircraft as it tried to take off. Then I turn on the news and the very same thing is happening in Kabul.

But its not another Vietnam we are assured by the Americans. And in some respects it isn’t, its actually much worse. The Vietnam war was an attempt by the US to enforce its cold war policy of containment, fought largely for ideological reasons (because they had such confidence in capitalism, they were convinced if Vietnam fell the whole continent would go communist). But the Vietnamese weren’t launch terrorist attacks against the US. Nor were they harbouring groups planning such attacks. And while there was some reprisals against the South Vietnamese army and officials, it pales in comparison to anything the Taliban have done.

So its all Biden’s fault? While he has to take his share of the blame, but to lay it all at his door would be unfair. For starters it was Trump who negotiated the Doha agreement with the Taliban (which to the surprise of nobody massively favoured them). Trump was desperate for a foreign policy victory before the election and in effect he promised the Taliban they can have Afghanistan back if they pinky swore not to do anything mean to US soldiers….at least until after the election.

Biden’s options were thus to break the deal (the Taliban were sticking to the wording of it, while perverting its meaning and intent) and give the Taliban the moral high ground (allowing the republicans to paint him as a warmonger). Or follow through with the deal and the planned pull out, even thought this allows the republicans to paint him as soft on terrorism (ignoring the fact that the vast majority of US terrorist attacks are carried out by far right nutters and not Muslims). It was a choice between losing small and losing big. Biden, in line with US public opinion, chose to lose small. Not least because staying would only work if the US had something its never had for Afghanistan – An exit strategy.

As has happened in so many wars in the recent past, the US went in under Bush without a clear exit strategy, indeed they may have begun planning an invasion before the 9/11 attacks. They had some sort of vague notion they could just bomb the Taliban, hold the country for a short period, install a pro-Washington Afghani in charge, while turning the country into some sort of neolibertarian wet dream. This was a flawed strategy from day one, as many on the left were quick to point out at the time.

Often times when the US had installed a new leader they pick someone on the basis of convenience (e.g. they are an exile living in a friendly nation) or their loyalty to the US (they work as an adviser to an major oil corporation, or a US friendly institution, such as the world bank). There is no thought as to whether they are qualified to rule the country, would enjoy popular support, or why they fled overseas (they might be unfriendly to the regime, but that might be for good reasons, e.g. they embezzled state funds and fled with the cash).

To draw an analogy, imagine if the UK fell into anarchy and the EU had to step in and they decided to put someone like Chris “Failing” Grayling in charge. Or if you are in the US, imagine Canada had to rebuild the US government and appointed DICK Flud. (the CEO in charge of Lehman Brothers) as the new interim US president. How would you feel about that? Do you have confidence in their ability to rebuild the country? Would their authority be respected? I think not.

The end result is you had a government in Kabul that was corrupt, comically inept and had an army so bad it was consistently rated as one of the worst in the world (and some of the countries on that list don’t even have armies!). All in all the Afghan government was leading two things, jack and sh*t…and then Jack left town (the Afghan president fled in a helicopter filled with cash, good to see he had his priorities right). Cos the other problem is that these types of people are also likely to be the first to make a bolt for the door at the first sign of trouble.

But the silver bullet solution to all of this is democracy, right? So your solution to a country in several orders of chaos is to hold an election….in an active war zone? What could possibly go wrong! Democracy has its place, its an important part of the process, but by itself it not the solution. The ability to win elections does not translate into an ability to govern effectively (we’ve seen plenty of examples of that in recent years). And if the election uses a badly designed electoral system (such as the ones used by the UK or US) its possible to win without popular support (recent elections in the US/UK have been won with the support of only about a third of the electorate). Or, if its fairly easy to cheat using ballot stuffing, inevitably the more corrupt and unsuitable candidates will do just that.

Also a democracy means accepting decisions by the voters that you don’t like. So while yes it would make sense to initially exclude the Taliban from the elections (much as the ultra nationalist parties were excluded from elections in Germany & Japan after WW2), but if a less extreme, but still Islamist party wins (perhaps with ties to say, Iran), you’ve got to allow that. Or maybe a more moderate party wins on a platform of nationalising any foreign owned oil businesses. Again, if you are not prepared to accept that outcome, an election isn’t going to solve anything. What the US was looking for was the illusion of democracy. But it was about as effective as the Emperor’s new clothes.

We also need to tackle this issue of corruption. Consider the US has spent $2 trillion on Afghanistan equivalent to more than $26,000 per person in the country, yet its still one of the poorest countries in the world. Something doesn’t add up there. This is poison to any new government and its probably the main reason for the Afghan government’s collapse. How do you expect soldiers to fight for your government (not theirs) when they know its institutionally corrupt and frequently they are left unpaid? All the fancy equipment in the world ain’t going to solve anything. It seems the only outcome from the last 20 years, is that the Taliban now have new rifles (never fired and only dropped once) and armoured Humvees. And how do you expect the citizens to get behind a government, which seems not to care about them and is too busy enriching itself.

And since we are talking about it, Western defence contractors were at the heart of this corruption. The war on terror is (or perhaps I should say was) the greatest act of organised theft in world history. US defence contractors would fleece the US government, they’d claim to have fed soldiers meals that were never served (and from what I’m told the food was crap), charge $40 for a six pack of coke (made locally and bought for under a dollar), or $100 for doing a soldier’s laundry (badly!), or charge a +4000% mark up on vehicle components. Or worse they’d run trucks without oil filters or spare tires, then burn them when they broke down (and charge the government tens of thousands). They actually burnt so much equipment (often brand new and serviceable) in Iraq/Afghanistan, its created health problems for veterans.

And if this was the sort of corruption going on with contractors working with the US military, you can imagine what was going on when they were dealing with the Afghan army (recall the fake bomb detectors scandal). US defence contractors must have known about this corruption and were likely both the instigators and the net beneficiaries. If there’s any positive that comes out of this mess, it would be an investigation into the US military industrial complex (although since we know a number of politicians in both parties are on the take, I’m doubting that).

So what now for Afghanistan? Everyone calls it the graveyard of empires that’s impossible to conquer. But this tends to come from a misreading of history. With a focus on the unsuccessful invasions, while ignoring the successful ones, such by the Persians, Greeks, Parthians, Arab’s, Mughal, etc. (who all took and held Afghanistan for several centuries). In fact a more accurate description of Afghanistan would be the cross road of empires. After all we’ve just witnessed another successful foreign invasion of Afghanistan – by the Taliban.

The Taliban have the backing of the Pakistani government. They mostly consist of Pashtuns (a largely Pakistani ethnic group) educated in Madressa’s in Pakistan (sponsored by Gulf states, notably Saudi Arabia). And one of the Taliban’s key assets are their foreign fighters, most of whom come from the gulf states. Pakistan has long seen Afghanistan as part of its sphere of influence. While the Gulf states see it as a way to get rid of their more hot headed Islamist’s by packing them off to Afghanistan (hopefully never to return). Iran, Russia and China would also see this invasion as an opportunity to get at the estimated $3 trillion in mineral resources that Afghanistan sits on, not too mention the potential to run oil and gas pipelines from Central Asia into East Asia.

Of course, this means far from peace we can expect more of the same. The Taliban and their allies will likely make the same mistakes the Americans made (i.e. back someone wildly inappropriate to rule, for all of the wrong reasons). My guess is that after a couple of years normal service will resume. Either there will be a falling out between the Taliban leaders and another civil war. Or they’ll fall into old habits, such as selling opium or launching terrorist attacks against, either the West, or those countries now trying to exert influence over Afghanistan. A leopard can’t change his spots. Which will end up provoking another invasion (if not by the US, then by someone else such as China or Iran)

The solution to the Taliban is the same as it was back in 2001, put pressure on Pakistan and the Gulf states to end their support for the militants, then let sanctions and diplomatic pressure bring down the regime, or at least force it to adopt a more moderate mode of behaviour….but of course that would mean the West giving up its addiction to the old dino juice.

Debunking right wing myths: Ancient aliens

I once caught a programme called “ancient aliens” on the History channel (given that they seems to show nothing but pawn stars and sensationalist nonsense, I’m not sure why its called “History” anymore). Anyway, I thought it was a hoot (I’m laughing at you, not with you), but I was unaware until recently that this wasn’t merely a couple of episodes, that they presumably show on the 1st of April, but that there’s actually been 16 seasons of this rubbish! Thus I was completely unaware than anyone, other than a few tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy wackos…..or Musk…..took this seriously.

“Ancient Aliens is some of the most noxious sludge in television’s bottomless chum bucket. Actual experts are brought in to deliver sound bites that are twisted and taken out of context while fanatics are given free reign. Fiction is presented as fact, and real scientific research is so grossly misrepresented that I can only conclude that the program is actively lying to viewers….” —Brian Switek, Smithsonian

The basic punchline of “ancient aliens” is to simply connect aliens to every event that has ever happened in human history. Who built the pyramids? Ancient aliens! The Nasca lines? Ancient aliens! Great wall of China? Ancient aliens! The great flood? Ancient aliens! The Bronze age collapse? Ancient aliens. Rinse and repeat.

Well needless to say this falls into the category of “not even wrong”. How do we know the pyramids were build by the ancient Egyptians? Well the short summary would be: because they are in Egypt, they are shaped like a pyramid and they are made of stone.

Given the building technology available at that time this was pretty much the only way to build something that tall. The problem with any building is that the taller you go, the more weight presses down on the foundations and the bricks towards the bottom have to carry a heavier load. Eventually either the building starts to subside and sink (essentially being pushed into the ground by its own weight), or the blocks at the bottom start to crack and fail. So you angle the structure, such that each layer of blocks occupies a smaller area than the next, reducing the load on the blocks at the base and spreading out the weight of the building over a larger area.

Or in other words, you end up with a pyramid. And accounts from the time, evidence from numerous archaeological digs and modern day experiments corroborate historians theories of how the pyramids were built. The AA brigade, chose to ignore all of this evidence in favour of contrived and biased studies that set out to provide the answer they want. Not unlikely climate change deniers or young earth creationists.

So we are being asked to believe that these ancient aliens, despite having the advanced technology to get to the earth, would choose to use an extremely slow, inefficient and expensive means of pyramid construction. And this has to be contrasted with what can be built using modern building techniques (nevermind those available to ET). It is theoretically possible, using existing concrete and steel to building structures several km’s tall, although there are practical reasons why you probably won’t want too (e.g. most of the structure’s interior will just be stairs, lift shafts and service risers).

Imagine the conversation at ET’s Egyptian HQ. We can build a massive 4 km tall pyramid out of something cheap like concrete & steel, which we can throw up in a few years….or we can build a piddly little stone one which will be a fraction of the height, take decades to build and cost many times more. Seriously, you think they’d choose the latter option?

Furthermore different pyramids build before the great pyramid show signs of a learning curve. So we go from the step pyramid of Djoser (one of the oldest surviving pyramids), to the so-called bent pyramid (which was built at too steep and angle, resulting in a change in construction plans half way through building process), before the first of the great pyramids at Giza was raised.

Of course when pushed, the ancient aliens brigade will say, ya but you see the aliens were trying to cover their tracks. Why? There are uncontacted tribes here on earth, the occupants of North Sentinel Island being a good example, and while we are trying to avoid interference, its not like we are going out of our way to hide from them. They have witnessed large steel hulled ships passing by the Island (or even crashing into their Island), seen helicopters hovering overhead, etc.

Aliens would be no different, not least because they’d know the impossibility of actually hiding in this universe. We already have the technology to pick up any alien radio traffic from nearby star systems and can determine the orbits of nearby planets. Within a few decades we’ll be able to study the atmospheres of nearby exoplanets. So its basically impossible to hide, short of building an entire Dyson sphere around your solar system (and even that’s not guaranteed to work, as it would have a gravitational effect that would be observable, plus a heat signature which would show up in infrared).

But why did the practice of pyramid building change after the great pyramids? For the same reason such practices changed anywhere else in the world – times changed. Egyptian civilisation lasted for the best part of 4000 years. The date of Cleopatra’s death is closer to the present day, than it is to the completion of the pyramids at Giza. Egypt went through periods of collapse, when ancient knowledge was lost, or where afterwards the culture was very different (and building a massive pyramid as a rulers tomb was considered excessive and impractical).

But what about all these other pyramids build around the world? the Maya, Aztec’s, Angkor Wat. Well firstly these were built many thousands of years apart. Secondly, they faced the same engineering challenges the Egyptians faced. And, given that the laws of physics hadn’t changed, its no surprise they came up with a similar solution. And thirdly, these are very different structures with only a passing resemblance to one another (e.g. the Mayan pyramids tend to be smaller and more steeply build using smaller but more precisely cut stones).

Also why is it that we ascribe ancient aliens to having built the pyramids, but don’t question that the Romans built the Colosseum, or question that the ancient Greeks built the pantheon? There is a certain element of cultural racism at play here, which seeks to undermine the achievements of ancient peoples. Its like trying to claim NASA didn’t go to the moon, they hitched a ride from a passing Vogon. Or that D-day never happened, its all just fake news.

If you want to destroy a civilisation you erase the truth about its past. And that is effectively what this whole “ancient aliens” madness is doing. Its unscientific nonsense that promotes many racist and dangerous ideas. While undermining the achievements of past civilisations and their people.

Pyongyang on the Thames

I came across a documentary from French TV about the North Korean “Ghost Fleet” of fishing vessels. Large fleets of North Korean fishing boats have been raiding the fishing grounds of neighbouring countries, most notably making intrusions into Russian waters, overfishing and using banned techniques such a drift netting. Which is causing all sorts of environmental problems. And as many of these fishing boats aren’t terribly seaworthy, there is believed to be a fairly high death toll from ships sinking, or their engines failing and ending up adrift and becalmed until the crews starve.

Anyway, it was interesting to watch Russians and Chinese fishermen complaining about how they have to follow all of these complex rules, yet the North Korean don’t. They seem to be allowed to do whatever the hell they like. Now why does that sound familiar? Because that’s what the brexiters want. They see brexit as their chance to get Singapore on the Thames. However, in reality what they are actually pitching for is Pyongyang on the Thames, where the UK becomes a Pariah state, who routinely breaks international law and gets by through a combination of criminality, intense propaganda and brainwashing (even now in UK schools, as if control of the media wasn’t good enough) as well as constant threats if they don’t get their way.

Consider that in the last week the UK government has broken international law twice, unilaterally reneging on parts of the EU trade deal, before the EU’s even had a chance to ratify it. And meanwhile many Tory MP’s and cheer leaders are urging for even stronger action, such as fighting a trade war with the EU, or banning EU made bottled water, or forcing people in the UK to eat more shellfish (I’d love to see these brexiters try that outside a Glasgow takeaway on a Saturday night, they’ll likely just get stabbed with a plastic fork).

Up in Northern Ireland the DUP are trying to undo the trade deal (which in December they’d been praising) by any means necessary, including simply not building the infrastructure to enforce it (so basically they campaigned for brexit, the results of which they are refusing to implement). They’ve also begun to use threatening language, including calling for “Guerilla warfare” against the EU, clearly a dog whistle to their terrorist allies. Which was received loud and clear, as shortly afterwards several loyalist terrorist groups announced their break with the Good Friday agreement.

And, as regards corruption and criminal behaviour, we have the health secretary being found to have acted unlawfully in the award of PPE contracts during the pandemic to his chums (of course he’s not going to resign, don’t be silly!). The prime minster setting up a charity slush fund to redecorate his flat and using taxpayers money to pay for fake news articles (adverts masquerading as real news) to sell brexit as a success.

Consider for a minute if anyone else behaved the way the brexiters behave. Imagine if a Muslim stood up and talked about launching Guerrilla warfare. How many seconds before they’d be arrested? Consider how the Tories were calling for Nicola Sturgeon’s head for the last few weeks, while ignoring the far greater scandals from within their own party. If labour had won the election and they heard Corbyn was going to use taxpayers money to fool Daily Mail or Telegraph into reading articles promoting his socialist policies, how would they have reacted? Likely by rolling around on the ground and chewing the carpet, then calling for him to be arrested for misuse of state funds. There is one rule for brexiters and another one for everyone else.

I recall a conversation I once had with someone who worked for the Brazilian government (under the previous left wing administration) who bemoaned the fact that any time the country implemented any sort of left wing policy, stronger environmental protections, raising taxes for the wealthy, better labour laws, the credit rating agencies in the west would cut the country’s credit rating. Yet whenever the right wing parties did something, such as lowering taxes for the wealthy or selling off state industries to the private sector, the credit ratings would be raised (even when the measures were clearly going to lead to higher levels of borrowing and a higher risk of default for investors).

So we now have the situation where the UK has essentially imposed sanctions on itself and its led by politicians who are deliberately trying to sabotage the UK economy, yet the UK’s credit ratings aren’t being cut. Again, one rule for one group and another for everyone else.

Of course there is a difference between North Korea and the UK. North Korea survives on the basis of the CFC gambit. Or Crippled (anyone attacking North Korea will be stuck with the bill for rebuilding a crippled country from scratch), Fearsome (as they have a vast arsenal of conventional, as well as nuclear, biological and chemical weapons) and Crazy (while they would be all but guaranteed to loose any war they are just about crazy enough to use this arsenal as an act of national suicide). In short, its better for its neighbours to treat North Korea with kid gloves….because Kim Jung un’s gloves are likely made from real kids!

In short, CFC works for North Korea because they are an impoverished nation whose leadership have nothing to lose by self isolation. Its a little different with the UK. The EU’s likely response will be targeted sanctions and tariffs. These will be used to cause maximum pain to the the UK and Tory politicians in particular, while minimising the harm to the EU. So likely measures could include heavy tariffs on fish or agricultural products, or a financial transaction tax on UK/EU trades (which would hit Tory voters and donors hard).

And while some cosmetic tabloid friendly retaliation from the UK might happen, the UK can’t really do much, given how dependant it is on things like food, medicines, electricity and energy supplies from the EU. In fact customs checks they should currently be undertaking, which they delayed till July (illegally), might be watered down even further due to fears of possible food shortages (so they wanted brexit so they can shut the border…but now they are angry because they don’t want anyone to shut the border WTF!).

The GFA is underwritten by the US. They will take a very dim view of any effort to undermine it. Measures they could take could involve, joining in with EU’s sanctions, ruling out any trade deals (or making it plain to other countries that they should drop their trade deals with the UK if they want to remain friends with Washington) or boycotting of international events (such as the upcoming G8 meeting).

Its also not clear how they will react to any resumption of violence. There were some Americans back in the troubles who argued for a more robust American stance (e.g. refusing to sell miltary hardware to the UK until it negotiated with the Irish), or an American led UN peace keeping force in NI (the unionist wake up one morning to find US Marines standing on every street corner). So its kind of up in the air what happens next, particularly if its seen as the UK provoking a unionist bombing campaign in the Republic.

So the brexiters are in for something of a rude awakening. And its clear they still don’t know what brexit means. And even if they do, they are plugging their ears. They want a fantasy brexit, where they still have all the benefits of EU membership, but (much as North Korea pretends they won the Korean war) they get to pretend they’ve also gotten their Empire 2.0.