WHAT ABOUT HUNGARY

I am in a quandary understanding  the political choices that are being made round the world. The very recent Hungarian elections are an instance in point. In last Sunday’s general election, Mr Orban’s Fidesz Party has lost its majority in the Hungarian National Assembly, a unicameral assembly consisting of 199 members. Since 2010, Mr Orban’s party, which was initially viewed as a centre right party, has consistently moved further right on the political spectrum.  It was also backed by the MH, or Mi Hazánk Party (Our Homeland Movement), a far right politic party which had only 6 seats in the previous assembly. They still have their 6 seats whilst Mr Orban, Party has been reduced from 135 to 55 seats. A loss of nearly 60%. Whilst eight parties and ten independents were represented in the assembly, there are now only three left. The Tisza party with 138 seats, the Fidesz and alliance Party with 55 seats and the MH with their 6. 

It should be noted that when Mr Orban came to power in 2010, there were 386 seats in the assembly which represented a population of 9,979,128 which means each elected member represented about 25,852 people. In 2014 Mr Oban was again elected, however his government had changed the constitution and reduced the number of assembly members from 386 to the current 199. In that time the population had reduced to 9,862,842 and each seat represented 49,562 citizens. That population has reduced even further to around 9,585,818. Indeed the population of Hungary seems to be reducing by about 24,500 per annum over that last 16 years. Nearly 4% of the population has left the country in the last 16 years. Indeed the percentage of 30-34 year old citizens has gone down from 8.2% to 6.4% of the population and the 40 to 45 age bracket has gone down from 6.9% to 6.5%. In effect a lot of  of the 30-34 year olds from  2010  may have left the country.  There must be a  reason for this exodus.

So far as the new prospective Prime Minister, Mr Péter Magyar, is concerned, he was formerly a member of Mr Orban’s party from 2002 to 2026, when he became president of the Tisza party which is classified as a Centre Right party, as was Mr Orban’s in 2010 when first elected. So, I ask myself just how far has the Hungarian electorate actually moved? And will the population exodus begin to decline? Also, have the political parties previously on the left completely disappeared or have they been absorbed into Tisza? The socialist and social democrats previously had 25 seats.  The centrists and the conservatives had 16 seats seats. The independents had 10. That’s 51 seats that seemed to have changed hands or completely disappeared. Was there ever a left or left of centre political group at all? Will Péter Magyar go the way of Victor Orban? How far has Tisza moved away from Fidesz.

At the moment, it’s all smiles and congratulations from the rest of the European Union, as it is believed that Mr Magyar is a firm believer in the European Union, and the cries of ‘Russia go Home’ from the jubilant crowds on election night are very welcome to Mr Zelenskyy’s ears. Is this really a change of direction and will the Tisza movement, with its supermajority, actually restore greater representative government in the Assembly? Will the younger Hungarian citizens remain to find out? 

Is this a move away from right wing movements around the world or just a local reset for conservative parties across the globe? Does the outcome of the Hungarian election have any impact at all on a world view? Or is it just a local European election from which one can draw no conclusions at all? Does it have any real effect on  or within the European Union? These are things that give me pause. On the whole, I welcome the ousting of Mr Orban from any further influence on the political stage, or am I thinking too soon? We can only wait and see. 

 I am informed by Celia that the population decline is not unusual in that most European societies are in decline, but the Eastern European nations are particularly declining, Hungary being among the top countries with a declining population. Birth rates and death rates are changing although emigration is a large factor. In most Western European countries and North America the population in increasing although the growth rate is declining. Populations across the world clearly vary. In Hungary the population is in decline and the median age is rising.  In 2010 it was 38.9 and in 2026 it is 44.2. It would seem younger people are leaving and going elsewhere. Whether this is a good or bad thing is debatable. We can only wait and see.

As to the ousting of the current leadership, one can only be thankful the orange man child might feel the disappointment that his endorsement carried no weight.

PLUS ÇA CHANGE, PLUS C'EST LA MÊME CHOSE ? or PLUS C'EST PIRE ?

I had intended on posting a completely different type of entry, one more focused on the autobiographical; however, in the light of events I was reminded that on the 24th June 2025 I wrote a blog entitled “Have we given our hearts away”. In it I included the following, but I have highlighted some phrases in bold:

“The world is too much with us, complained William Wordsworth in 1802, just after the turn of the 18th and 19th century....
In effect much was going on then as now. There certainly was a continuous level of violence going on, and the recognition of human rights was being determined all over the globe. Revolutions and hypocrisies were rife, nonetheless we have established, in more than one area, a human rights convention and an International Criminal Court to oversee flagrant breaches of a rule of law that we are all meant to observe. So as Wordsworth cried out in 1802 against a disappearance of decency, so we cry out now that the world is indeed too much with us. Relief from this insanity of nationalist imperialism and violent religious bigotry, would not come amiss. Must leaders of democracies be tyrants in the making? Is arrogance and narcissism a prerequisite to governance? Why do so many cling to people of such colossal ego with extravagant and amoral prejudice? Is it necessary to create a bogeyman on whom to heap vile insults, such as Hitler on the Jews and Trump on all immigrants? Is it essential to so obviously twist the truth? 
For goodness sake, there are pictures and recordings of events, clearly illustrative of appalling actions and criminality, which are turned on their head. Why is that accepted? Are the populace so totally mesmerised as to be made deaf, dumb and blind?
When will the congress of the United States step up and reassert its powers to uphold the rule of law? When will this Orwellian horror show be over?
One should normally be respectful of other people’s views, no matter how difficult they may be. To have divergent opinions is a healthy thing. We are individuals and not all alike. We may seethe inwardly, but honest opinion is to be respected. Honest opinion, not one founded on mendacity, bigotry and ignorance. With the likes of Putin, Trump, Netanyahu, Lukashenko, Orban et al, it is a calculated and pernicious obsession to retain power. Any lie and appeal to ignorance is acceptable. It is strategic condescension, as defined by Pierre Bourdieu, used to maintain that power. Is it any wonder Trump claims to “love the poorly educated”?
I sometimes feel at wits end and deeply troubled by an inability to act. It is all very well to rant at my MacBook Air screen, but it changes nothing. I know I am not alone in my point of view. It is irrational, but I loath the poorly educated. I do not speak of the ignorant, or the intellectually challenged,  as they are for the most part able to distinguish truth from lies. I loath the people who claim education and knowledge when it is, in effect, based on deceit, duplicity, lies and fabrications. Believing in myths and ghosts is harmless, but calling on people to obliterate those with whom we do not agree, and calling them scum, is a crime against humanity. This is what our current leaders seem to do, and want to do. It is who we have elected. How sad is that?”

So, having said that nearly a year ago, the situation has become even worse. The crass, crude and rude uncivilised behaviour of the current President of the United States is beyond redemption. His acolytes are no better. How has the world order let such stupidity reign for so long? Now, even some of Trump’s previously staunch supporters want to see him removed as soon as possible. His clear lack of control over his own speech as well as over his supposed ally, Netanyahu, has imperilled the world. Under the guise of his approach to making America safe, he has exacerbated a tragic situation in the Middle East by making it not only a death trap of horrifying proportions, but an equally catastrophic economic disaster. 

I am sorry to be so repetitive, but there is no other way. The same crap seems to be occurring again and again. The nightly news is just as stuck, amplifying the same story over and over again since the 21st January 2025. There is no such thing as “What’s new?”. Perhaps there is a change, from “plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose” to “plus ça change, plus c'est pire” 

Can this be fixed at the ballot box? I sincerely hope so. 

ANOTHER VIEW

We are, once again, being led into a tangle of distractions away from the catastrophe that is the Trump administration. Millions of Americans came out on the streets across the country to protest the very idea that the United States should be run by autocracy. 

Nonetheless, the attempt to divert focus to the journey round the moon and the live movie script that is the rescue of a downed US Airforce serviceman, is ongoing. It is a continuation of the comic book approach to governance that consumes Trump, Hegseth and other sycophants. What is going on is far from a game. Other influential figures have no hesitation in condemning the violence. The newly seated Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope in Rome have made their views quite clear. Would that the political leaders of all European countries, and other members of the United Nations, condemn the United States, Israel and Russia in no uncertain terms, for their illegal and criminal actions in Middle Europe and the Middle East. Netanyahu has already been indicted, butTrump and his entire Cabinet should be facing the same scrutiny by the International Criminal Court. 

The latest moment of braggadocio from Trump and Hegseth “We got him”, costing over a billion dollars, quite apart from the two billion a day, is a confusion. Whilst it is laudable that such an effort should made to extract a fellow serviceman from harms way, he should not have been put in that position in the first place.  Heroic acts are really distractions from the corruption that engulfs the entire Trump administration. One must not let the Hollywood style theatrics divert from the condemnation and law enforcement required to bring this venality and dishonesty to book. 

Here a clip from the Rachel Maddow show which gives an overall of what is going on at present.  Well worth a look and listen. If the video is not available go to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI36Z5otlrQ

EXPLORING THE MOON

In the light of the present journey around the moon and back, here is a little vignette from 13 years ago with Bill Nye the Science Guy and some reporter on Fox News 

TEXT AND SYMBOLIC INTERACTION

Some 12 years ago I was contemplating doing a research degree having completed an MA in performance writing under the tutelage of Jerome Fletcher, a most excellent instructor and advisor. My subject was intended to examine the performance of writing in the environment, displaying social identity. 

The premise was that every sign in a public space is open writing, a public ‘text’. This included all posters and placards pasted on walls or held up on demonstrations, advertisements, shop signs, bus stops, traffic signals, subway stations, the entirety of all public displays of images and words in the environment including the digital world.  It is writing addressed to a public audience continuously reminding the observer of ‘reader’ of some official or unofficial information, or some social or political position. Some of these public signs are significant public art. Indeed artistic displays of any kind are a form of public text to be viewed and read.

My initial questions were whether this ‘writing’ signified as social and political? Do the majority or ruling groups support their political and territorial interests through the use of public writing? Does this ‘public text’ perform as a display of the social identity of a given group? Does public text  have  real  power and influence? Can one include aural rhetoric as a form of writing? 

As you can tell the questions go on and on and I was never able to pinpoint any specific question to explore which would encapsulate the essence of the performance of text other than it ‘informs’. It simply imparts information which can be either accepted and acted upon or just observed and ignored. It is similar to an accept all, reject all or accept essential only, as in the manner of cookies. 

But what is public. Does one include books and magazines. They are displayed and open to the public, although they have to be bought or at least handled by the reader, which requires the reader to actively seek out whatever the book or work conveys. Likewise any open performance, film, television or online streaming requires the deliberate participation of the reader. There is stuff just put out on display whether anyone likes it or not. Is that really a distinction? 

So far as the power of text is concerned, there are statutes and laws which are written and necessarily available to the public, which the public are deemed to understand and abide by. The fact that one is unaware of a particular prohibition or mandatory action is considered inexcusable. The rule of law is embodied in text. . 

The more one looks into Text, the more one accepts Jacques Derrida’s statement "Il n'y a pas de hors-texte” - There is nothing outside the text. In effect, there is nothing but text. In preparing my project back in 2013 I put together a short video in an attempt to formulate “The Question”: 

  

In my view, on reflection after 12 years, it is perhaps not sufficient, as it does not to take into account the myriad of public texts which was the object of the investigation. In particular, when it comes to social identity, it does not stress enough the real power that text has on our daily lives. Legality, religion, economics, health, nationality, political affiliation, employment, status, everything is dependent on the “written manual’ that goes with it. That text has its influence is one thing, but of course, along with the reader is the writer. Someone has put the text on display. Whether it is done simply to display a statement without expectation of reaction or comment, or with a very specific intent of causing reaction and comment, it will cause, by itself,  reaction and comment, both positive and negative. There will be some interaction between people. How human beings act towards other people or things is based on what meanings are assigned to them. 

There is a theory of symbolic interaction which focuses on the analysis of the patterns of communication, interpretation and adjustment between individuals. The theory is a framework for understanding how individuals interact with each other and within society through the meanings of symbols (or text) Both the verbal and nonverbal responses that a listener then delivers are similarly constructed in expectation of how the original speaker will react. 

There are a number of people who has pronounced on the matter. Erving Goffman believed that when an individual comes in contact with other people, that individual will attempt to control or guide the impression that others might make of him by changing or fixing his or her setting, appearance and manner. At the same time, the person the individual is interacting with is trying to form and obtain information about the individual.Herbert Blumer (set out three basic premises of the perspective:
•    "Humans act toward things on the basis of the meanings they ascribe to those things."
•    "The meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one has with others and the society."
•   "These meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretative process used by the person in dealing with the things he/she encounters."

Others, such as George Herbert Mead and Joel M. Charon have expressed views. In deed Charon is the author of Symbolic Interaction An Introduction, An Interpretation, An Integration. Mr Charon expresses five central ideas symbolic interaction. Briefly, 1- The human being must be understood as a social person, 2- The human being must be understood as a thinking being. 3- Humans do not sense their environment directly, instead, humans define the situation they are in.4- The cause of human action is the result of what is occurring in our present. 5- Human beings are described as active beings in relation to their environment.

The theories as proposed by these three are very similar, and in particular I note “Human beings must be understood as thinking beings”, “Human act towards things on the basis on the meanings they ascribe to those thing” and “When individuals come into contact with other people, the individual will attempt to control or guide the impression that others might make of him/her by changing or fixing his or her setting, appearance and manner”

Of course, the theory of human beings being understood as thinking beings presupposes that the human in question is an honest and ethical individual. On the whole one should be able to suppose that integrity and character are widespread. I have often stated before that human beings, when  departing from the norm, do  two thing, they steal and they hit. Violence or dishonesty is what appears to be the default mode when human beings fall short of clear thinking. 

I should like to add here that civilisation has accepted that, in order to survive as thinking human beings, we have a duty or care towards one another that follows on from the rules which have been written as rules of law which ensure that we can interact with each other even symbolically. There is a passage written by Northrup Frye, a Canadian literary critic and theorist who commented on the law and artistic endeavour as it relates (in my view) to symbolic interaction:
All respect for the law is a product of the social imagination, and the social imagination is what literature directly addresses.…If the law were to be completely absorbed into the internal discipline of honest men, there would be no more law and we should all be living in the Garden of Eden. We are not there, but in the meantime law still depends upon the imagination, and the fostering and cherishing of the imagination by the arts is mainly what makes [the] profession honourable, perhaps even what makes it possible.

In the light of all of the above, I am compelled to ponder on the beings who are now in the process of scarfing up the planet and turning it to shit in the very neighbourhood of the supposed site of the garden of eden. They are not at all what one could describe as truly thoughtful and the only interaction they seek is to control. They preen and pose like peacocks and are prone to violent outburst of insult and arrogance, and are unable to adhere to any duty or care or rule of law. They are not honourable men and women and have no concept of what service to a nation means. Thoughtlessness, violence and dishonesty are their go-to norms rather than the opposite. You know who they are. Unfortunately their 15 minutes of fame has been extended for far too long. If ever the world needed the American people to come up trumps, it is to clip Trumps wings on the 3rd November 2026. It is hoped the other miscreants will follow suit. 

MEMORIES AND REFLECTIONS

There is far too much going on at present to have any grasp on sanity. The continuing Trump generated world wide catastrophe is almost impossible to take in. It not only affects international relations, but the collateral damage to domestic politics is just as depressing. In the United Kingdom the right of the political spectrum initially supported Mr Trump’s shenanigans then wavered and made attempts at distancing themselves from his agenda. The financial repercussions, already in chaos, have become even more problematic as a result of Trump’s middle east war.  Attacks on the British Prime Minster roll along. Accusation and insult are hurled totally unaccompanied  by any serious assessment of a situation that he or anyone else is able to control. Self righteousness and arrogance abound. Problem solving is at its lowest ebb. 

If anything is to make headway, all hostilities must cease worldwide and various parties must sit down, reflect and properly assess the world situation and devise domestic and global solutions that promote prosperity and bring health safety and security to all nations citizens, regardless of the domestic political arrangements in place. Clearly that is impossible in the current climate, although there are signs that perhaps in the European Union some cohesiveness is on the cards. Also, the Canadian Prime Minister, Mr Carney, has indicated his willingness to approach nations other than the United States to form agreements on trade and other matters. He demonstrates a world wide approach to governance to the benefit of his own citizens. The Australian Government is equally showing signs of such diplomacy, and there are others; however, it will all go to nought if the hostilities, recriminations and psychotic Trumpisms continue. Mr Trump believes the world revolves around him and so long as he is allowed to continue in that vein, the chaos will prevail. He must be told “It’s over!!!”. It is up to as many European and Far Eastern leaders as possible to get that message across. Stop enabling the insanity.  

If only one were able to provide an intervention with the group photographed below:

Wishful thinking, although Granville Stanley Hall would most likely be on the side of Mr Trump. He was certainly not a man of the people and favoured a more pompous arrogance so far as I can glean; however, I am sure that Carl Gustav Jung might attempt at a breakthrough. On the other hand, I doubt very much if Mr Trump has any inkling of self examination, discovery and balance guiding personal growth and understanding. His thoughts, feeling, memories and instincts are entirely directed at his own aggrandisement. The ego trip to end all ego trips “like nobody has ever seen before, by a lot”, as he might say.  I hesitate to speculate on what Sigmund would make of Trump. I’m sure that after a mere 5 minutes observation he would have a pretty comprehensive diagnosis. For starters, Mr Freud would undoubtedly confirm that Trump still sucks his thumb.

 

I am sorry to obsess. As a breakaway from world pandemonium, and in keeping with my own memories and experiences, I post herewith a link to a bit of audio reflections on events in the very early 1960’s, when I had just turned 21. Highlight and click on the link or copy and paste if you  care to listen. Its about 14 minutes. I believe it will come up on some form of audio program. Thank you.

https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&id=1l5QmXZTiGFKF8MpWP66jPyk-9vpSsfrZ

WHAT PRICE DEMOCRACY ?

Where do we go from here? 

I post a paragraph I found on the net:

“Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov issued a stark warning to the United States and President Donald Trump, stating the ongoing war with Iran threatens global peace and could escalate into a Third World War. In a major press conference, Lavrov accused the US of triggering the conflict by unilaterally abandoning the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) and blamed Western powers for disrupting regional normalisation between Iran and Arab states. He cautioned that NATO is being drawn into the conflict, expanding beyond its mandate, and warned the war is destroying vital energy infrastructure in the Persian Gulf. Lavrov concluded that the conflict, which he termed US aggression, risks the collapse of international law and could stimulate a global nuclear arms race as more countries seek atomic weapons for self-defence, prompting Russia to push for a UN Security Council resolution to end the hostilities.”

The sentiments and views expressed by Mr Lavrov (if correctly reported) smack of such hypocrisy that it is impossible not to laugh in derision. The remarks appear to be quite a reasonable and probably correct point of view; however, for Russia to be calling for the UN Security Council to produce resolutions or the kind Russia has consistently ignored is, what your average Eastenders might say, taking the pis. 

In any event, the current analysis of events in the Middle East conflict, particularly relating to the the oil crisis and economic fall out, continues non-stop. There is, as expected, a good piece from Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian dated Friday 13 2026 at 17.18 GMT:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/mar/13/donald-trump-iran-war-total-disaster

His concluding paragraph states:
“To confront the Iranian regime was to walk, with a lit match, towards a tinderbox soaked in gasoline. If it were to be done at all, whether by military or other means, it had to be done with the greatest care. But Trump has blundered in, crushing and trampling all before him, making a bad situation worse. He does not deserve the benefit of the doubt. He does not deserve his war to be assessed charitably. He deserves our contempt.”

The chaos that Trump’s war, promoted by Netanyahu, has engendered, is engulfing the globe. Not a day goes by without the disastrous effects rumbling on with no clear end or solution in sight. Indeed, one wonders if there is any concept of lucidity or intelligibility at all in the current government administrations of the, so called, leading nations. There is much talk of ‘transparency’, combined with a derisive tone, as if the statement itself was so obvious,  how could anyone have any doubts. 

The frequency with which Mr Trump’s press secretary and attorney-general claim that he is the most transparent president in the world goes unchallenged, and, in a way, he is. There has never been anyone so self serving, egotistical, venal and power hungry as Donald Trump occupying the office of President of the United States in 250 years. That fact is so glaringly obvious and transparent that one is almost blinded by its clarity. Beyond that, there is nothing but stupidity and murkiness surrounded by a haze of imprecision. Everything is deflection and obfuscation, accompanied by insult, effrontery and anger. This is what politics in America has become. 

There is a sadness that this exemplar of ‘clarity’ is probably becoming the modus operandi of many countries. I exclude the already established dictatorships among nations as they have made their position quite clear. I say this as my attention was drawn to a report published by the Varieties of Democracy Institute Report, or V-Dem Democracy Report 2026 which can be found at:
https://v-dem.net/documents/75/V-Dem_Institute_Democracy_Report_2026_lowres.pdf

The institute claims, inter alia:

Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) produces the largest global dataset on democracy with over 32 million data points for 202 countries and territories from 1789 to 2025. Involving over 4,200 scholars and other country experts, V-Dem measures over 600 different attributes of democracy.
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in the Democracy Report do not reflect an official position of the larger V-Dem Project, the V-Dem Steering Committee, or theV-Dem Institute. Authors are responsible for the content.

I post below, the Executive Summary of the Report.

 

Just for emphasis one should note the current view of the situation in the United States:
* Under Trump’s presidency democracy in the USA has fallen back to the same level as in 1965. Yet the situation is fundamentally different than during the Civil Rights era.
* President Trump’s second term can be summarised  as a rapid and aggressive concentration of powers in the presidency.
* The speed with which American democracy is currently dismantled is unprecedented in modern history.
* Legislative Constraints – the worst affected aspect of democracy – is losing one-third of its value in 2025 and reaching its lowest point in over 100 years.
* Civil Rights & Equality before the Law, and Freedom of Expression & Media are now at their lowest levels in 60 years.
* Electoral components of democracy, however, remain stable – for now.

 

What is even more disturbing is that the research reveals that the share of the world population living in liberal democracies in 2025 was only 7%. So I ask again where do we go from here? Never before has the importance of voting in the November elections of 2026 been so vital. If you don't want to loose it, vote. I would also recommend your reading the report.

THE ART OF THE DIARY

The situation in the Middle East and round the world moves on apace. Many commentators and pundits have given their views, and various networks have provided us with statistics and polls indicating the feeling of many different groups of people. On the whole, the general consensus is that this latest fiasco created by Messrs Trump and Netanyahu is very bad for business, quite apart from being appalling for the general welfare of humanity and the planet.  I will therefore not dwell on the horrors of Trump and company.

On a cultural note, I went yesterday the the Tate Modern to view the exhibition Tracey Emin: A Second Life. The online headline for the exhibition  is “Step into the tender, confessional world of Tracey Emin”. It goes on:

“This landmark exhibition traces 40 years of Emin’s groundbreaking practice, showcasing career-defining sensations alongside works never exhibited before. Through painting, video, textiles, neons, writing, sculpture, and installation, Emin continues to challenge boundaries, using the female body as a powerful tool to explore passion, pain, and healing.
Dame Tracey Emin is one of the most important contemporary artists of her generation”. 

I am afraid I came away feeling disappointed. I did not think the works on display offered anything other than pain. There was only one drawing which I thought was worthy of being called a drawing. The Textual displays were colourful and were rather like large examples of samplers one sees on Flog It or the Antiques Roadshow.  I felt there was more obsession than passion but I am sure this exhibition of venting is certainly a healing process. I do not mean to disparage her work. Anyone who can achieve what she has achieved in the world of Art is certainly worthy of notice. It’s just that on this day I didn’t get it. Appreciation of any artistic work is extremely subjective and there are no absolutes to understanding. Once published, each work stands alone and either reaches into the mind of the viewer/reader or it does not. I confess on this occasion the works did not. 

Artistic achievement is a very difficult process. The life of an artist is a full on commitment to a vision and a total dedication to the processes of making work. In addition, making work that communicates the artist’s vision and ideas to another, is extremely difficult. No two viewers or readers will see the same vision or interpret a work exactly as the artist intended, or indeed if the artist intended anything at all. It is a miracle that a single piece of work can be lauded by a multiplicity of reader/viewers at all. It is not so much a question of taste as it is mental connection. The skill of the artist in making a piece of work that connects with a number of different people is what always shines through. Continuously creating works that shine through over a period of time is even rarer. Indeed it may even take a great deal of time before the work shines at all. Some artist have only ever produced one work that does. Therein lies the difficulty for the artist. To have the dedication and obsession to continue making work regardless of appreciation or understanding requires a fortitude few of us have. There are the makers and craftspersons, and there are people of genius, but all of it is hard work. Some artist’s, a fortunate few, make work that somehow strikes a particular chord and it rides on the crest of a wave. 

That is, of course, my point of view. There are a number of explanations and theories about what makes art. There are as many views as there are people. Indeed, one has to ask oneself, just what is it that makes “great art”?  Certainly there are a number or works in the world that have acquired a following and are thought  to be the pinnacle of artistic achievement. They are highly prized and valued. Why that is, is a bit of a mystery. The answer is surely not “because it is". So much of what we do and think appears to be arrived at, and begin from, some arbitrary decision. Much depends on our acquired knowledge, personal experience and powers of observation. For some people a thought process is engaged.

To quote a follower of Goethe, one must remember that “thinking…is no more and no less an organ of perception than the eye or ear. Just as the eye perceives colours and the ear sounds, so thinking perceives ideas.” Rudolf Steiner (1883), Goethean Science, GA1.

Thus we can perceive art in the smallest of objects and in effect ‘read’ the piece into our thinking. As an example, here is picture of a cork. 

Just an ordinary cork from a wine bottle. I deduce it is from a wine bottle by the tint of red at one of the ends of the cork. Also, there is a printed sign on the side of the cork, L’AIR DE RIEN. It is, one would guess the name of the wine. It must be a red wine, although there is barely a hint of wine coming from the cork if I smell it, but I believe it is there, although that might be auto-suggestion because it is, after all, a cork from a bottle. Usually the name of the wine is printed on the cork along with Mis en bouteille au chateau. In this instance we only have a name, but one which  conjures up all sorts of thoughts.  The air de rien translates as the air of nothing. Or ‘it doesn’t look like anything’. The French phrase is usually applied to something that appears to be nothing but may indeed be much.  “Ca a l’air de rien”. It is also a pun in that it could be referring to the R of Rien. The letter R in French is pronounced ‘air’. As to the cork itself, I could not say which country it came from. I presume the bottle from which it came was a French bottle of wine and the writing is French. According to wikipedia:

Most cork used in French bottles of wine comes from the bark of cork oak trees, primarily sourced from Portugal, which is the largest producer of cork, followed by Spain and Italy. These countries are part of the Mediterranean region where cork oak trees thrive.
 
This little object then has quite a history. Most likely it began its life in a Portuguese oak orchard and made its way to somewhere in France. It was purchased at some point by a wine maker with an interesting sense of humour and who is proud of his wine. He gives it a label suggesting it looks like nothing, but indicates that it becomes so much more in the tasting. One must also remember that the making of wine is a form of art.

So observation and thinking go hand in hand and, if one is of reasonably sound mind, one can make decisions by bringing  together all our knowledge both learned and acquired. It is not always easy to do this in the heat of the moment. To remain rational, thought provoking and considering, requires a calm, almost meditative spirit, is not easy in the world today. The pull and distraction of the world’s current insanity is not really conducive to visiting the Tate Modern, or indeed, an exhibition working through so much pain in what is in effect the diary of a person’s life. To be honest, I rather felt that Tracey, like Gwendolyn Fairfax from the Importance of Being Earnest, might remark. “I never travel without my diary. One should always have something sensational to read in the train.” 

LEGALITY MATERS AS DO LIVES

The criticisms of the Prime Minister, Mr Starmer, over his current dealings with the United States are wholly unwarranted. It is all very well to go on about the ‘special relationship’ with the United States being put in jeopardy, but we are not dealing with the United States that we had a relationship with. To claim that we have to deal with the United States, no matter who is President is complete nonsense. The current President is extremely unpopular in his own country. He is surrounded by sycophants. The United States Congress is virtually powerless, the judiciary has ceased to be independent and the constitution is being flouted at every turn. Because of this President, the United  States is no longer the country that we think it is. There is no relationship with a psychotic narcissist  such as Trump and his entourage.  There is a saying in the United States “Wake up and smell the coffee” or as Ms. Joan Rivers might advise “Grow Up!”. We are no longer dealing with the United States. The nation that was once an ally is no more. It has ceased to be. 

The Ambassador to the United Kingdom, Mr Warren Stephens is a very wealthy billionaire and contributor to MAGA and made a contribution to Trump of $6 million just prior to his nomination as Ambassador. This is a paid for posting, by an Arkansas, right wing, merchant banker. It is a show of prestige for the holder of the office to spend a couple of years in a lovely house in Regents Park in London. What actual relationship this Ambassador may have with the current British Prime Minster is open to question. In any event, this is not someone who is a true representative of the United States either. He is part of the Trump Show.

Why is it Mr Trump can go about spreading insults and injury all over the place and no one is meant to answer back? Is no one to take him to task? How is it he is allowed to exhibit no manners, or decorum, or simple political integrity? This is not an ally. He cannot possibly represent the United States of America that went out of its way to nurture a relationship with the country that, despite everything, gave it birth and the rule of law. It is now trampling on that heritage,  So do not say that we must be careful not to destroy the special relationship. Mr Trump has already done that in spades by destroying the very nature of the United States itself. They no longer have a president. He is a fraud and clown from a reality TV show, and seems to have taken over the country as his personal studio to hurl insults at the free press and stifle the freedoms we all believed to be guaranteed by the constitution of that great nation. When that Nation returns to normality so will the special relaationship.

For the various reform and conservative party opposition shadows to criticise Mr Starmer and support a convicted felon, adjudicated sex offender, bully and liar,  brings them nothing but shame. It is to be completely disloyal to the United Kingdom in order to curry favour with Trump. The Americans understand completely why Mr Starmer has taken his initial stand. He is a lawyer and former head of Crown Prosecution Service, hence he adheres to and believes in the rule of law. (Unlike Tony Blair).

Netanyahu had dragged Trump into a wholly illegal enterprise. Not that that would deter Trump from participating. Trump is a gangster and racketeer and has his many henchmen to engage in his fantasy. The fact that he is so callous and careless about the losses of life will soon penetrate, hopefully, into the minds of his MAGA  mob. It has into the mind of Marjorie Taylor Green who has come out strongly against this latest farrago of nonsense. So should we all.

Spanish Prime Minister, Pedro Sanchez, has made his case and clearly the rest of Europe should follow suit.  

Àabajo el Trumpismo
Abas le Trumpisme
Nieder mit dem Trumpismus!
Dolje s abbasso il trumpismo
Abbasso il Trumpismo
Etc…

CAN YOU CONCEIVE THE INSANITY?

The current situation has revealed a number of rather disturbing views being expressed as well as some rather unfortunate decisions. This is, of course, my own perception of things that I have seen and heard over the BBC. Some may think this is already a tainted source from which to evaluate information; however, I choose to think it is a still a reasonably reliable conduit from which to obtain news. It does sometimes veer away from objectivity towards opinion but then most  media outlets do the same. Some have an outright agenda and have completely  turned to propaganda. In any event, much of what we get is so called analysis and comment, theoretically expressing all points of view from left to right on the socio-political spectrum.

Last night on Newsnight during an interview of John Bolton (former Trump advisor) a short publicity film was shown, to him and to the audience, which was put out as an official White House ‘promotional’ film. I presume it was made to publicise the might and ‘right’ of the United States by promoting ‘truth and justice and the American way’. The film consisted of a compilation of very short clips from movies, such as Brave Heart, Top Gun, Robot animation from I know not where, Superman and other comic book heroes, interspersed  with clips of bomb bursts in Iran. All very gung ho with superman saying “I’m here for truth justice and the American way”. Mr Bolton sort of sneered at it and said ‘I wouldn’t have put it out’. He described it as infantile and probably symptomatic of the current White House, but wasn’t Superman for truth, justice and the American way? He also, when asked to comment on the bombing of a school in Iran, possibly  by the United States, commented that America would never contemplate such a thing and the matter would be investigated and if necessary compensation made. He also added that, given the situation, Iran should not build schools next to military installations. 

The Newsnight guest panellists  of pundits were horrified, as was the presenter, but one had to remember that, although Mr Bolton was deeply at odds with Mr Trump, he is a man on the right of American politics and very much in favour of the attack on Iran. He was also instrumental in breaking off the agreement the United States had previously made with the Iranian Government. 

What surprised me more was the lack of comment or analysis of the White House propaganda piece. The film and its message is a stark reminder of the insanity and psychotic nature of the Trump presidency and occupation of the White House. What could possibly have possessed any serious minded individual to put together such an insane film? To intersperse macho cartoon character and villains with the bombing of Iranian cities and citizens as if they were real upholders of justice and the American way is clearly insane. It is turning reality on its head. Trump and is cohorts clearly  see the world as one giant television screen on which they play video games. It is AI gone completely mad. The film is actually on YouTube.

You may also seek to watch the episode of Newsnight broadcast on Friday 6th March 2026 at 10:30 PM on iPlayer. It is almost impossible to put into words just what to make of this film. It would no doubt be a central part of any psychological analysis of Mr Trump. 

Which leads me on to an interview on the Today Program broadcast today Saturday 7th March 2026 at 7:22 am The interview was with Professor Shahram Kordasti. You can listen to it on BBC Sounds. Professor Kordasti has number of friends and family in Iran with whom he has some communication. He expressed overall that there is still some hope that the situation might lead to a new democratic Government somewhere down the line.  He points out the difficulties but gives the impression that there are many who may welcome the action being taken. Having tried for so long  to change the regime in Iran, and constantly being rebuffed and brutally put down, this my be the last resort and only way of bringing about that change. According to Prof Kordasti they have tried everything else, so what is there to loose, or words to that effect. 

This interview followed on, although not directly, from another discussion about the American B1 Bomber being allowed to land in the UK for defensive purposes.  It was quite clear from the discussion that even though landing and take off permission was approved by the UK Government, whether the use of the aircraft would be entirely defensive in nature was open to question. One had to be realistic about such matters. 

So I ask myself, is this some sort of surreptitious propaganda by the BBC in support of the Government in promoting the ‘defensive but realistic position’ as a corollary to the number of Iranian citizens who ‘welcome’ this intervention as a hope for the future? Perhaps I am being too Machiavellian in my thinking. Nonetheless it is cause for concern.

What is the major concern is that we have a world descending into complete chaos with an insane group of people playing Nintendo  war games behind screens in the White House and the Pentagon.  In the meantime, whilst the comic fantasy addicts play on, Putin and Netanyahu are loving it and feel free to run roughshod over the rest of us,. It really should be time for the adults in the room to pull the plug.

ANOTHER ANNIVERSARY DISTORTED

On this day, the 5th of March 1770 five Americans were fatally shot by British Troops in an event which became known as the Boston Massacre. This would contribute to the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War which began 5 years later on the 19th April 1775 culminating on the 3rd September 1783. The Constitution of the United States was created in September of 1787 and became effective on the 4th March 1789 virtually 19 years after that Bostonian event. Yesterday was the 237th anniversary of that document which firmly established the rule of law in the United States off America. It is of course accepted that the birth of that nation was with the ratification of the Declaration of Independence. That Declaration was written by Thomas Jefferson with John Adams, Roger Sherman, Robert Livingston and Benjamin Franklin. Together they were known as the Committee of Five of the Second Continental Congress. The declaration  was presented  and ratified on the 4th July 1776 and signed by 56 delegates to that Continental Congress. This year will be the 250th Anniversary of the formation of the United States of America; but in my view the true birth of the nation was with the date on which the Constitution became effective. 

From left to right: John Adams, Roger Sherman, Robert Livingston, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin.

It is on that day that the foundation of a Nation was established. It has been underpinned on 27 occasions. The first ten pillars created the Bill of Rights, specific protections of individual liberty and justice, with restrictions on the powers of Government within the United States. These amendments from 13 on, predominantly expanded individual civil rights and addressed issues relating to federal authority and modifying government processes and procedures. The main body was the strict establishment of the checks and balances between the three branches of Government, the Executive, the Legislators and the Judiciary. The whole of the document was very clear about preventing any one branch of acting without the oversight and agreement of the other. In particular the purse strings were to be controlled by the most representative and largest of the  branches, the Congress. This was to prevent any possible skulduggery by the smaller executive over public funds, and to maintain a specifically impartial and independent judiciary, through whom any grievances between the citizens and public institutions could be decided. 

It is clear that the so called founding fathers, when creating the Constitution in September of 1789, did not contemplate that the rule of law thereby established would ever be violated, given how so many had given their lives and fortunes to actually produce such a document. Given the general character, education and willingness to compromise of the members of the Continental Congresses that produced it, and, despite their prejudices (including racism, bigotry and misogyny) they did not fully foresee the possible dangers down the line. They were so caught up with notions of freedom, liberty, the rights of man and pursuit of happiness (nothing to do with left and right) that it never occurred to them that the compromise would or could fail. Indeed, the subsequent Civil War four score and seven years later, appeared to settle once and for all that government of the people, by the people and for the people would not perish from the earth. Yet many more people gave up their lives and fortunes for that principle and the rule of law under the Constitution of the United States. 

Sadly, that document has now become so frayed and tattered by the festering prejudices (including racism, bigotry and misogyny) that seem to have infected the three branches of government. The impartiality of the judiciary has seriously eroded into partisanship. The legislative branch has lost any integrity through weak and pusillanimous sycophancy towards a venal and corrupt narcissist and his cohorts. It is he who now runs the executive without any care or concern of any kind for the people of the world, let alone of his own citizens.

The mental putrified chaos the seeps out of his brain and those of his squad of goons has caused calamity across the world. His braggadocio during his campaign, post election and after inauguration for his second term in office revealed a fantasist’s grasp on reality. He thinks just by saying something he might have dreamed in his demented brain, it will magically happen. This allows anyone with a keen sense of strategic flattery to get him to do anything they want. Putin plies   him with a false narrative about Ukraine and he swallows it whole. Netanyahu pulls him round by the nose.  There is clear evidence of this. One hears the analysis from Rubio and a completely different version of decision making from Trump. Rubio at least knows that if Netanyahu sets out a plan of attack, Trump will be drawn in. So, he phrases things to make it seem perfectly  reasonable to suggest that if Israel attacks Iran, the Iranian Government will blame the United States anyway; therefore, it is only right to steam in with a preemptive strike. In self defence of course. In the meantime back at the ranch, Trump talks about dead American service people and his golden curtains and ballroom in the same breath. There is something decidedly off about the man. Trump's other Secretary of War/Defence brags about killing and people being toast. It is a TV episode of Bonanza and the High Chaparral mixed together, with everyone trying to play all the parts at the same time. What is wrong with these people? La La Land, is no longer just Hollywood, it is the entire country.

Americans still have a vote coming up. If those able to vote do not take up their civic duty, then all will be lost. The effect on the world is disastrous enough. I would argue for all European nations, whether a member of the European Union or not, to dissociate themselves from any thing to do with the United States, such as it currently is. Total separation and imposition of sanctions until such time as that country comes to its senses and returns to the rule of law under the Constitution it so proudly hailed not so long ago. Freeze or seize US assets along with those of Russia, gangsters one and all. They only seem to value money, gold curtains and turning people to toast. Trump talks of shit hole countries. Look in the mirror Donald.

CALLING CRIMINALS TO ACCOUNT

We are at war. Indeed we have been at war for a considerable period of time. Not one decade has gone by without some sort of lethal catastrophic event taking place somewhere in the world.

 

Throughout the ages, the matter of war, or international conflict, was in the purview of the leader or sovereign of a nation. There have been a number of attempts over the years to deal with hostilities between nations; The Hague Convention of 1899, the United Nations Charter in 1949 and a number of national constitutions created in the 20^th century. In the United Kingdom it is, in theory, a matter within the power of the Crown. It is in fact a constitutional convention regarding parliamentary approval for military action, direct control of the armed forces being divided between the government (Prime minster and cabinet) and the Defence Council, which was formed in 1964 by the “Defence (Transfer of Functions) Act 1964”

 

What is of note is that whilst setting up the Constitution of the United States the founding fathers dealt specifically with the question of war and conflict under Article 1, when establishing the powers of the Congress as long ago as 1776. Section 8 of that document deals specifically with the Powers of Congress which states, inter alia:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 

Being a democratically elected representative body, it was a specifically thought out decision as to who held the power to send people into harm’s way. It would be the people’s decision, not the executives. At present, it is clear that the executive branch of the United States has usurped congressional power which should, under the rule of law, be returned to Congress.

 

What we have now is a narcissistic convicted felon, Trump, being conned by a flattering fugitive from justice, Netanyahu, into an escalation of conflict never contemplated by the majority of American citizens, whose wishes, because of the failure of the majority party in Congress, are no longer being represented.

 

It is clear that the world is being run by gangsters of the worst kind – Trump, Netanyahu and Putin - whose playbook is straight out of the Godfather. It is vital that those Politicians within the Western European Community stand up to theses miscreants and make forceful condemnation of them. Indeed, just as Mr Trump lifted Nicolas Maduro from Venezuela, so too should a combined strategic European force extract Netanyahu, from wherever he may be, and bring him, under arrest, before the International Criminal Court or would that be an act of war? It’s only a matter of law enforcement arresting an indicted felon, isn’t it?

 

There are two videos from YouTube which illustrate the various points. There are people in the United States who `are aware of what is going on. I wish them luck. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE MARCOS TRUMP PLAYBOOK

I started writing this blog 15 years ago. At the time I wrote about things that occurred on a particular day, usually the day on which I posted the piece. On the 25th February 2011 I noted that President Marcos of the Philippines fled that country in disgrace on the 25th February 1986. That was 40 years ago. He took with him a considerable amount of money that he had grafted from the State, mostly dollars that had been given to the Philippine Government by the United States. Indeed, the level of corruption by the Marcos family having apparently purloined between $5 billion to $10 billion is unsurpassed. There have been a variety of court case leading to convictions, garnishing of assets, repayments and appeals, some of which have yet to be finalised. There is apparently still an outstanding warrant in the United States, yet Marcos’s son, Bongbong Marcos, is current President of the Philippines. 

It is difficult to comprehend why the citizens of the Philippines continue to elected this family to public office, given their history of colossal graft, corruption and human rights abuses. Some monies have beed returned to the Philippine Government, but nothing like what it should get. 

Presidents of States have a history of enriching themselves. It is surprising how that can happen even in democratic countries; although, as regards the Philippines, it did not stay democratic for long.  During Ferdinand Marcos’ regime he soon declare Martial Law and ran the country under these conditions from 1972 to 1981.  He described his rule as ‘constitutional authoritarianism’ and granted himself additional powers under a new constitution in 1973.  

In looking over the Marcos playbook it would appear that the current President of the United States is closely following the agenda. Over inflated claims, illegal use of executive orders to impose tariffs and other unconstitutional schemes. Open corruption in receipts of foreign gifts and private enterprises promoted by the use of his office to sell bitcoins, bibles and other Trump sponsored knick-knacks. Appointment of unqualified  federal officials and deployment of same as terror troops. One could go on and on with the comparison. 

How long will it be before the American citizens get hold of themselves and move this man out of office. I have long held the view that Mr Trump is the same kind of gangster the country saw in Al Capone. The New York Times, I am told, has finally come round to that view. When will the rest of the country.

 

WHAT'S IN A HEADLINE

Listening to a Radio 4 discussion (I can’t now remember which or who said what) I heard the phrase “Families are like countries”. It is indeed a sentiment that I can relate to, although I would have placed the emphasis the other way round “Countries are like families”. Indeed, the preoccupations of a nation are reflected in media (newspapers, radio, television, internet) or perhaps promoted by that same media, just as there is always someone in the family who passes round information of births, successes, travel, engagements, marriages, fallings out, job changes, movements in general and deaths. The gamut of human activity within the family is discussed with various degrees of emphasis and importance, as well as who, or what, should be told. This will also included, on occasion, the trials and tribulations of close friends and acquaintances. What is happening in the rest of the world, at times, is quite secondary. 

It is not that the information isn’t there to be absorbed, it is merely a matter of what is holding our interest at the time.  The strike in Birmingham in relation to the collection of rubbish is an instance in point. We are made aware of it and its effects in Birmingham, but for those of us living in London, with no relatives or friends in that city, in may provoke some empathy but, on the whole, levels of concern will vary a great deal across the country. Similarly, what goes on in France, Germany, the Sudan, China and the Far East etc. will only become of notice and import depending on the nature and gravity of the event that brings it into world focus. I suppose that is only natural. 

What causes me, at this moment in time, to ponder on the question of emphasis, importance and relevance of information, is the current preoccupation with the royal family and the machinations of a member of that family. How is it that this event has been blown up to such proportions? I liken it to the notion that a butterfly fluttering its wings in the amazon can cause a storm in the North Atlantic. This is chaos theory in action. One very socially mobile rich man’s perversions in southern Florida several years ago, have caused ripples round the world. That storm seems to have had its greatest effect in the United Kingdom. Political careers have been aborted and lines of succession are being debated across the country. Possible acts of Parliament are being discussed.  The tragedies in middle Europe and in the Middle East have taken a back seat. Wars continue, health care is in serious financial difficulties, the costs of higher education are in turmoil, poverty and homelessness are still very much problems to be addressed, and the greatest threat to western democracy still sits in the White House in Washington.  The man who is mentioned over and over again, laced into the cocoon  of that Florida butterfly, is a major contributor to the current chaos. 

It all boils down to acquisitiveness. The relationships effectively revolved around information able to be used to acquire yet more wealth. The insider information available to people in influential positions close to imminent financial dealings involving vast sums off money. On the spot knowledge of substantial public and private investments in substantial public and private businesses, surreptitiously passed on to others by persons with a duty of care not to misuse the confidences with which they were entrusted. Therein lies the problem in the United Kingdom. I am not so sure that the underage sex will play any great part in the UK, except as a salacious backdrop.

In the United States however, the situation is reversed. There are outcries for prosecutions for sexual abuse by the so called ‘clients’ of Mr. Epstein, whilst the financial trading aspect is peripheral. What is bizarre is that people in the United States are pointing to the arrest and contemplations of prosecutions in the UK, and loudly proclaiming “Why aren’t we doing that here?” They seem to miss the point that the offences being contemplated in the UK are about misuse of position over financial dealings rather than sexual behaviour. Sadly, the traumas suffered by the victims of Epstein and his wealthy ‘clients’ are unlikely to see any retribution of any kind, unless, of course, there are substantial sums of money involved. Perhaps I am too cynical.

It is the prominence of these events that have pushed the lethal violence in the rest of the world out of the headlines. Just as, in a family, the death of a relative puts, the failure of someone’s passing an A level, in the shade, whilst an affair by a close relative with another might put the death of an elderly parent off the agenda for a while.  I really don’t know just how much attention one should pay to world events. Does having a specific knowledge of the affairs in other countries give us any greater insight? Does it help knowing the names and political affiliations of other leaders of state and their ministers in all African, Asian and European nations? Will we be better for having that knowledge? 

What I can say is that we are all facing the same problems. Health, housing, employment, food supply, education, security, culture and leisure are necessary for survival no matter where we are. Collecting waste, efficient plumbing, public and private transport along well maintained rail and roads are equally essential in the 21st century. How each state choses to provide these things for their citizens  is what matters most just as it is of concern to all families. Understanding how best to achieve this across the globe is not a bad thing to be aiming for. It doesn’t necessarily make headlines, but it is what should be the order of things. What does seem to make the papers at the moment is the chaos. Restoring order and freedom can be achieved either through democracy or dictatorship.

There was once a call for “Education, education, education” which somehow has transmogrified into “Brainwash, brainwash, brainwash”. That is what seems to be the trend, certainly from the leadership in the United States. I understand the concern for victims of Epstein, but turning the deaths of innocent protesters in Minnesota, into ‘dealing with domestic terrorists in self defence’, when the entire world has seen the videos, is beyond comprehension. That should be the greater outcry, the continuing headline; but, we live with what we have. It would be so nice to get back to democracy.

SHE KNOWS WHEREOF SHE SPEAKS

There is a piece in the Guardian from Sunday 8^th February 2026 by journalist Janine di Giovanni which is well worth a read, so I am posting it to share. It echoes a comment made by William Pitt the younger in a speech in the House of Commons on the 18^th November 1783, “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves”.

After years spent documenting state terror, I know it when I see it. And I see it now in the US and Israel

Janine di Giovanni 

It’s chilling to watch as Trump and Netanyahu adopt the methods of regimes their countries once condemned

In Syria, where I worked during the years of Bashar al-Assad’s terror, people were often taken away to torture cells before dawn by masked men. The timing was deliberate. It disoriented them at their most vulnerable, ensuring the torture to come would be even more agonising. The testimonies I recorded from survivors almost always contained the same phrase: “The morning they came for me.” One young woman, shattered by rape and violence, later told me that her life had split in two – before and after the masked men came for her.

In Iraq, those who spoke against Saddam Hussein – even abroad, even casually –were punished in cruel ways by a vengeful leader determined to crush any hint of dissent.

In Egypt in 2016, Giulio Regeni, 28-year-old Italian academic researching labour unions, was abducted, beaten and tortured to death, it is thought, by president Abdel Fatah al-Sisi’s security services. His own mother had difficulty recognising his mutilated body.

During the second Chechen war, I met the journalist Anna Politkovskaya in Chechnya. She repeatedly attacked Vladimir Putin’s policies, documenting human rights abuses during Russia’s military campaigns. To punish her, a bullet was put in her brain on Putin’s birthday – a warning to other truth-seekers. Stay silent or die.

In the West Bank and Gaza, Israeli soldiers, masked and unmasked, kill, torture and imprison Palestinian doctors, journalists, teachers, activists and scholars not for what they have done – but because of who they are.

After decades of documenting state terror, I know how it starts. Governments begin to use words like security, order, deterrence. Every excuse for Benjamin Netanyahu’s conduct in Gaza is framed as “security”. ICE agents are trained in a language of order in which violence becomes procedure.

What happens when democratic states adopt the methods of the regimes they once condemned? Terror is not only masked men and arbitrary detention. It also operates through fear. Policies are designed to make people more compliant, more submissive. As the historian Timothy Snyder warned in his 2017 book, On Tyranny, this is how societies slide into danger: people obey in advance.

In Donald Trump’s US, I have watched CEOs, academics, journalists and government officials allow fear to override decency and moral authority. I have seen this pattern before. It begins with claims that certain people are dangerous. That ordinary legal safeguards should not apply to them. It ends with a society diminished – more compliant, more cynical, more brutal. State terror is rarely announced. In my experience, it becomes normalised. It seeps quietly into the machinery of government.

Authoritarian regimes make no serious claim to moral legitimacy. Their violence is explicit. Saddam did not apologise when he killed 182,000 Kurds during the Anfal campaign. Sisi did not apologise when about 1,000 Muslim Brotherhood supporters were mowed down in Rabaa and al-Nahda squares in central Cairo. Hafez al-Assad never acknowledged the tens of thousands killed in Hama in 1982. (To this day, the exact numbers remain unknown and the disappeared unaccounted for. The regime cynically built hotels over mass graves).

Democracies operate in an entirely different way. Their actions are often technically above the law. Constitutions are invoked and obscure laws brought back to defend aggressive policies. Governments talk of “necessary action”. They point to courts that still function, a press that is still somewhat free, elections that still take place – even as all of these institutions disintegrate. This is how democracies begin to resemble the regimes they once condemned. It is a subtle, devastating shift.

The tools are familiar. A journalist whose reporting aligns closely with the political interests of the US president and the Israeli prime minister is installed to lead CBS, once one of the most respected networks in the US. On university campuses, surveillance now includes photographing students who attend or lead pro-Palestinian demonstrations, and are deemed troublemakers. I was told by one student at an Ivy League university that some are quietly warned they will never find work on Wall Street, at the best law firms, or in government offices if they continue. Other student activists are removed from their homes, illegally detained and threatened with deportation.

Academic deans face threats of punitive funding cuts unless they impose requirements that constrain academic freedom. At Northwestern University in Chicago, students were forced to complete antisemitism training that they said was inaccurate and biased in favour of Israel before they could enrol in classes.

Instructors are quietly told to toe the line. Journalists are disciplined through language that is carefully crafted as editorial policy – then some of them are arrested. Those who resist are increasingly labelled enemies of the state.

ICE tactics themselves are not new. They have long been used disproportionately against political radicals, Muslims, Black Americans and migrants. What has changed is their visibility – and increasingly, their acceptance. Today, ICE mirrors the same patterns of state terror I have documented for decades: arbitrary detention, secret evidence, militarised policing. The criminalisation of dissent. All of this is justified by the guardians of legality: the White House, the Knesset, the office of the prime minister.

Bit by bit, lists are drawn up. Loyalty tests reminiscent of the red scare have returned. Dual citizens are facing pressure to choose a country of “loyalty”. Immigration enforcement is reframed as a hunt for “criminals” rather than a legal process. Activists, NGOs and humanitarians are punished. In Gaza, organisations such as Doctors Without Borders are told that unless they provide lists of healthcare workers – placing those staff at grave risk – they will not be allowed to operate.

The United Nations, founded to prevent the scourge of war, is rendered toothless. Then side-lined and derided.

True, the US and Israel are not Russia or North Korea. But democracies erode. The early stages are not just the national guard on the street, but legal arguments over definitions. Judges deferring to power. Congress taking money from powerful lobbying groups, then using social media to spread propaganda. Disinformation acts as a weapon of truth. Good men and women look away, fearful they will lose jobs, visas, publishing contracts, social standing.

The most chilling thing is what happens to society, but also to individuals. Fear becomes internalised, and we begin to censor our own thoughts. We wonder if the law will actually protect us if they come for us one day.

The true irony is, state terror does not make a state safer. When democratic states adopt the methods of tyrannies, they become weaker. Their global credibility frays. They sacrifice the legitimacy they once held that distinguishes them from the regimes they claim to oppose.

I know state terror when I see it. It is not just Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, Russia’s FSB or Egypt’s National Security Agency. It’s lawyers in suits and bureaucrats at desks and journalists spinning a narrative so the truth is distorted. It’s ICE agents breaking car windows and shooting unarmed citizens. It is militarised borders; family separations and deportations without due process. It is turning fear into a policy, a goal.

We should be listening, urgently, to all of those who have lived through it. The hundreds of testimonies I have taken over the years from those haunted voices are an early warning signal we cannot afford to ignore.

·       Janine di Giovanni is a war correspondent and the executive director of The Reckoning Project, a war crimes unit in Ukraine, Sudan and Gaza. She is the author of The Morning They Came for Us: Dispatches from Syria.

 

 

BACK IN 1964

In 1964, or thereabouts, Harold Wilson said “A week is a long time in politics.” In October of that year Harold Wilson lead the Labour Party to win the UK General Election after the Conservatives had been in power for thirteen years. In November of 1964, Lyndon Johnson, who had become President on the assassination of John F Kennedy a year before, was elected President defeating Republican Senator Barry Goldwater. Under his presidency the United States Civil Rights of 1964 was enacted. At the same time, the Vietnam War was building up in intensity. At that time there were supposedly only US Military Advisers in Vietnam, and the United States sent 5000 more advisers on the 27th July bringing the total to 21,000. This would increase to over 500,000 by 1968. That’s an increase of 2500% over four years.  That’s not a Trumpian exaggeration. 

At the beginning of 1964, the Winter Olympic were held in Innsbruck, Austria, just over the hill, so to speak, from Cortina d’Ampezzo in Italy where the current Winter Olympics are taking place. Also in the first week in January, there were armed clashes between United States troops and Panamanian civilians in the Panama Canal Zone precipitating a major international crisis, resulting in the deaths of 21 Panamanians and 4 U.S. soldiers.

Also in that year, in South Africa, the Rivonia Trial had begun and Nelson Mandela made his “I am prepared to die” speech. He and seven others were later sentenced to life imprisonment. Martin Luther King received the Novel Peace Prize. The bodies of two hitchhikers, who were kidnapped and killed by the Ku Klux Klan in Mississippi, were found during the search for three civil rights activists who had also been killed by the KKK in Mississippi. There were race riots in Philadelphia and in Jacksonville, Florida, during a tour of the United States, John Lennon announced that the Beatles will not play to a segregated audience. The Charter of the Palestine Liberation Organisation       (PLO) is released by the Arab League and Nikita Khrushchev is deposed as leader of the Soviet Union; Leonid Brezhnev and Alexei Kosygin assume power. The last judicial hangings in the United Kingdom are executed. 

All in all, in 1964 there were a lot of problems, and events, not too dissimilar to the current year. I was 21, going on 22, demonstrating against the House un-American Activities Committee who had arrived as a result of the Free Speech Movement at the University of California, Berkley campus where Police had arrested 800 students. I could see FBI agents (easily recognisable) taking pictures of the demonstrators, and I presume there is a photo of me in an FBI archive. That’s another story.  

So getting back to this opening week of February 2026, where does one begin? A week in politics is indeed quite a long time. Many people going from hero to zero and some people, already at zero, plummeting to even greater depths. Political leadership seems to be at rock bottom. In the United Kingdom, mistakes are made, and the general public is disenchanted. Yet the polls indicate an extraordinary attention being paid to the most vile side of current British politics in the shape of the Reform Party, run by a ex public school bully bigot, who has been outed by numbers of his fellow students. In the light of this obviously hateful background, how is it he can possibly be supported? If  Peter Mandelson, a gay man, can be so vilified for just knowing Mr Epstein, how is it Mr Farage is excused such aggressive venality in his youth, which has clearly stayed with him, given how he refuses to apologise and sticks with denials. 

What can people possibly be thinking when answering pollsters with positive support for Reform? Has the British Public lost perspective? Has it somehow lost all sense of decency or shame? Does what is happening in the heartland of the United States, the killing of civilians protesters for standing up for civil rights, have no effect? Do they not see that our own civil rights are being endangered by a Trump supporting mouthy clown? What is happening? There are so many questions and  unhealthy disturbing distractions, that it seems impossible to find ways to cope. On the one hand the destruction continuing in Ukraine, Middle East, Middle America and Africa and on the other hand, as a British Citizen, domestic politics in the UK over budgets, inflation, immigration, health service, health care, housing, racism, misogyny and representative leadership, gives one pause for thought. Is there anything to worry about?

It appears the collection of one disgraced man’s papers and memorabilia has catapulted public resentment and anger over two continents. His deceit, proclivities and, seemingly, close associations with pubic figures and influencers has these same figures scurrying around like rats deserting a sinking ship. Many, if not most, are being protected by the sycophancy of the United States Department of Justice towards one particular well publicised and close associate (who claims to have dissociated himself from Epstein long ago). In order to protect him they dare not reveal other prominent and influential individuals for fear of the entire structure falling down around them.  So they dissemble and lie to the public claiming they are transparent and upholding the Constitution of the United States. 

Yet, Donald Trump is already a convicted felon and adjudicated sex offender. How is it that all is forgotten and set aside? His association with another sex offender is hardly surprising. Like Farage’s bullying bigotry, Putin’s and Netanyahu’s barbarism, all is dismissed as if it never happened. I would love to be told that I have got it all wrong and that I have misrepresented and completely misunderstood what is going on. I am eager for another rational point of view. 

I confess I had belief back in Los Angeles of 1964, although it was cracking after the assassination of John F Kennedy. There was a sense of hope watching those press conferences with him, during which he answered questions with respect and articulate thought. A president who may have dodged a question now and again but never attacked or vilified the questioner. Indeed, despite the difficulties one could understand the press corps saying “Thank you Mr President” at the end of a briefing, and they meant it. The loss of grace, humour and simple intelligence in that office or any political office is sorely missed. It may surface now and again, but rarely. Mind you, some of the press might roll back a bit of the arrogance. 

The following are, in my view, well worth a listen. In particular the meeting in Paris (second film - conference 12).