Schrödinger's wallet

One of the persistent thoughts I had as a child was that reality did not exist but was merely conjured up either by my brain — which I found distasteful and egocentric — or that I might just be part of someone else’s dream, which was even more problematic because the person dreaming might suddenly wake up and my life would simply vanish.

I eventually grew out of this and evolved into a materialist, albeit one who still believes in magical realism. Extraordinary things happen in the here and now, not elsewhere. But by my late teens I had developed another fantasy: that I could somehow slip from one timeline or universe into another. Once I even felt I experienced this. I was about to kiss a girl I was certain wanted to be kissed and the next thing I remember was her telling me not to stare at her. Heaven had been so close that it simply slipped away. Hardly the best example to prove the theory. I later experienced a similar sensation when I actually did kiss someone some months later.

In truth, the thought itself is pointless and can even become dangerous, because it can legitimise wrong choices by imagining they might have been the right ones in another realm. Still, sometimes the feeling of existing between worlds is intoxicatingly real, especially when it feels like being sucked into the void.  I still find the theme fascinating and am currently re-reading Murakami's Sputnik Sweetheart.  I love this quote from that book: “We're both looking at the same moon, in the same world. We're connected to reality by the same line. All I have to do is quietly draw it towards me.”

A few hours after writing this,  a curve ball was thrown at me by the universe.  Just before sleeping, I realised I might have left my wallet — with all my cards inside — at the office, but I could not be 100 per cent sure. This triggered my anxiety.  I had a panic attack because I had to wait until morning to know. It felt like a Schrödinger’s cat scenario: the wallet was both lost and safely on my desk until reality revealed itself.

What made it worse was that I had a radio show to face before I could even go to the office to check. I tried distracting myself, but my fallback  was another loop. Eventually, I stopped trying to solve the uncertainty and reminded myself instead of the good things already present in my life. I slept soundly.

I woke up at six without any hint of doubt that the wallet was 'alive', had a joyful breakfast with my son, enjoyed the radio programme, and later discovered the wallet sitting safely on my desk.

Maybe that is the answer to these loops. Reality is anchored less by certainty than by the small rituals and people that pull us back into the world. And the magical part is that uncertainty and failures are just part of living — not departures from it.  As Bob Dylan wrote "there is no success like failure and failure is no success at all."

The circus is in town

General elections in Malta have morphed into a circus of competing gift-giving — a kind of potlatch financed through accelerated economic growth that, in turn, opens the way to ever more get-rich-quick schemes. It is dizzying, yet strangely plausible.  

Foreign workers, on whose labour this temple was built, are weaponised in a battle where both sides accept their necessity while competing over how much to exclude them from sharing in the wealth they helped create.

There is no ideological battle for the soul of the nation.  There is just an auction to be paid from the proceeds of economic growth generated by profit driven capitalists.

Sure, I have a love-hate relationship with the modern, post-2013 Malta. I prefer living here now than I did 20 years ago. It is a more cosmopolitan place, even if it remains limited and unsophisticated in many ways. But I resent the incestuous relationship between the state and big business, the erosion of public spaces, and the Disneyfication of others. There is now a clear convergence around what increasingly resembles a country that has struck oil without ever having found it.   From my angle, the opposition will only aggravate matters through its socially regressive fiscal policies.

All this said, I do not see much hope.  The only fun aspect is the anthropology of it all.  Someone should really write about how masses are mobilised and energised in a situation where they are clearly being used to prop a benign regime composed of two rival branches.  Still must admit that I have a soft spot for conviviality, albeit one colonised by dominant elites.

 Given my line of work, I cannot really escape it. But in times like these, one comes to appreciate more joyful subjects and encounters. For the first time, I am considering political disengagement a sensible option — albeit one that would regrettably reinforce the status quo.   Still most civil battles are not won in elections but in the streets. 

Random reflections

 

2.The 'conversation' is an end in itself. It exists in a different realm, an enchanted one, creating a connection between two different universes and the multitudes inhabiting them. It is alchemy, but not the kind that seeks pure gold. It has no point other than to be. Feels like being in a good existential French movie.  

5.The modern Malta I love: a Brazilian, an Argentinian, a Romanian, a Serb, a Latvian, and a  Maltese sitting around a table celebrating Orthodox Easter and talking about the good things in life. Feels like being in a good Spanish  (Almodóvar like) movie.  The good things in life.

7. Spending time with a dog is a wonderful learning experience. I never had a dog. When I was a child used to be scared of them.  I am also told that as a baby an over enthusiastic dog called spotty had jumped on me.  What striked me most about this experience is that dogs have a personality.  They have their own networks (of smells) and they have  more comfortable  relationship with shit and corporal smells.  They also communicate emotions and affection, which may be for purpose of a reward but how delighted I was when Asti came next to me in the middle of the night.  Then there is the sociological aspect; how dog people interact in parallel to dog interactions.  But the most surprising thing is that you can talk to a dog.  Not that the dog understands human language.  But neither does the dog ignore it.   In some instances you get the sensation that the dog is responding to your thoughts and feelings. Then finally there is the leash. Can't but admire the rare moment of anarchistic refusal to follow the lead. Of course part of it is human projection.  But there is something beautiful in the relationship, the tensions which underline affection, protection and freedom....of course not dominance in my case, pity the dogs owned by bigots and fascists.  

9.  It is hard to reconcile my firm belief that life is a string of random coincidences with the yearning for narrative. Some good things appear from nowhere, then disappear just as randomly, without reason. The attempt to impose narrative becomes a loop that can sour experience and innocence. If one believes the material universe follows the logic of randomness, then certainty and closure cannot be demanded. It is here that my flirtation with submission begins: breathe, step back, let go—but still cherish the moment.  

12. Schrodinger's cat in an inbox on an iphone. 

13. In between days.  Beyond that beautiful song by The Cure... I always feel drawn to stand in between things.  The ambiguity of that space is challenging and intellectually stimulating. Then there are the loops and anxieties which fill in between days.

15. Chunking Express  (1994) is a cinematic embodiment of Zygmunt Bauman’s concept of "liquid love"—the idea that in modern, fast-paced, urban environments, human bonds become fragile, ephemeral, and easily replaced. But it touches another level; the value of ephemeral connections.  Wong Kar-wai finds a strange, melancholy beauty in liquidity. He suggests that if everything is destined to expire (like pineapple cans), then the briefest moments of kindness and connection carry an almost magical weight.

16. It  enhances every cigarette drag especially morning ones, wakes me up early in the morning, alerts me to the sounds around me, and helps me pick good music.  That lightness I feel when I drift away.  Fills me with a  yearning to suck at the nectar of life, ride trains and melt in a witchy gaze.  It comes with an invitation to come back and jot down very random thoughts.  

18. I think the most radical choice in life is to be real in all circumstances.  But am aware that the borderline between the act and the real is blurred.  In a way authenticity can be the most deceptive act.  We have seen this in far right politics where ignorant bar talk becomes the mark of authenticity.  Sure it becomes even more difficult to strike an elusive balance between the real and the act, when you have some sort of public act to keep up, and you are perceived by others on the basis of what you write, sometimes on matters on which you have absolutely no strong feelings (ex Maltese politics).  Moreover what does it mean to be real and authentic especially considering that am a multitude of contradictory things? How can you convey authentic feelings when you lean towards the in between, the complex and the undefined.  One can say that authenticity boils down to actions not words.  True but actions are also part of the act.   This brings me to the topic of how to cope with dissonance between the self you are most at ease with and the other aspects of life you do to survive.  There is also the problem of which self to show to different people.   There are some people with which I instinctively show that side am most at ease with.  That feels great even if it does not come with problems because that means exposing my  awkwardness.  So to some extent solitude  provides a comfort zone.  But since the shrink told me to get out of my comfort zone I am a bit lost.

23. Every encounter takes place across different time zones. Life is not just a string of random coincidences; it is also a series of random intersections between people inhabiting different states of mind, sensibilities, ideologies, histories and circumstances. That is the magic behind every productive encounter: translating those time-zone differences into something that exists in its own time zone.

x

Genocide, Blood libel, and the Misuse of Antisemitism

'Blood libel' depicted in this scene was based on a fabricated lie that Jewish people used the blood of Christians in religious rituals, especially in the preparation of Passover bread which served as a pretext for pogroms and persecutions.

The terror attack in New York targeting two Israeli diplomats must be condemned as an act of political violence that has no place in democratic societies. What follows should not be misconstrued as an apology or justification. But such acts occur within a context that needs to be understood.

It is not antisemitism that fuels these heinous acts of terror, but the genocide itself—which has also endangered the lives of Jewish people. The scenes from Gaza are stomach-churning. The impact on the mental health of people—not necessarily Arabs or Muslims—who feel helpless in the face of this horror cannot be underestimated.

Yes, the Holocaust and the fight against antisemitism should define our political struggles. That is precisely why Israel must be stopped. Using this case to criminalise opposition to genocide only rubs salt into a festering wound. What is antisemitic is to conflate Jewish identity with support for genocidal and apartheid policies—a conflation particularly common among elements of the right who support Israel. As a historian am also appalled by Netanyahu attribution of the terror attack to “blood libels against Israel”. Am offended because a heinous anti semitic crime whose victims deserve respect is being invoked to justify a clampdown on critics who are denouncing a real crime.

My fear is that the genocide is triggering both antisemitism (which remains alive and well, even among those who claim to hate Jews but support settlers and colonists) and other, harder-to-define forms of political violence. Genocide without a response can also distort our moral compass, creating a misguided imperative that, while not necessarily antisemitic, can still be deadly. Of course, latent and subtle antisemitism can also be at play, which is why the pro-Palestinian movement should confront this issue head-on, showing zero tolerance towards any sign of anti-Jewish hatred.

I say this because the term antisemitism is being misused—exploiting a heinous act committed by an individual with tenuous links to left-wing organisations—to criminalise an entire movement. Genocide is not a word to be taken lightly. Accepting that it is happening without responding to it creates a profound crisis, including serious mental health struggles for those watching these events unfold on their screens.

That is why, in the initial stages of this war, I was reluctant to use the term—fully aware of its gravity. Yet with 54,000 people massacred, clear signs that mass starvation is being used as a weapon, and an evident intent to displace an entire population, one cannot escape the conclusion that the State of Israel is committing a crime against humanity.

Over the past decades, wars and bombardments have been justified under the pretext of humanitarian intervention—not only in the face of genocide (as in Kosovo), but also to prevent it (as was the case in Libya). The contrast with the Western response to what is unfolding in Gaza is so stark, it is mentally disturbing.

---

Voting for genocide?

Irrespective of the Israeli singer—who witnessed and lived through a horrific war crime—and the song itself (unremarkable, but not bad), it was disturbing that a significant number of Europeans voted for a song representing a state currently committing extensive crimes against humanity, including the use of starvation as a weapon of war and the killing of 54,000 people.

Just imagine if Russia had been allowed to participate while bombing Ukraine and was close to winning the contest. Thankfully, we were spared that embarrassment because Russia was excluded. Had that happened, some might have questioned the algorithms that made such a result possible.  

But perhaps this also shows that support for Israel goes deeper and extends beyond  European Union officials and national governments.  Still one also has to account for the nature of the vote which is  more indicative of a solid cohort of support in a context of 'diffuse alternatives'.  Furthermore people who wanted to make a political statement by supporting the Israeli entry were more likely to vote 20 times than others who were simply enjoying the night.  Moreover opinion polls in the United Kingdom which gave Israel 12- full points show that only 17% say that their sympathies lie with Israel in the current war in Gaza while 26% sympathise with the Palestinians.  

Still, the fact that a solid cohort continues to support Israel despite the genocide unfolding on our screens—in a context where one would have to be blind not to see it—is disturbing in itself. It partly reflects the rightward drift across Europe. Maybe Malta’s entry—which embodied the kitschy, queer, Euro-pop aesthetic—would have fared better a decade ago, when that vibe held more political currency.

So, should one read too much into a song contest? Maybe not. But it is the closest thing to a European fun night—a moment of collective attention. And for that reason alone, it matters.

The Aesthetics of Power: Lessons from Mujica and Francis for the Trumps of This World

"As soon as politicians start climbing up the ladder, they suddenly become kings. I don't know how it works, but what I do know is that republics came into being to ensure that no one is above anyone else... The pomp of office is like something left over from a feudal past: you need a palace, a red carpet, a lot of people behind you saying, 'Yes, sir.' I think all of that is awful."

José "Pepe" Mujica practised what he preached. He did not advocate self-mortification, nor did he glorify poverty—which he wanted to see abolished. But he understood the link between capitalism and consumerism, which ultimately impoverishes humanity and destroys nature.

He eschewed the presidential palace in favour of the farmhouse where he grew flowers. In 2022, he told Al Jazeera that opulence can “divorce” presidents from their people:

“I believe that politicians should live like the majority of their people, not like the privileged minority.”

In this regard, Mujica shared the same approach as Pope Francis, who, unlike his predecessors (and successor), eschewed living in the papal residence and opted to stay in a suite at the Vatican guesthouse.

Some would argue that as long as politicians bring about positive change, they are entitled to material wealth that reflects their status. There's a case to be made when one considers how public service wages compare to those offered by corporations. One can even argue that an underpaid public service becomes a breeding ground for corruption. For example, in Malta we have a situation where ministers are paid less than their underlings who run public authorities. Moreover, the defence of the common good also requires recruiting the best minds—often in a context where those minds can earn far more serving the same corporations that undermine the public good.

Still, there is a strong argument that political leaders are moral leaders who should lead by example—and that opulence itself is the perfect breeding ground for corruption and incestuous ties between politicians and the super-rich. No wonder some  politicians (including our own Joseph Muscat) are so attracted to the Gulf states. No wonder Trump feels so much at home being feted in the palaces of emirs and sheikhs.

When accepting public office, politicians have a civic and republican duty towards those who elected them—to serve, not to rule. In this sense, their lifestyle and wealth are matters of public interest. So yes, let's ensure they are paid enough to fulfil their duties—and I wouldn't expect them to live like Francis or Mujica (even if it’s a big plus when they choose to do so voluntarily). But any manifestation of opulence, and any business dealings while in office, should be scorned and rebuked. This has nothing to do with appearing smart, looking good, or enjoying life. What is disturbing are politicians who project power by flaunting a lifestyle that affirms their success to ordinary people—who are then expected to admire and adore them.

Rethinking Work: A Workers’ Day Reflection on Time, Dignity, and Freedom

Imagine how the world would be transformed if most boring work were automated, and everyone were entitled to a decent basic income—one that guarantees a good life within a context of robust and accessible public services. People would regain control over their time and be free to cultivate their interests. They would no longer have to accept the first job offer that comes their way, and setting up a cooperative or a small business would become a real possibility for many. Lifelong education would become a reality—not one driven solely by the needs of capitalism.

Of course, this would not immediately lead to the democratisation of the means of production, but it would help pave the way. It would also blur the lines between worker, consumer, citizen, and owner. More people would be able to adopt and navigate these multiple identities at different phases of their lives.

Such a transformation would also help defuse anger and resentment, thereby consolidating liberal democratic institutions. Agonism would replace antagonism simply because people who enjoy life are less likely to hate and blame their unhappiness on others.  

Naturally, this raises the crucial question of how such a system could be financed. The state would still need to play a redistributive role, which means that wealth would still have to be created. However, this kind of revolution could itself unleash productive forces, knowledge, and creativity—ultimately increasing prosperity. Moreover, elements of socialism would coexist with consumer choice and the market economy—albeit one in which the state plays a central role in providing essential services such as healthcare, education, housing, public transport, and energy. This, in turn, would free people from the daily anxieties that dominate so many lives today.  That is one reason why I am averse to the emphasis on self-reliance advocated by some well meaning environmentalists. 

Of course, in the present context where many still struggle to make ends meet trade unions remain essential. In Malta’s current context—marked by high worker turnover and reliance on disposable migrant labour—making union membership mandatory makes sense. It would remove the risk of retribution for joining a union.  

But while trade unions are vital but can’t replace political action to reclaim time from work.  Yet political activism also competes with consumerism  for people’s limited free time.  Moreover capitalism creates beautiful distractions which keeps us glued to our screens. 

The first Pope I loved

Pope Francis didn’t change Church doctrine—but he changed the tone, the focus, and the global conversation. As the world tilts rightward, his death raises the question: will the Church follow or will it respect his legacy? 

I lost my Catholic faith in my teens, resenting the Church’s over -riding obsession with controlling people’s sexuality and bodies. But over the past decade, I came to cherish Pope Francis as a moral compass in an increasingly hostile world. Pope Francis did not substantially change the Church’s official stance on issues like abortion and gender identity, two issues where I respectfully remain at odds with the official church. 

 But he changed its order of priorities, putting social inequality and the globalisation of indifference towards migrants and the poor at the top of his agenda, while side-lining divisive culture wars. That is why progressives including atheists and agnostics, felt at home in Pope Francis’ broad humanistic Church, while clerical conservatives and traditionalists resented him viscerally. 

I grew up under the shadow of John Paul II’s grandstanding papacy: that of a charismatic and conservative Pope whose priority was confronting—and ultimately contributing to the toppling of—totalitarian communism in Eastern Europe. In contrast, his rebuke of capitalist injustices was muted and directed only against its ‘excesses’, not its fundamental flaws. Moreover, in doing so, he marginalised those in his own Church—like liberation theologians—who were confronting capitalism and the violence of right-wing regimes, particularly in Latin America. And while priests were censured for standing with the poor or for advocating women’s rights, his papacy turned a blind eye to sexual predators within its ranks. 

This was followed by Pope Benedict’s denouncement of “the dictatorship of relativism”, which— in the absence of communism—was directed against LGBTQ people and aimed at stopping the tide of social liberalism. While he should be credited for understanding the gravity of the crimes committed by a system designed to protect sexual predators, this only amplified the contrast between a Church obsessed with controlling everyone else’s sexuality and the depravity of some of its own high-ranking members.

It was in this context that Pope Francis shifted the Church’s focus to a critique of capitalism’s inherent and deep flaws. “Let us not be afraid to say it: we want change, real change, structural change,” the Pope said while visiting Bolivia in 2015, decrying a system that “has imposed the mentality of profit at any price, with no concern for social exclusion or the destruction of nature”. “This system is by now intolerable: farm workers find it intolerable, workers find it intolerable, communities find it intolerable, peoples find it intolerable. The earth itself—our sister, Mother Earth, as Saint Francis would say—also finds it intolerable.”

From the start of his papacy, he positioned himself against an ascendant far right, condemning the “globalisation of indifference” during one of his first major speeches as Pope, delivered in Lampedusa in 2013. He also denounced the structural basis of oppression: “the culture of comfort, which makes us think only of ourselves, makes us insensitive to the cries of other people, makes us live in soap bubbles.” 

And following Donald Trump’s election, he wrote to U.S. bishops denouncing the programme of mass deportations: “The rightly formed conscience cannot fail to make a critical judgment and express its disagreement with any measure that tacitly or explicitly identifies the illegal status of some migrants with criminality.” Sure, his compassion and call for justice also raised expectations that he ultimately could not—and probably did not even want to—deliver. On abortion, he changed the rules, allowing all priests, and not just bishops or their delegates, to absolve women who had committed this ‘sin’. But while he still described the act as murder, he framed it more as a symptom of a “throwaway culture” than a condemnation of women. 

Neither did he rock the boat by challenging the male monopoly on the priesthood, and he backtracked on a highly symbolic proposal to allow priests to officiate blessings of same-sex unions—on the understanding that this was not equivalent to marriage. This tacit acceptance of inequality ultimately jarred with Pope Francis’ message of social justice. 

Yet one must recognise that, unlike others in his flock, he resolutely scorned the far right’s appropriation of Catholic traditional values. Nor did he condone the denial of the Eucharist to Catholic pro-choice leaders like Joe Biden. He even described Italian radical and pro-choice activists Emma Bonino as one of Italy’s one of "Italy’s forgotten greats" for her advocacy of human and migrant rights. Ironically, his last official meeting was with J.D. Vance, a Catholic traditionalist who stands on the opposite side of the spectrum. 

Now, his death presents the Church with a stark choice: a relapse into traditionalism in a world that has swung to the right, or a steadfast commitment to social justice and engagement with modernity. This makes the next conclave one of the most pivotal moments in Church history.

Gaza: War Crimes, Complicity, and Paralysis

The bodies of 15 Palestinian paramedics and rescue workers, killed by Israeli forces and buried in a mass grave nine days ago in Gaza, were found with their hands or legs tied and gunshot wounds to the head and chest, according to eyewitnesses. The United Nations has called for an investigation into a crime reminiscent of past pogroms, war crimes, and genocides. Yet, there has been little indignation—not just in the United States, which shares direct responsibility after consenting to Netanyahu’s decision to resume the war, but also in Europe. The most shocking reality is that the war in Gaza has become business as usual. There is no discussion of sanctioning Israel, despite mounting evidence of war crimes, including domicide, forced displacement, and the use of starvation as a weapon.

Nothing can justify this level of complicity with Israeli war crimes. This is not a matter of proportionality. What we are witnessing is a far-right regime using Hamas’ war crime as a pretext for the elimination of an entire community—one that was already being oppressed long before October 7, 2023. EU leaders fail to call a spade a spade when they describe Israel’s response as merely disproportionate.  Because genocidal intent can never be seen as being proportional to anything else.  It is a crime.

However, it would be a disservice to the Palestinian cause not to acknowledge the other elephant in the room: the absence of a national leadership capable of standing up to Israel while negotiating on behalf of the Palestinian people. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has been entirely absent, unwilling to stand up for his people. Meanwhile, Hamas’ cult of death and martyrdom does a disservice to their cause. Last week’s protests in Gaza against both Israel and Hamas were significant—not just in their scale, but in the reactions (and silence) they provoked.

“We demonstrated today to declare that we do not want to die. Eventually, it is Israel that attacks and bombs, but Hamas also bears direct responsibility, as do all who define themselves as Arab and Palestinian leaders,” one protester said. Tragically, one of the protest leaders was reportedly kidnapped and murdered.

That said, the paralysis of Palestinian politics is the result of Israel’s long-standing ‘divide and rule’ strategy, including its covert co-option of Hamas to weaken Fatah and its left-wing partners. Meanwhile, militant secular Palestinian leaders like Marwan Barghouti—who could take the liberation struggle to the next stage—languish in Israeli prisons. The stark reality is that Israel prefers fighting a band of criminal fanatics, whose actions serve as a pretext for its aggression, rather than confronting a rational and determined Palestinian leadership—one that is willing to take up arms against oppression but does so judiciously, with the welfare of the population in mind.  

---

Benigni’s European Imaginary and Its Contested Legacy

A few days ago, during a peak-time show on Rai, Italian actor/screenwriter Roberto Benigni hailed the "European dream" conjured by the "heroes of Ventotene"—Altiero Spinelli, Ernesto Rossi, and Eugenio Colorni—who drafted the 1941 Manifesto calling for a federal European Union based on democratic socialist, liberal, and republican values.

In these dark times, Benigni went on to exhort us to be proud to be European: "Europe is the smallest continent in the world that lit the fuse of all revolutions; it transformed the planet, it forged the greatest thoughts of humanity, inventing logic, reason, doubt," as well as "freedom, democracy, theatre, sport, modern chemistry, social conscience," among others, creating a "common heritage, an immense treasure in all fields."

Not surprisingly, Benigni’s call resonated with the liberal left but irked the post-fascist Giorgia Meloni, who retorted in parliament: "I don't know if this is your Europe, but it's certainly not mine."

This is a reminder that 'Europe' itself is an imaginary construct rooted in ideology and history. Of course, Benigni referred to the best of European traditions—harking back to Machiavelli and Spinoza, the idea of progress and justice unleashed by the 1789 and 1848 revolutions, and the heroic anti-fascist struggles, both during the war and in the upheavals of 1968. However, his eulogy overlooks the dark side of European history: feudalism, the Crusades, colonialism, anti-Semitism, and fascism—traditions that were never extinguished and are alive and kicking in the far right. In a way, he was offering comfort food for the disoriented—a celebration of what distinguishes us from the vulgarity and rudeness of Trump's America. But on another level, Benigni's exhortation is an invitation to reclaim that Europe of immense possibilities. This may well translate into a civic patriotism that offers hope in a time of despair.  

But like any ideology, the European 'imaginary' is rooted in a historical context. The European social model itself is a fragile historical incident, based on the realisation by elites on both sides of the Atlantic that the only way to prevent communist revolution in this patch of earth was through social democracy, with security needs outsourced to the USA. Of course, this was no clear-cut process, and there were instances—similar to what happened on a much larger scale in Latin America—where the US relied on reactionaries and even fascists to prevent communists from winning power through elections in countries like Italy. Still, by the end of the 20th century, Europe had become a beacon of rights and social liberalism, which explains its appeal to young and educated people in Eastern Europe. In fact, the Russian invasion of  Ukraine can by partly explained by Putin's Russia's fear of the European imaginary—a fear triggered by the Euromaidan uprising—that it could represent a different future not only for the former subjects of the Czarist and Stalinist empires but also for Russia itself.  In fact, Putin represents the rejection of a long-standing European Russian tradition shaped by advanced liberal and socialist ideas which emerged in the continent particularly in communities of exiled revolutionaries whose commitment transcended borders.

Yet this imaginary remains contested, as it risks being deformed and reshaped by an aggressive right wing  that may use this difficult historical moment to push forward a militaristic agenda, potentially making the continent even more dependent on the US. The right is already winning many cultural battles, including on migration, where Malta’s Labour PM is doing Meloni’s bidding in an attempt to reword the European Convention on Human Rights. Moreover, incrementalists like Meloni  may be even more dangerous—diluting European values from within instead of openly rejecting the EU project.  That is why the left should engage with the emerging civic movement for European unity rather than retreat into a 'holier-than-thou' puritanism and equidistance, which in the current circumstances borders on the myopic and the moronic.  But the left can save such a movement from its own pitfalls; by stressing the importance of social and economic reforms aimed at restoring a social model, eroded by two decades of austerity which left the continent vulnerable to the onslaught of the far right.

How Netanyahu's response has vindicated the 'decolonisation' narrative on October 7

A year ago, as my mind processed the horrific news of a massacre of Israeli civilians, I struggled between two compelling narratives. According to one narrative, which framed the reaction of most Western countries, the Hamas attack represented another dark chapter in a history of pogroms and genocidal acts targeting the Jewish people. While this narrative ignores the historical reality of occupation that preceded this attack, the sheer scale and brutality of the assault carried out by an organization whose charter still calls for the eradication of Israel and reiterates tropes like the Protocols of Zion point in this direction. 

However, according to another narrative, the attack had all the hallmarks of ‘decolonisation’—a reaction from a marginalized, dehumanized, oppressed, and colonized indigenous population to an occupation by a settler state transplanted in the region by colonial powers. In short, on October 7, Hamas broke out of jail and went on a rampage whose inhumanity mirrored that of the occupiers. No wonder this narrative found traction in the Global South, which has experienced the brutal logic derived from colonial tropes like manifest destiny, the white man’s burden, and the superiority of settler populations over indigenous “people without histories”—surplus and disposable populations whose lives have less value than those of the occupiers. For the message coming from western capitals in the past year was loud and clear: Palestinian lifes are less valuable then Israeli lives. 

One year on, the sheer impunity that met repeated violations of international law by Israel and the scale of destruction and loss of life in Gaza, and now in Lebanon, vindicates the latter interpretation. But this vindication also increases the daily risks faced by Jewish communities worldwide, which should not be underestimated. For while the Israeli government, in its role as a settler state, is viewed positively by a large segment of the global far right, Jewishness still represents an ‘otherness’ deeply rooted in a dark past, both in the West and among reactionary movements in the Middle East. That is why even for the sake of protecting Jewish populations in both Israel and the rest of the world, it is crucial to bring an end to this madness and to stop Bibi’s insane war. However, the long-term solution depends on decolonizing Israel and Palestine and ensuring full equality and security for all inhabitants living in both present-day Israel and Palestine. 

Still, acts of decolonisation are not immune from genocidal intentions, and while anti-colonial resistance is justified, the October 7 attack represents a very dark chapter in the history of anti-colonial resistance, fatally blurring the lines between anti-Semitism and legitimate uprising.

Why the far right gets so worked up with drag queens

In a world of monsters feeding on fear and anxiety to create more of it and thus ensure a good picking in the next harvest, it is no surprise that images are deployed in pointless culture wars while the world is literally burning. My first call was to dismiss the controversy on the last supper/ Dionysian bacchanalia representation and worry about more serious matters like global warming. After all it looks like another clash between the stuffy world of mullahs of all stripes and artists playing on symbols and cultural archetypes,as they have done for centuries. Sure some would ask what would liberal leftists have said if the image being mocked and parodied was Islamic? Apart from the fact that the Olympic games are being held in France (where the dominant culture is not Islamic) not in Iran, I would say that mockery is a precondition for an inclusive society. There is also a difference between acts of racism like burning the koran in an attempt to stir civil strife and playful artistic representations or literary works like the Satanic Verses whose author faced a despicable and cruel fatwa which was executed 33 years after being issued. So yes the left should be stronger in denouncing Islamic fundamentalists and mullahs and defending secularism. There can be no tolerance for those who want to cancel identities and people with them. Still there is one aspect which i find particularly irritating: the false equivalence made by far rightists invoking free speech: Their argument being that global elites (Elon Musk excluded) are guilty of double standards in advocating artistic freedom while censoring the views of bigots, incels, homophobes and racists. This just exposes the nature of a totalitarian project; which boils down to a normalisation of hate and a marginalisation of critical and academic inquiry as well as sheer humour. And while they lash at some global liberal conspiracy their greatest advocate is Elon Musk, a symbol of predatory capitalism and the normalisation of bigotry in the social media. Of course not all those taking offence belong to the latter camp, and most probably some catholic leaders even speak up out of fear that the far right will outflank them. For once again the far right is usurping Christian symbols to deploy as weapons in their bid to impose a new order. They may well end up using the cross as their new swastika in promoting a nationalist ideology which is so alien to christian universalism. Still Catholic leaders who rushed to condemn this representation are once again losing an opportunity; that of rising above puerile culture wars, and show the self confidence of people who can take irony and ridicule while focusing on the existential threats facing humanity. But this brings me to another reflection, why is a presumed representation of a last supper (depicted in all kinds of bizarre ways on t-shirts, posters, and adverts) which includes a drag queen offensive in the first place? Does this in itself suggest that some bodies are less equal and more offensive than others? For ultimately what irks them is the visibility of bodies which defy their ideology. They want to turn back the clock to a time when certain bodies lived out of sight.

magic and loss

 

How to beat the far right

There are elections which can define the course of history. The second round of the French election on Sunday is one of these.

Faced with the prospect of a far right government in France, the logical choice for all democratic forces is to withdraw third placed candidates which could stand in the way of a victory over the far right.

In the short term this is the only possible way to stop the far right from winning. The 'popular front' including Melenchon have already declared that they are withdrawing in constituencies where centrists are in a better place to beat the far right. Prime Minister Gabriel Attal, who distinguishes between the enemy (RN) and the adversary (the left ) has hinted doing in those constituencies where the left is in a better place to beat the far right. But regrettably some in the president's camp take exception with France Insoumise candidates in a false equivalence which betrays the legacy of the second world war.

Even during the cold war centre right republicans used to vote for communists (and vice versa) when facing Jean Marie Le Pen's FN.

But while commendable this strategy worked in a context where the far right was more of a nuisance than a real threat.

To beat the far right as a project of government, the centre and the left have to converge around a synthesis which remains elusive but has become a necessity not just in France but even in the US.

The reality is that as things stand neither the centre nor the left can beat the far right on their own. But a sheer sum of the parts is also likely to be dismissed as a marriage of convenience by voters (this reminds me of Prodi's alliance in Italy which stretched from the centre-right to the far left but which imploded after a few months in power). Moreover voters across the world tend to vote for something they can believe in and not simply to block the path of others.

One mistake committed by the centrists is that they can keep on embracing the same policies while hoping that left wing voters have no alternative but to back them against the far right. Macron failed miserably in this with the Popular Front emerging as the main contender against the far right. In next Sunday's election the first line of defence against the far right is the left.

But the left often makes the mistaken assumption that by going back to its roots (whatever that means) it can become the natural choice of those who vote fascists cause they have been left behind. In reality it was under Jeremy Corbyn that Labour lost the so-called 'red wall' in its northern heartlands.

It is time to take a look back at history. Cause what is happening now comes with a sense of deja vu.

Some dismiss the urgency of stopping the far right simply because it bears little resemblance to the brown or black shirts.

But while expecting the Nazi zombies to creep back from their sordid graves is far fetched and unrealistic, let's not forget that it was moderate voters and mainstream conservatives who put in Hitler, Mussolini and Pinochet in power. The Nazis were not alien predators who descended on the planet. They were crafty politicians who plotted alliances with conservative forces to win power, often by respecting (and bending) the constitutional rules. Mussolini retained the monarchy and Hitler won power in coalition with conservative parties while serving under President Hindenburg. They also kept power through mixture of fear and consent. Secondly they did so incrementally moving the goalposts as they consolidated their power.

Neither i am not comparing Bardella, Le Pen or Trump to Hitler. None of them advocate the elimination of entire ethnic groups and in a reflection of our times they are more islamophobic than anti semitic. Today you can be fascist who supports Israel for all the wrong reasons. But they have also invested a lot in a climate against immigrants and have contributed to a climate of intolerance.

Moreover talk of about ' the national preference', a roll back of climate policies and taking away citizenship rights of children represent a real threat to our way of life and our existence.

Another mistake committed by some analysts is to view the modern far right as some kind of populist anti elitist movement legitimised by democratic elections.  The reality is that Nazism and fascism were also an expression of a similar sentiment. The railed against jewish elites and ranted against intellectuals.  Of course in power they not only eliminated inconvenient trade unions but provided capitalism with slave labour. But right to the end they projected themselves as tribunes of the masses.  And just as today, their rise in the 1920s and 1930s seemed unstoppable.  They managed to shape popular common sense.  The far right project today is also incremental, weakening Europe and democratic institutions from within.

Yet they were stopped and beaten.  And we also owe that to the rise of mass democratic movements (namely christian democracy, social democracy and euro-communism).  Our Europe was born out of a compromise which saw most of the left accepting liberal democratic norms and the centre endorsing active state intervention and the welfare state.  It was an imperfect compromise but one which emancipated millions of people.

The historic lesson is that the far right can be beaten by popular mobilisation and a counter hegemony which shifts the political centre to the left.

So to get serious about the far right threat, the left has to push the centre to ditch its love affair with neo-liberalism and austerity. But to get there the left must ditch its hobby of denigrating the 'west' even when facing authoritarian powers like Russia, China and Iran... The left also has to reclaim the sort of civic patriotism rooted in the jacobin tradition and the partisan resistance. It must reclaim its historic role in the front lines of defending the legacy of 1789 and 1848.

It is time for an inclusive and assertive republicanism which takes pride in the conquests of the past but is ready to address the challenges of the future. A bold left which does not shun public ownership in the energy and transport sectors, which aggressively demands a global tax on corporations and crucially embark on a project of renewal which offers a better and more prosperous life by investing in job creation and saving the planet. It should also stand for the defence of democracy from its detractors, including aggressive imperialists like Putin.

It has to offer hope in a future where people have greater control over their daily existence, where poverty is abolished and where technology and AI are socialised with the aim of shortening the working week. But ultimately all this depends on protecting humanity from the ravages of climate catastrophe. It would be simply irresponsible for democratic forces to wage war against each other while the planet is burning. The stakes have never been higher.

In between times: From dissonance to hubris

The brutal war in Gaza carried out with impunity has exposed the limits of humanitarian interventionism, often a pretext for empire building (remember the Iraq war and the chaos it unleashed) but also a discourse based on the idea that human rights are universal.  This was never the case but the dissonance has reached epic proportions in the killing fields of Gaza.  For while initially the west's poster boys and girls could invoke this discourse against Hamas, it was clear from before October 7 that the forceful displacement of Palestinians was and remains the objective of Israel's far right.  What is happening in Gaza is a repeat of Srebrenica and Gorazde carried out with US made ammunition.  And while a lot can be said about the role of the west in the dismemberment of Yugoslavia,  the intervention in Kosovo and to some extent Bosnia, at least sent a sign that war criminals can be held accountable for acts of genocide. This affront to any pretension of universal values has definitively weakened the edifice of the western liberal establishment.   The contradiction between supporting Ukraine with weapons to resist invasion  and occupation (as it should be) and supporting Israel with weapons to bombard, kill, maim and occupy has become so gargantuan, that  if Biden does not have an epiphany we could be assisting to a veritable melt down. The risk now is that the west itself will be taken over by an assortment of  ethno nationalists who unashamedly support allies on the basis of race, religion and national interest without bothering for any pretext based on international law and justice.  And while Biden is ideologically bankrupt and his administration is fast imploding (with staffers resigning en masse) , this is no reason to celebrate the hubris of a neo-fascist taking over the White House by next year. Ironically in this bizarre brave new world the Houthis have emerged as the last standard bearers of  humanitarian interventionism and Putin, the Iranian mullahs and Erdogan the advocates a (hypocritical) rule based world.  In this sense the South African legal case against Israel, is one of the few glimmers of hope.  For if the world highest judicial authority recognises that what is happening in Gaza amounts to genocide (as the massacre of 23,000 people suggests) , the west will have to choose between supporting genocide and opposing it.  Moreover it will be a reminder that multilateral global institutions can deliver justice and even hold western allies accountable for their actions.  But the consequences of hubris could be even more catastrophic especially  if it derails global commitments on climate change and if it emboldens all regional (and global) bullies to do the same as Israel. 

Palestine and our moral bankruptcy

The tragedy in the 'siege of the hospitals' in Gaza is that the Israeli state is proving by its own actions  that it is structurally racist, thus legitimising claims by the likes of Hamas and Hizbollah.

Moreover, the conduct of the EU and the US lends credibility to those like Putin, who question the west's double standards and hypocrisy. 

The reality is that oppressed people deserve the consolation of being internationally vindicated.  The question facing the 'west' (which includes me and us) is why is Netanyahu not treated in the same way as  Milosevic and Putin?  The tragedy is that the only ones doing so (Turkey Hizbollah and Iran) are also of the same ilk.  Erdogan's treatment of the Kurds and Hizbollah's support for the murderous Assad regime come to mind immediately when sultan Erdogan and nasrallah  lambast Israel and hail Hamas as freedom fighters.  

I do not detest the west.  I am part of it. It is also shaped by our struggles for equality, democracy and freedom.  But it is also shaped by a legacy of colonialism, brutality and nationalisms, those zombies which never die and animate an assertive far right.   That is why this moral failure hurts.  

But there is another disturbing aspect of our moral bankruptcy.  We expect Palestinians to warm up to our hallow promises of a two state solution and our calls for restrain on Israel, while they are being butchered.  Our governments expect Palestinians to accept their humiliation and to distance themselves from those resisting the occupation. Since October 7, the world (myself included) had been throwing the burden of moral correctness on a vanquished and brutalised people, thus giving their oppressor a license to maim and kill. Some did worse by literally offering their unconditional support.

And while i recoil at anti semitism, even posting this comment would probably be shot down as anti semitism by some.

The burden of history

This bloody conflict in Palestine and Israel is deeply distressing, a constant rollercoaster of emotions, with events unfolding rapidly, leaving little time for reflection and processing. For me, it's not a matter of lacking understanding; in fact, it's painful because there's an overwhelming amount of information to process, which can cloud clear thinking. 

The scale and nature of Hamas's actions hit a personal chord, considering the historical context of blood libels, pogroms and the Holocaust.   No one should be targeted based solely on their identity.

I'm repulsed by an organization whose charter still references the Protocols of Zion, a 19th-century anti-Semitic forgery. However, I remind myself that there's a complex context of colonial occupation, humiliation, and dehumanization. The subsequent days characterised by the medieval siege of Gaza served as a stark reminder of this complex and terrible reality. It is also reminded me about the brutality of a rationalised bureaucratic machine.  The kind of brutality which starves, humiliates and kills while still presenting itself as civilised, democratic and sane.  

I recoil at those who simply side with Israelis because they look and live like them, while they perceive Palestinians in their reality as less than human.  There is an underlying racism among those who identify with Israel on the basis of this premise.  They are exactly the kind of people who would have hated the dirty starving jew in the ghettoes.  No wonder some on the far right feel so comfortable supporting Israel. 

As the days go by, I'm becoming increasingly exhausted by the weight of history, both past and present. History can serve as a tool for understanding, but it can also become a heavy burden, even a justification for violence and genocide.

For instance, one can argue that Israel's formation is linked to colonialism and an ethnocentric ideology, marginalizing Palestinians as a 'people without history,' similar to the treatment of other indigenous groups worldwide. Yet, many years after the Nakba, there are Israelis living in a society they created, who should not be under the constant threat of elimination and genocide. Israel is here to stay, and part of its identity is that of a 'homeland for the Jews', but hopefully not at the exclusion of Israeli Arabs and surely not as an occupying power.   

But while Israelis have their reasons to be be scared, their government's policies have turned Gaza into a  prison camp, where an entire society is confined and regularly subjected to punishment. In this sense, Gaza evokes memories of the Warsaw Ghetto. And the forced evacuation of Palestinians evokes older memories not just of the nakba but of jews expelled from their homeland in Spain. We must remember and never forget. Yes history can be odious. Yet it can serve as both an antidote and a lesson, helping us remain sensitive to the darkness that can affect both the oppressed and the oppressor.

Heinous crimes happen in a context not in your favourite narrative

The death of Pelin Kaya is a reminder of the risks posed by recklessness and machismo on our roads, something with which i am very familiar as a pedestrian who walks on a daily basis. The behaviour of the driver after hitting his victim (throwing stones at her and people in the vicinity) also comes across as another case of toxic masculinity. But while few focused on these aspects many conveniently tried to fit this case in their favourited narrative. 

For example some have blamed the driver's actions on the legalisation of weed, even if media reports suggested that he was under the influence of cocaine which is a harder and much more dangerous drug. Still it would be non sensical to blame this behaviour on cocaine, a substance which is used by thousands of recreational users who pose no risk to others. In fact the legalisation of both weed and cocaine would facilitate  information campaigns against driving under influence.  Moreover driving under the influence is symptomatic of  recklessness and complete disregard for others by a significant amount of drivers.  But the point made by those blaming weed is  political and reactionary.  It is both an attempt to blame the permissive Labour government for anything going wrong in society and to frame such events in to a discourse of conservative moral panic in the face of demands for bodily autonomy. Clerics making such arguments should be reminded that although domestic violence is often associated with alcohol abuse, wine is still a central motif of Catholic rituals.  What is wrong here is not the substance but the context and the actions of the person abusing it. 

Inevitably although the accused was brought up in Malta and has a Maltese surname, some latched at his French Arab descent. This mostly suggests a sense of frustration felt by the usual suspects who could not blame this crime on foreigners. In fact this case simply shows that heinous crimes are often committed by Maltese against foreigners. 

Even on the left some cannot resist the temptation of blaming such incident on rampant cut throat individualism characteristic of capitalist societies. In this aspect some leftists seem to share the romantic notion of a lost innocence with conservative counterparts. But socialists should be the first to recognise that we live in much more humane societies than ever before. Traditional societies were far more brutal, cruel and intolerant than the society in which we live nowadays. I am happy to live in a western liberal democratic society where there is greater equality, sexual freedom and autonomy than ever before. Socialism for me is all about ensuring that everyone can enjoy and afford these freedoms. 

But while too many people are busy using cases like this to prove preconceived prejudices,  there is always a social context in which random crimes happen. And while sheer coincidence, existential factors and irrationalities play a major part in explaining crime, even irrational thoughts and actions are grounded in wider social norms. For example our society does have a problem with a growing number of troubled and insecure males whose bullish actions pose a threat to others.  But rather than being understood as the embodiment of permissive liberalism their aggression may well be a reaction against it. In this sense toxic masculinity should be seen as being more of an attempt to reassert traditional authority than as a challenge to it.  Pornographers and pimps like Andrew Tate are perfect examples of this phenomenon.   In such a culture cars like guns are often perceived as an extension of the penis.  One may say that I am also falling in to the same trap of fitting this case in to a narrative. But this  is just one observation which probably does not explain the dynamics of the case in question.  Moreover, tradition, modernity and liberalism are also abstractions full of contradictions. So let's talk about context and possible causes but avoid fitting everything in our favourite narrative.

Ukraine and 'neutrality'-Rewiring rusty hardware

Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is one of those epochal events which require a paradigm shift, a rewiring of our rusty mental hardware. Of course this process is prone to contradictions and a clash between two fundamental values which shape many of us on the left; namely our aversion to war and militarism and our equal aversion to bullies and support for resistance. So here are some reflections on this difficult topic. 

Active Neutrality: Malta’s active neutrality does not preclude us from taking sides when basic norms of international law are trampled upon by bullies like Putin. What it precludes is hosting a military base and joining a military alliance like NATO. Yet contrary to the impression given in parliament earlier this week Malta is not a distant observer of some remote 'conflict', but part of an organisation (the EU) which is an active party in a war which represents a threat to our collective security as European and global citizens. And while there are still valid arguments against hosting a military base in Malta, it is also time to define our active neutrality by adding an over riding commitment to upholding international law and human rights. And while human rights may be used as a pretext for other interests, at the same time speaking of neutrality when people are being butchered is profoundly disturbing and stomach churning.  The problem with the west is not that it upholds principles but that it does so selectively.   Palestine immediately comes to mind.  But it is equally revolting to invoke inaction over Palestine as justification for inaction over Ukraine. Foreign policy has to be based on values which shape the kind of societies we want to live in. That is why I am very wary of those who dismiss human rights as a western construct. 

The new fascists: I also recoil at 'westerners' sitting in the comfort of their coach consuming and spreading misinformation making a mockery of the freedoms they claim to cherish, by serving either as useful idiots or willing accomplices of Putin's troll factory. In fact there is a danger lurking in the shadows; that of a new fascism which thrives on conspiracy theories and fake news and which ultimately erodes our democracy.   Not surprisingly those who sowed doubts on climate change and the vaccine, who spread fake news on immigration also harbor sympathies for Putin.  Ironically these rejectionists of the 'west' are often the first to protest against censorship and cancel culture when the state steps in to defend us from hate mongers and the dissemination of lies.  As a Marxist I have always considered socialism as the natural progression and deepening of liberal democratic norms.  That is why when liberal democracy is threatened we are duty bound to stand in its defense.

Europe or Nato? In this instance Nato is on the right side of history. Without Nato’s support Ukraine is doomed. No wonder that many Ukranians are calling on NATO to close the skies and the only alternative to that is arming Ukraine. So do I like NATO? No and mainly because its commitment to democracy and human rights is often selective. It includes members like Turkey which has waged a criminal war against the Kurds. It is led by the USA which has a dirty history of supporting unsavory and even criminal regimes, particularly in Latin America and the Middle East. I would rather have a closer defense union of EU member states which is at least accountable to parliament and the council. This would also add substance to the security clause in the Lisbon treaty, which promises assistance in the case of any EU member being attacked. This would also make sense for a small country like Malta, which actively participates in the EU’s common foreign policy and is therefore potentially exposed to retaliation. That said this poses important questions like; should the EU have an army of its own and how far should Malta participate in this? And since most EU member states are also in NATO is it even possible to draw a line? That said if the EU is really committed to human rights, it can't turn itself in to a fortress which discriminates between different flows of refugees. One risk of having an EU army would be that of using it to 'police' borders. But the answer to that is introducing democratic and human rights safeguards and scrutiny. In short rather then re-trench themselves to defend an ineffective and reactionary national sovereignity, progressives should lead the battle for more Europe and more world governance. 

War and militarism: Lets never forget that war brutalizes not just the aggressors but also those defending themselves, their homes and their families. It also creates a demands for weapons which enriches the merchants of death. And increased military spending comes at a cost; mostly paid by the poor and vulnerable in the shape of reduced public expenditure in public services. And one should always beware of generals who tend to evade or dismiss democratic scrutiny. As I see it the answer to these problems is more Europe, in the shape of governance and democratic scrutiny. And by Europe am not referring to fortress Europe, but a civic commitment for the values which shape us, values which do not belong to us but to humanity in general. That is the only antidote to Russophobia and the emergence of new nationalisms thriving on a war between ‘civilisations’. And while war is corrosive, weapons are often needed by those defending themselves from aggression. Lets not forget that in the second world war communist partisans in Italy and France actively collaborated with Anglo American forces. That was a just war which is part of our collective heritage. That is also a chapter in Maltese history which we should cherish. And that is why I would never replace the George Cross with the eight pointed cross. So should pacifists become warmongers? Depends on what we understand by pacifism. The kind of pacifism I identify with was shaped by the social movements of the 1970s and was also intimately tied with the idea of universal human rights and support for democratic movements the world over including Eastern Europe. It is therefore no surprise that the same German Greens who were rooted in the pacifist movements of the 1970s are backing sending more weapons to Ukraine. We need to stand for our values whenever threatened by strongmen and caudillos. In the absence of that it will be other strongmen and caudillos who will stand up to aggression probably by committing similar crimes.

The risk of a long war: Syria is a reminder of how a decade of war against a criminal regime can breed monsters.  But perhaps these monsters only grew because of a reluctance to act decisively against the criminal Assad regime, which crucially was allowed to win thanks to Putin’s support. Those who lose family and loved ones will inevitable seek redress and in the absence of that revenge. There is a risk that Putin's war will actually strengthen the russophobic far right in Ukraine and in Eastern Europe.   Ensuring redress through international law is the only way to avoid this from happening. Yet just as much I fear war and the dynamics it sets in motion, I also understand the moral obligation to defy and resist. So stopping Putin from winning (which means stopping him from dismembering Ukraine) is just as crucial as ending the war in the shortest time possible. In fact the two aims sound contradictory. While capitulation is not an option as this would embolden bullies the world over, diplomacy has to play a part at some stage. But we must make sure that Ukraine gets to the negotiation table from a position of strength. That is why arming Ukraine is not just the right thing to do morally but also the most effective way to force Russia to the negotiation table.

A federal Europe: But lets see this as an opportunity for a paradigm shift; What about the US signing up to the International Criminal Court as a starting point? Is it not ironical that the US is not party to the only organization which can (and should) prosecute Vladimir Putin for crimes against humanity? And what about a massive renewable energy program to accelerate the ban on gas imports from Russia? And should not the oligarchs’ wealth be used to finance Ukraine’s resistance? And is this not the perfect moment for more Europe? Perhaps it is time to rediscover the prophetic wisdom of  Altiero Spinelli’s Ventotene Manifesto written during the darkest days of the word war II in which the great Italian intellectual presented his socialist and federalist vision for a united Europe (and world).

That first drag

There is something about the drag from a factory made cigarette. It is like sucking life from something which gives you death. But that first drag with the morning espresso gives you a shot of life albeit a contaminated one. Still it is only that first one which gives you that sensation, the rest may have their own value when matched to the moment, some insight, a view, pleasure or even an apathetic moment need to be accompanied with a drag... sort of it always accenuates feelings be they of awe or pain...still on those rare occasions when i surpass the 10 cigs limit, they start to taste just as they really are: toxic and unpleasant especially with too much booze. Probably at that stage you start smelling like an ash tray. And worse after years of smoking you could end up smelling like one of those old bars which have absorbed decades of tobacco smoke. Still they form part of the chain which makes that singular sensation of each morning's drag possible. It is that drag which makes it so difficult to stop the habit which gets in to a routine. Surely there are other ingredients which add to the allure. The smoke itself envelopes you in a kind of intimacy and a smoke filled room is always pregnant with great ideas and hopes. It is hard to imagine a revolution being planned in a smoke free room. Yet you don't need a cig for that...vaping was a good substitute in that sense except for that damn first drag and the hard texture of the thing. Guess it is always a good time to quit. But what can substitute the feeling of that first drag? Perhaps it is just one thing one has to simply give up.