#i reserve the right to not abide by this poll but i would like to see the results anyway | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

pussymagicuniverse · 5 years

Text

Catamenial Mania: Looking Towards the Prevalence of Period Porn

it’s easy to blame porn. it’s easy to give porn credit.

throughout history, the depictions of porn and our interactions with it have offered reflections and refractions of humanity’s most truthful and most unaware designs. manifestations of the most extreme and the most banal flights into fantasy prejudices and biases for all to hear and see and come to.

it’s a safe bet to say that periods predate porn.

the scarcity of period porn has not gone unnoticed and was the topic of a talk at the first world pornography conference in 1998. it had crossed my mind on a number of occasions why period porn had never popped up as often as i thought it would, considering that it had never popped up at all. once i debated with someone that such a thing as yeast infection porn couldn’t possibly exist, least of all because having sex with a yeast infection is a horribly uncomfortable experience. and despite it all it only took a single search on PornHub to find a video.

it’s understandable that some people prefer to keep porn as a fantasy. but how can fantasies incorporate every conceivable thing but still want to keep themselves untainted by a little blood. how could period blood not be a part of someone’s fantasy, anyone’s fantasy, especially when it’s a fact that most people with cunts get especially horny on their period.

while there are a number of factors that play into what kind of porn is made, how it is made, who it is made by, and where it is accessible, in the hierarchy of censorship it turns out that one of the main hindrances to period porn are the payment processors rather than the porn industry itself. billing companies and payment processing companies such as Visa, Mastercard, and PayPal for example, impose content restrictions and strict regulations around the words used and content provided and reserve the right to refuse to process payments for companies and websites if they allow content on their platform that violates these regulations, due to their designation of such websites as ‘high risk.’ i was exposed to this thanks to a terrific thread by writer Lux Alptraum.

“the cunt cannot help the blood it puts forth. it cannot help but flounder in life and death and creation. ambiguity and instability are implicit in its folds and people with cunts are all too aware.” (click to tweet)

looking at one example of a list of forbidden words, at first glance it doesn’t seem entirely outrageous. it’s understandable that one wouldn’t want to be promoting or legitimizing abusive, violent, or non-consensual content. it’s understandable that one wouldn’t want to be associated with snuff films. some words come in a variety so it’s clear that someone wants to cover all their bases. one can rationalize how blood might come to be on that list in regards to violence or abuse or death. however, with the inclusion of ‘menstrual, menstruate, menstruation’ it becomes clear that blood isn’t innocently forbidden.

to highlight multiple versions of menstruation (not to mention ‘period’ is also on that list, right in-between ‘pedophilia’ and ‘popper’) and put them on the same level as abuse or bigotry or slurs is a blatant demonization of people with cunts. to instate a policy that underlines natural and healthy bleeding as something that should be restricted or forbidden is nothing more than a dehumanization. to say that the blood that comes out of someone’s legs is so shameful is so dangerous that even the mere mention of the word to describe such an act is impermissible does nothing but reflect the face of patriarchy.

even unrelated connotations suffer under this. according to an interview in a Vice article that investigates this censorship a BDSM site remarks that they can no longer use red candles in their wax play because “wasteland's payment processors seem to think melted red wax is a dead ringer for blood.”

there are no good reasons to look down on menstruation. there is absolutely no excuse and there is absolutely no justification that is not based in misogyny. it is the only blood that belongs outside and yet in our daily content we find ourselves exposed to every kind but.

“anything that denies a person with a bleeding cunt is demonstrative of patriarchy.” (click to tweet)

this is how power dynamics manifest now in the neoliberal world we have generated; through the withholding of not just money and profit but the ability of exchange in itself. these payment processors and billing agents have nothing to do with the money that is being exchanged but through the mere threat of withholding the act of exchange content disappears from sight. not to say that it’s impossible to find but how many people look further than PornHub or XVideos or whatever one’s main site happens to be. this lack of visibility is entirely intentional not towards creating a fantasy but towards upholding a system of oppression and erasure. porn companies and independent porn producers can keep making all the self-conscious and feminist porn they want, but billing companies will ensure that their content never becomes mainstream.

even the act of trying to find information directly from Visa or Mastercard proves difficult. Google searches don’t seem to register the term menstruation and instead change it to ‘period’ in their algorithms. whether or not this is a prerogative of Google’s or an SEO pairing function from the billing companies is unclear.

the act of withholding payment processing when others don’t abide by your values is neither new nor limited to the world of porn. as of the writing of this post the United States is still considering imposing financial sanctions on Venezuela that may lead to Visa and Mastercard being unable to process payments in the country. another effort against Maduro and his supporters, the United States expresses its dissatisfaction at dissent not by withholding money but by withholding the ability to use money.

it’s easy to think that through the withholding of money or the ability to exchange money, values may be influenced. it’s easy to think that that’s the only way to influence people’s behavior. but besides the fact that it’s fairly agreed upon that economic sanctions don’t really work, it’s absurd to think that the act of exchanging money is being withheld in order to keep people from being exposed to the blood that comes from cunts.

“to instate a policy that underlines natural and healthy bleeding as something that should be restricted or forbidden is nothing more than a dehumanization.” (click to tweet)

around the world one of the common denominators of patriarchy is the damnation of menstruation. the effects of patriarchal thinking vary around the globe but the misogyny of stigmatizing what comes out of a person’s cunt seems to be a constant. whether through refusing to call it by its name offering odd euphemisms in its stead taxing products designed to aid the process making products hard to find making people with cunts seclude themselves following them to watch them change causing pain misattributing pain ignoring pain silencing them deeming them impure deciding everything touched is impure or some other sort of nonsense.

not everyone enjoys period sex. not everyone enjoys watching period porn. this isn’t about preferences or comfort levels. this is about the erasure and mistreatment of something that happens to people with cunts at least 450 times in their lives. what other constant is so widely ignored. what other biological constant is used as blackmail against profit.

anything that denies a person with a bleeding cunt is demonstrative of patriarchy.

this denial is not new but nor is it timeless. in both roman and etruscan mythologies there existed a goddess of the dead of spirits of chaos called mania (or manea). in Greek mythology, Mania is the goddess of insanity and madness. her name ties her to another roman goddess called Mana Genita, whose name Plurarch derives the latin verb manare, meaning to flow to shed to pour forth. in itself this bleeding is the standard for normativity. its madness is essential towards existence. it is only through our own interactions with it whether we decide to respect it or vilify it.

there is nothing wrong with chaos. there is nothing insane about insanity. it is all a part of being alive being human being whatever this concoction of cells happens to be. but the more we deny what is basic in us the harder it will be to figure out what is extraordinary.

the cunt cannot help the blood it puts forth. it cannot help but flounder in life and death and creation. ambiguity and instability are implicit in its folds and people with cunts are all too aware. to watch those around you participate in its erasure is infuriating. but people with cunts never forget.

further play:

Erotic Red

Why is ‘Period’-Porn So Rare? An Explanatory Mess

Vampire Porn Challenges Period Sex Stigma

How My Periods Made Me More Aware Of Patriarchy In The North East

Period poverty: Scotland poll shows women go to desperate lengths

Citing Gender Bias, State Lawmakers Move To Eliminate 'Tampon Tax'

Period-Shaming Isn’t Rooted In Indian Culture, But In Patriarchy

Do Vampires Menstruate? The Power Of Jenny Hval’s New Album Blood Bitch

How did menstruation become taboo?

Rubyfloetics: A Period Poem Mixtape

marina manoukian is a reader and writer and collage artist. she currently resides in berlin while she studies and works. she likes honey and she loves bees. you can find more of her words and images at marinamanoukian.com or twitter/instagram at @crimeiscommon.

1 note · View note

backstorywithdanalewis · 4 years

Text

Alexei Navalny poisoning Podcast link here - Share it! https://www.buzzsprout.com/1016881/5125132

bill browder: (00:00) Alexei Navalny was poisoned. I believe the poison was administered by the FSB, the Russian secret police. And I believe that the order was, was given to poison him by Vladimir Putin. Dana Lewis; Host Creator Back Story podcast: (00:20) Hi everyone. And welcome to another edition of backstory. I'm Dana Lewis. This is about Russia and an opposition figure who as we speak is in hospital fighting for his life. After an apparent poison, officially Russia says he wasn't poisoned, but the wife and spokesperson of Alexei Navalny says he was after drinking a cup of tea at an airport in comps. Nevalny was on a flight to Moscow after campaigning against Putin's Russia, United party owning the local officials. They're crooks. The airplane had to make an emergency landing at another city. They're a tug of war over the weekend between the Bellini's wife and local officials to let them be flowing out to a hospital in Germany. Finally, after a very public debate, Russia allowed Nevalny to leave in a coma bill browder: (01:10) In very serious condition. He is recovering in Germany or joining me now is William Browder. He's an American born British financier and political activists. He is the CEO and cofounder of Hermitage capital management, the investor advisor to the Hermitage fund, which at one time was the largest foreign portfolio in Russia. And bill you've been banned from Russia. Uh, your company is rated for tax fraud. That was a long time ago. You were convicted in absentia and your lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky was jailed in Russia and died in prison. Um, you, you have had a long, long fight since then for, for some kind of justice in his case. Yeah. bill browder: (01:54) bill browder: (01:54) My story is a long and ugly one where, uh, I invested in Russia. I discovered corruption in the companies I invested in. I exposed the corruption and in retaliation, uh, they expelled me from the country, declared me a threat to national security rated my offices seized all of our documents. bill browder: (02:14) My lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky investigated discovered that that, that the reason for seizing the documents was to use those documents to perpetrate a $230 million tax rebate fraud, where the Russian authorities were stealing taxes, $230 million of taxes that we paid to the Russian government from the Russian government sort of gay expose the fraud. Uh, he was then arrested by the people he exposed, put in pretrial detention tortured for 358 days and murdered on November 16, 2009. That was 11 years ago. Since then, I've been on a full time mission to get justice for surrogate Magnitsky, which has led to a piece of legislation named after him called the Magnitsky act, which imposes visa, sanctions, and asset freezes on the people who killed Sergei Magnitsky and the people who perpetrate other gross human rights abuses around the world. This is a, um, the law was first passed in the United States in 2012. bill browder: (03:14) It was then globalized in 2016 to apply not just to Russians, but to people everywhere who did terrible things. It then went to Canada, Britain, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Kosovo, and it's currently on deck to be put in place at the European union in Australia. It's something which Vladimir Putin has, has described as his single largest foreign policy priority to try to get rid of reason. He hates it so much is because he steals a lot of money. He kills a lot of people and he tries to keep that money safe abroad. And by having the Magnitsky act in place, it puts his money in the money of his cronies at risk Dana Lewis; Host Creator Back Story podcast: (03:59) Start with what's happening right now. One of the main opposition candidates in Russia, Alexei, Navalny, poisoned, it looks like, and he's fighting for his life in Germany who did it and why? bill browder: (04:11) Well, I think it's pretty obvious. You know, everybody says, well, let's wait, let's reserve judgment. There's no proof, blah, blah, blah. But how, how many poisonings coming out of Russia have to happen before? We can finally say it's obvious who did it? I mean, uh, so, so I, I believe that, uh, uh, Alexia Novotny was poisoned. I believe the poison was administered by the FSB, the Russian secret police. And I believe that the order was, was given to poison him by Vladimir Putin Dana Lewis; Host Creator Back Story podcast: (04:45) Putin. I mean, Nevani when you take a look at some of his investigations, uh, and they have been very serious corruption allegations. I mean, he is covered so many people in touch, so many different, uh, people inside bill browder: (04:59) Putin circle. That's true. However, Alexian have only is as such a high level in terms of his politics that, uh, nobody can touch him without the permission of Putin. Nobody would touch him without the permission of Putin, because if you did, uh, it would set off a political firestorm that Putin would bear the brunt of. And so Houdin would never allow that to happen. And everybody in Russia abides by these, this set of rules. So I don't believe that anyone other than Putin would have had the authority to do it. And why would they do it now? Well, this is a very, uh, pregnant moment in politics in this part of the world. Uh, you have the Belarus situation going on and all you have to do is turn on, turn on the Twitter or the internet, and look at the tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people who are standing up to the dictator Lucas Shanko right now, and Putin watches this and sees this and understands that this Bellaruse situation may be uncontainable. bill browder: (06:12) I personally think it is. I I've, I've never, it really looks to me like this thing is spiraling out of control for Lucas Shanko. And it's one thing, if you have a situation like that happening in a faraway country like Egypt or Tunisia, as far as letting recruiting is concerned, but it's another thing when it's Bellaruse, which is effectively a, uh, you know, wants to like a province of Russia. And if the Russian people see that the Belarusian people can get rid of their dictator, they're going to have a lot more confidence. So they could do the same thing in Russia. And if there was one person who is poised to lead, that movement is Alexei Navalny. And so there's a really clear, uh, timing and political motive for why Putin would have done this right now. And as we speak, Dana Lewis; Host Creator Back Story podcast: (07:06) And a lot of demonstrations inside Russia, despite Putins and the Kremlins statement all the time that he's got 80% popularity, a lot of people think he's lost a ton of popularity during COVID-19 that the referendum was rushed through because they anticipated these kinds of demonstrations and unrest as the Russian economy is collapsing in there have been demonstrations, uh, in the far East, uh, kicked off because the arrest of a, of a governor there, bill browder: (07:34) The it's a total myth that Vladimir Putin has 80% approval rating in a country like Russia, where you get arrested, you lose your job. You may even get killed for going against Vladimir Putin. Nobody is going to answer honestly, when they get called by an anonymous pollster to say, who do you support? I mean, the fact that that 20% of the people say they don't support Putin is the biggest, the only surprising thing to me about those fake polls. So, and, and you're absolutely right. You have a situation where the Russian people have given up free press free speech, the ability to elect their leader of choice. And they did all that stuff on this unwritten bargain, which was, if they give up all that stuff, they could enjoy a better standard of living. That was the deal that Putin had presented to them 20 years ago. bill browder: (08:33) But we're now in a situation where they given up all their freedoms and the economics have been stagnating and then recently collapsing. And so there's like nothing to be gained from Vladimir Putin. And at this point he's really in a, in a terrible and tough spot because it's not like he can just give up power, retire, enjoy is ill gotten gains and live a quiet life. Afterwards. He's killed people. A lot of people he's ruined the lives of many, many people he's stolen so much money. And if he were to lose power, he would have to pay the, he would have to bear the risk, the legal responsibility for that. And he understands that if he, if, if he were to lose power, he'd probably go to jail. He loses money and God knows maybe worse. And so he has no choice, but to try to hold it all together, as best as he can. And the one thing that scares him more than anything is when tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people all decide at once that they've had enough, because it's one thing to go out and in prison, all the opposition leaders, it's another thing to try to imprison everybody, which is just not possible Dana Lewis; Host Creator Back Story podcast: (09:46) Create this atmosphere if need be bill browder: (09:49) It doesn't give the wink and the nod and say yes to the area Dana Lewis; Host Creator Back Story podcast: (09:53) B or the gr you to carry out assassinations. Does he, at the very least create this atmosphere where political assassinations are thought to be in his interest and with his blessing. And I'm talking about, you know, the shooting of Boris Nimsoft, which took place within the view of the Kremlin and, and a political sky are going back a bit further, a journalist who was, would criticize Putin and what was going on in Chechnya. And she was shot outside her room. bill browder: (10:21) There, there there's, there's always this sort of undercurrent of like allowing of, of, uh, of, of giving Putin the benefit of the doubt to say, he's created this environment and everyone's doing this terrible stuff. Uh, it's clear to me that Putin was responsible for Boris Nimsoft murder. He's responsible for the poisoning of Lexi Naomi, and he was responsible for many other terrible crimes that Russia has a lot of chaos, but there's no chaos when it comes to the ordering of these crimes. And these can only be done. The high, the big political crimes can only be done with Vladimir. Putin's not just blessing, but, um, personal involvement. I would imagine that he was following every step of the process in the poisoning of Alexei Navalny and the subsequent, uh, crisis when he was hospitalized and trying to leave Russia Dana Lewis; Host Creator Back Story podcast: (11:18) Of president Donald Trump, then I'm often just kind of sidestepping the Russia issue, even inviting him in suggesting to Angela Merkel of Germany and France to invite him back into the [inaudible]. bill browder: (11:33) Well, I have my own personal experience with Donald Trump, as it relates to Putin after the Magnitsky act was passed, Putin has been trying to get me back to Russia, to effectively kill me. Like he has sort of gay Magnitsky had been sentenced twice to 18 years in Russian prison. And during the 2018 summit in Helsinki, Donald Trump had this private meeting with, um, with, uh, Vladimir Putin and at the press conference afterwards, one of the journalists asked Putin, are you going to hand over the 12 GRU officers that Robert Mueller wants for, um, interfering with the U S election and Putin said, uh, it's not so simple as that. We might very well hand them over if Donald Trump hands over bill Browder and the 11 American government officials were part of his criminal enterprise. And then the journalist Dana Lewis; Host Creator Back Story podcast: (12:26) One of them, by the way, sorry to interrupt you. I want to hear all of it. But one of them was actually an ambassador Mike McFaul, who see, he suggested Trump suggested maybe there would be some kind of swamp, bill browder: (12:38) I mean, unheard of well. So, so, so, so they ask Trump, they say, well, wait, what do you think about this? He said, I think it's a brilliant idea. And so they wanted to hand me over. They wanted to hand over, as you mentioned, Mike McFaul, the former us ambassador to Russia. They wanted him to hand over Kyle Parker, who is the chief of staff of the U S Helsinki commission who wrote the Magnitsky act. They wanted to hand over, uh, uh, special agent Todd Hyman from the department of Homeland security that was investigating Russian money laundering connected to the Magnitsky case in New York. It was absurd and it took, uh, it took the, um, it took Donald Trump four days to walk it back. And it was only after the Senate, uh, or was about to hold a vote in which they were going to vote 98 to zero, not to hand us over the Trump about 20 minutes before that issued a very unique statement saying, uh, or interesting as press, press secretaries issued a statement saying, now we've decided not to pursue this request at this time. Dana Lewis; Host Creator Back Story podcast: (13:36) Bill, can you tell me, I mean, longterm, how do we engage or deal with Russia? Maybe engagement is not something that you favor, but I mean, you know, the individual sanctions, the sanctions against Putin's inner circle have resulted in what I mean, a very debatable result in terms of probably not containing Russia very well. bill browder: (14:01) Well, you can, you've got to do it properly. You can't do it halfway. So first of all, the, uh, that the, the obvious conclusion that one needs to come to with a country like Russia is that they're a major nuclear power. And so you have to talk to them. So you can't cut off diplomatic relations. And for, for, for, not for, for Americans, but for Europeans, they're a major energy supplier. And so you can't just say, no, we can't do business with them because of the lights will go out in Europe. So those two things have to continue to happen. But at the same time, Russia is exporting, uh, assassinations in the UK. There was, they used polonium radioactive material on one person. They use Nova chalk, a chemical weapon on another set of people they're doing targeted assassinations all over Europe. They just did one in Berlin. Dana Lewis; Host Creator Back Story podcast: (14:49) We may have taken out bounties on soldiers in Afghanistan, bill browder: (14:53) Indeed. They've, um, they've shot down passenger planes with innocent people on board. They've invaded countries, redrawn the border bombing hospitals and civilians in Syria. They're a major international menace. And so you can't let that go because if you do, then they'll continue to do it and do it in greater numbers and more places. And so you have to create a punishing consequence, which, which can't be cutting off diplomatic relations, and it can't be a stopping business. And so the obvious consequence for them is targeted individual sanctions. And this is particularly powerful in a country where a few thousand people have stolen all the resources of the country and keep all those resources in the West. And it's in my line. It's not debatable at all, how powerful these sanctions are. They hate them more than anything, and probably the most powerful, all the sanctions that have been imposed on Russia, where the sanctions of the seven Russian oligarchs, which took place in 2018, uh, shortly after the, um, uh, election hacking act was passed. And those seven oligarchs were close. Trustees of Putin effectively had their financial lives ruined. And, and if we wanted to really stop Russia in its tracks, they should expand that list and expand the list of other government officials who were targeted and sanctioned because all the, and we have huge leverage here because they keep all their money in the West and they care about their money Dana Lewis; Host Creator Back Story podcast: (16:26) Is one hope that you would have to wrap this up. What would the Nevalny attempted poisoning, bill browder: (16:34) Attempted murder leaders too? Well, my, my main hope is that Alexei Navalny recovers a completely without any disabilities. And he can go on to, um, fulfill his democratic dream and the dream of the Russian people, which is to have a real democracy there. And then you, you believe that he may return stronger. Well, I think if he, if he see if he can survive this attempt, this, this assassination attempt, uh, I, I, I think it only, it only empowers him to do greater things and, and Putin, he's not a legitimate leader like Lucas Shanko and, and, um, I think it's, it's time for the Russian people to, uh, let him know that Dana Lewis; Host Creator Back Story podcast: (17:23) I should have talked to you, you know, great background information bill browder: (17:27) On what you believe has to happen. And, and, uh, probably, you know, you, you have succeeded, um, Dana Lewis; Host Creator Back Story podcast: (17:36) So much change through the Magnitsky act. You must be very proud. bill browder: (17:41) Thank you very much. Alright, Dana Lewis; Host Creator Back Story podcast: (17:50) Mark. Galeotti joins us now in London, he is a senior associate fellow at RUSI it's the Royal United services Institute. Uh, and it's a highly respected Institute. We often go there as journalists to talk to, to analysts and experts. Um, and he's also the author of a book, which I need to read, which is called. We need to talk about Putin, Mark. Let's talk about poop. Indeed. Alexina Valley, as we speak, uh, is in a hospital fighting for his life in Germany. Do you think he was poisoned and by whom? mark galeotti RUSI: (18:24) Well, the first part's easy bit. Yes. It all seems almost certain that, that he was poisoned. And that certainly also what we're getting actually out of Germany this morning, by whom that's the tricky thing. We sometimes tend to think of Russia from a distance as being a totalitarianism, where everything comes down from the top and Putin signs off on everything. He's actually in many ways of raid lazy autocrat. Um, and he's created a system whereby he often doesn't give very, very specific and explicit guidance, but sets broad areas of interest and umpteen officials, oligarchs, and such like scurry around trying to please the boss. So what we don't know is whether or not this was actually chosen, our Kremlin initiated hit. And I suspect not for reasons we can talk about if you want, or whether rather it was precisely one of these other agencies, someone who had been burned by one of Alex [inaudible] his anticorruption investigations or feared he was going to be, or some local official who somehow thought that this is exactly what the Kremlin wanted. And he will be, Dana Lewis; Host Creator Back Story podcast: (19:33) I find it, I find it hard to believe. And I think a lot of other people would too, that Alexa Nevani, who is the highest profile opposition figure in Russia, that if somebody was going to poison him, that that wouldn't have to be blessed by the Kremlin, mark galeotti RUSI: (19:48) Except that, I mean, we have other examples of form. Um, when, uh, Boris Nemtsov, again, one of the very high profile opposition figures in Russia was, was killed literally a stone throw from the Kremlin, um, that does not seem to have been approved by Putin. In fact, it created a sort of quieter, a stir and a storm in Moscow, but by, it was actually initiated by an Amazon Cordero dictator of Chechnya, who incidentally is no fan of the maleness. There are other figures who genuinely seem to be able to act. Dana Lewis; Host Creator Back Story podcast: (20:22) So for people who don't follow Russia was the, the main opposition figure in Russia, extremely liberal. Uh, but at one point he was chosen to be the successor of Boris Yeltsin. And he was, uh, a deputy prime minister. And I knew him very well. He ran for mayor in Sochi at one point to try and get a political foothold again, fighting for independence. And he was also a supporter of Ukraine. So certainly he was thought to be a full of the Kremlin. mark galeotti RUSI: (20:51) Exactly. So I think that it's often that people feel, they assume that this is what Putin would want. And in a way, the, the issue becomes not whether or not the Kremlin is innocent, but it's differently guilty. There are those hits, which clearly the Kremlin initiated. And there are those hits, which happen because the Kremlin has created a country in a system in which actually a whole variety of different agencies do use violence up to and including murder and can get away with it. And the state will still have their back. Dana Lewis; Host Creator Back Story podcast: (21:23) I want to read a paragraph from the, the editorial that you wrote for the Moscow times, because I think it's very well written in you're a great writer and it's very, it's very clear, but you can just tell me what you meant by at a state. That kills is a terrible thing, but it's red lines can generally be observed and it can ultimately be held to account. But a state that permits a whole range of actors and interest to kill with impunity is an even more uncomfortable thing. As the red lines may be invisible, intersecting and mobile. And the challenge of accountability is even greater. What do you mean by that? mark galeotti RUSI: (21:57) What I mean is precisely that the real challenge for people in Russia who are trying to still use whatever space there is for opposition politics, for civil society, for bringing this elite, this thoroughly corrupt self-interested elite to account, they may think they know what is acceptable, and it may well be that it is acceptable today. But the point is because there are so many other individuals who in a way draw their own red lines. You never really know when you're stepping over that. Let me give you one example. I mean, I work on Russian gangsters and also the Russian intelligence service. And as a result, I've, I've, I've sat down with some deeply unpleasant people from time to time. One of the few people I have absolutely been warned off looking at carefully is a man by the name of your Guinea precaution. If someone's known as Putin chef, he was a chef who is a businessman who is behind, for example, the Wagner mercenary corporation that we've seen in, in Donbass, Syria, Libya, and elsewhere, but basically as well as he knew, sort of incidentally ran the troll factory of in fame from the last presidential elections in the States. Dana Lewis; Host Creator Back Story podcast: (23:12) So the troll factories that put out information and disinformation and were largely responsible for interfering in the American election of 2016. mark galeotti RUSI: (23:21) Exactly. Now this is a guy who's basically, I mean, it's worth mentioning a guy with a criminal record, um, who's who hasn't done well, precisely by doing whatever business the Kremlin needs doing. So basically if you know, whatever it is, whether it's trolls or mercenaries or indeed setting up the kitchens to feed the army, he will do it in return for that though. He seems to have been given massive degrees of autonomy. I mean, he's been linked with the murder of Russian journalists who were looking into the activities of Wagner group in, in Africa. He's been linked with all kinds of activities and he's not unique in this. There are these figures within Russia who basically have set themselves up as almost we could think of as warlords. Now, if this was a medieval country, we'd have no trouble thinking them as warlords because they wear suits and everything else. We have trouble using the same vocabulary, but frankly, that's what they are. And this is the problem in Russia. There is a vicious and sometimes murderous state, but one which is actually in some ways relatively restrained. But then there are other figures who are unrestrained and even more vicious. Dana Lewis; Host Creator Back Story podcast: (24:28) It's interesting that when Salisbury occurred the poisoning of an ex Russian GRU, a spy and Salisbury, um, that somebody asked me on air, um, is it disturbing? The Putin would approve this. And I said, yes, but it's probably even more disturbing if he didn't, because that would tell you that the security services now we're operating off the leech. Do you think that that is occurring? Does Putin have control of the security services, the FSB, the GRU and others that are operating that may have carried out the poisoning of Nevani? If in fact he was poised, mark galeotti RUSI: (25:04) I think the answer is that Putin has the level of control that he wants to have. In other words, I think he absolutely chooses to step back from something. I mean, if we take the salt poisoning, I do believe he would have signed off on it. I think anything that has a major international implication like that, such as, you know, a murder in the UK, I think that would have to cross his desk, even though it probably would be initiated by the other people, but they would just have to get the bosses. Okay. Something like this domestically, a Russian citizen in Russia. I think the honest answer is it could have crossed Putin's desk, but it doesn't necessarily need to have done. So I think he's willing to allow these people a lot of autonomy. And then if they mess up badly, he will punish them. If they succeed, he will reward them. But the whole nature of the Putin regime is that he wants these people desperately competing for his favor. I mean, that is the true currency of Russia is not the ruble. It's not the dollar it's Putin's favor. If you have that, you can do anything. Dana Lewis; Host Creator Back Story podcast: (26:06) Why do you think now? I mean, why would they go after an event money now? Is it because of what's happening in Belarus and they fear that he is igniting potentially the same kind of fire? mark galeotti RUSI: (26:18) Well, I'll give you two answers. One of them is it could be something that's very local and very conditional. I mean, we know that he was in Tomsk in Siberia, not just meeting local activists, but also engaging in one of his extinct CDC, forensic anticorruption investigations. So it might be that literally it was a local person, someone there who didn't want their grimy D deals being exposed and therefore felt he had to do something about it. So that's a possibility, but the other one is yes, you mentioned the others. We have this explosion of people power in Belarus. At the same time, there is a mood of dissatisfaction within Russia. We've we seen it in Kabarro on the Chinese border, where for weeks now they've been protesting the, um, arrest of their elected governor. Not because they like him particularly, but because it's an example of Moscow just simply reaching in because he doesn't like the candidate. mark galeotti RUSI: (27:12) I didn't know anything about a bottle of skis. It's not that unique or unusual a city. If it can happen in Kerberos, it can happen anywhere. We have local elections that are coming up in September and Nevada only in particular was championing this notion of what he called smart vote, which is essentially that people should be encouraged to vote for whichever candidate, whatever party they come from, who is most likely to displace the government's United Russia block. So it could be the, in that situation, Nevada only who after all has generally been very, very good at knowing just how to stay on the right side of the red line. Didn't notice that that line had shifted and that a new mood or concern has arisen. And they decided no. Nevada is just too charismatic, too popular. And his smart vote system is too potentially dangerous for us to continue to allow him to operate. Dana Lewis; Host Creator Back Story podcast: (28:03) Do you think Navalny has been removed? I mean, let's say he recovers, you know, the question is, does a lot of these people never go back to Russia. And I would think that Alexei Navalny will try to go back because that's is raised on Dettra. I mean, he wants to campaign against the Kremlin and he has been fearless in doing so. And if he goes back, is he more empowered? Have they just created a kind of political opposition, martyr of sorts? mark galeotti RUSI: (28:28) Well, that's an interesting question. Um, I mean of only himself when he's asked, you know, how come he's still alive, his answer is precisely, well, actually the Kremlin realizes that I'd be more dangerous to them dead than alive. Now we'll see. I mean, obviously depends how quite, how he recovers and, and what his mood is, but he has indeed shown himself to be indomitable in the past. And he's been arrested 13 times. His brother has been sent to prison to bring pressure to bear on him. It was almost blinded when they splashed antiseptic dye on his face. And this is his second time he's been poisoned if he returns. mark galeotti RUSI: (29:05) I think, I mean, it does give him that additional status and the particularly actually slightly fanciful. But, you know, if, if one looks at kind of Russian cultural mythology, there is something about the, um, the figure who is prepared to literally put his life and everything on the line. Now that that becomes a very sort of powerful, and we see it in Russian folklore, in Russian history. And, and today now I think the other elements of this is so far not only is anticorruption and sort of anti-government movement has been very novel, only focused, understandably. Um, this might actually create your opportunity for a new rising generational activists to really come into their own. And I think that's crucial because the thing that Nevada only has always lacked not been able to properly do is institutionalize his movement. Um, turn it from just simply being, you know, one guy, one guy with, with allies and supporters and a YouTube feed into a true national movement. This might help push things right over that edge point Dana Lewis; Host Creator Back Story podcast: (30:09) Fired on whoever thought they would carry this out mark galeotti RUSI: (30:11) With the approval of the Kremlin. Absolutely. I mean, T T to be bombed. I think the, the lesson that we've seen from truly successful, awful authoritarian regimes is, you know, if you're going to do it, do it properly, don't take half measures. Um, and I think the, the notion that of only would, would be intimidated by this is of course wrong. The notion that his supporters are likely to be intimidated by this is likely to prove wrong. I do think that in this respect, it was a mistake. Dana Lewis; Host Creator Back Story podcast: (30:41) Hey Mark, Galeotti thank you so much from the Royal United services Institute and the book that I'm going to read, and I know you will, too. We need to talk about poop. My picture. Thank you. The latest is, and the Valley will recover no details yet on what his longterm prognosis will be. And the heartbeat of the Russian political opposition movement is this unpredictable as Alexa in Nevada in his own health, will we ever know of Nevada? He was really poisoned. I think we will. These things have a habit of eventually coming out in Putin's Russia, that's backstory. I'm Dana Lewis, please. We need you to subscribe to the podcast and share the link we're growing. We need your support. Thanks for listening. And I'll talk to you soon.

#@alexeinavalny @billbrowder russia putin backstorywithdanalewis @danaslewis

0 notes

mastcomm · 4 years

Text

Harry and Meghan’s Big Funding Source Is Private. Sort of.

LONDON — Every six months or so, Alan Davis sets out from his seaside bungalow on a far-flung island off the southwestern coast of England carrying a rent check of 12.5 pounds (about $16) for his landlord.

But this is no ordinary landlord, and no ordinary rent check.

Mr. Davis lives on a tiny corner of the Duchy of Cornwall, the property empire controlled by Prince Charles, the heir to Britain’s throne, who has quietly turned an inheritance of rundown farmland into a billion-pound real estate conglomerate. By a quirk of British law, Mr. Davis has to pay the prince for the privilege of living on his land, piddling as the checks may be.

“It’s a feudal way of carrying on,” Mr. Davis said. “They put their finger in and demand money. They’re a law unto themselves.”

Prince Charles’s fortune, long shielded from scrutiny by parliamentary indifference and obscure accounting, spilled into public view this month when his younger son, Prince Harry, announced that he and his wife, Meghan, were quitting their royal duties. In trying to prove that they would renounce taxpayer money, Harry and Meghan gave Britons a peek at the shadowy world of ostensibly private finance that bankrolls the family and its mansions, gardens and considerable staff.

But what the royals call private contains, by any other measure, a generous mix of public giveaways: medieval landholdings passed from one male heir to the next, sweeping tax relief, indemnity from some laws and exemptions from others, ownership of long stretches of coastline and all the treasure buried in Cornwall.

Those perks have delivered Prince Charles substantial wealth. Income from the duchy has nearly tripled in two decades, to £21.6 million, about $28.3 million, last year. But the uproar over Harry and Meghan’s funding has raised uncomfortable questions for the prince and the royals about whether any of their income can truly be considered private.

Coming on the heels of Prince Charles’s brother Andrew being kicked off the royal front lines for socializing with the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, such scrutiny is another dent to the royal mystique.

“Harry has chucked a grenade into the forecourt of Buckingham Palace,” said David McClure, the author of a book about the royal family’s wealth. “It’s weakened the foundations of the royal family and their money, and it’s raised issues that don’t just apply to Harry but have been bubbling under the surface for at least a decade.”

Among the biggest of those is the special treatment afforded Prince Charles’s property empire, an estate that, among other things, pays for the upkeep of his country mansion and furnished £5 million last year for the families of Harry and his older brother, Prince William.

Formed in 1337 to provide the royal heir with an income, the duchy came with fringe benefits: the right to unclaimed shipwrecks on Cornish shores, washed-up whale and sturgeon carcasses, and at least 250 gallons of wine from boats docking at Cornish ports.

Nearly 700 years later, Prince Charles has held onto some anachronistic perks. Into his 20s, the prince is said to have received feudal dues of 100 silver shillings and a pound of peppercorns from the mayor of Launceston in Cornwall.

But with the help of British real estate heavyweights, he has transformed his sleepy holdings into a thriving business covering 200 square miles, turning the focus from rural land to profit-rich urban holdings.

The duchy has a vast footprint, stretching from the rocky shores of Cornwall to south London, and from medieval castles to a granite-walled men’s prison. It recently bought a 400,000-square-foot supermarket warehouse north of London.

A spokeswoman for the duchy said in a statement that Parliament had “confirmed its status as a private estate” and that the Treasury had agreed that its tax status did not confer an unfair advantage. “The prince has always ensured it is run with the interests of its communities as an equal priority,” the statement said.

The duchy’s holdings reflect how the royal family’s wealth has become concentrated in the hands of Prince Charles and his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, whose own estate, the Duchy of Lancaster, paid her £21.7 million last year. Together, the two duchies bankroll more than a dozen members of the family, supplementing a taxpayer grant of £82 million last year reserved for official duties and the upkeep of several palaces.

Despite lawmakers once deeming its current income “an accident of history,” the Duchy of Cornwall has mostly avoided harsh questions, in part by playing up its interest in traditional architecture and sustainable practices across its humbler holdings: scores of farms, much of Dartmoor National Park in Devon and rivers throughout Cornwall. But analysts say that obscures fierce commercial instincts.

“If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, you sort of assume it is a duck,” a Labour lawmaker told duchy officials during a 2013 hearing. “The Duchy of Cornwall looks and behaves like a corporation.”

But the duchy does not pay taxes like a corporation. Instead it sits in a sort of legal limbo, using its royal status to skirt corporation and capital gains taxes even as it argues that, as a private estate, it has no obligation to open its books. The duchy said that its capital gains were all reinvested in the business, obviating the need to tax them, and that only companies paid corporation tax.

Prince Charles pays tax on his duchy income only voluntarily, and after deducting what analysts believe to be about £10 million that he deems official and charitable spending. He has also written off tens of thousands of pounds that he pays for gardening at Highgrove, his country house, on the basis that members of the public were occasionally invited in.

“The Duchy of Cornwall can be whatever it’s convenient for it to be,” said John Kirkhope, who wrote a doctoral thesis about the duchy in 2013. “If you want to inquire into its privileges, you can’t, because it’s supposedly a private estate, in the same way I have a private bank account. But when it’s convenient, it’s also a crown property, so that for example it doesn’t pay the same rate of tax as any similar entity would pay.”

The duchy’s powers go even further.

It inherits the possessions of anyone who dies in Cornwall without a will or next of kin, a power that in some years has yielded hundreds of thousands of pounds. The duchy funnels the money into charities after deducting its own costs.

The duchy owns the right to mine in Cornwall, even under private homes — a right that it registered to extend as recently as eight years ago.

Most extraordinarily in critics’ eyes, the duchy has the right to be consulted on any legislation that affects its interests. Over the years, governments have interpreted that to include bills about hunting, road safety, children’s rights, marine access and wreck removal. A 2008 planning law exempts the duchy from ever committing a planning offense.

A similar carve-out gives Prince Charles unusual power over homeowners on the Isles of Scilly, a picturesque archipelago off the southwestern coast of England, and in Newton St. Loe, a village near Bath.

People like Mr. Davis own their homes there, but the duchy owns the ground on which they are built. Such an arrangement is not uncommon in England, but homeowners would usually have the option to buy the land. Not on some duchy land.

That enables the duchy to charge small ground rents to homeowners grandfathered into long leases, like Mr. Davis. Once those leases lapse, it can also raise rents to thousands of pounds per year, making it difficult for people to sell or mortgage their homes.

In one case, a couple built a house on the Isles of Scilly, only for the duchy to force them to sign a lease bequeathing the property to Prince Charles’s estate upon their death, said Lord Berkeley, a Labour peer in the House of Lords.

“They set up an arrangement where tenants are too frightened to do anything, for fear of losing their property,” said Lord Berkeley, who tried unsuccessfully to push through a bill in 2017 ending the duchy’s special landlord status and removing its tax exemptions. “In what we like to think of as a democratic country, that doesn’t seem fair to me.”

Nor have lawmakers approved of how Prince Charles handles the duchy’s accounting. He pays rent to the duchy for Highgrove, his country house. But because the money goes into the duchy’s revenues, it empties back into Prince Charles’s pocket as income.

The duchy said the prince paid rent, at market value, to avoid the duchy taking on costs it shouldn’t. Still, he is effectively paying it to himself — and allowing himself to take a tax deduction.

“He pays money out from one pocket and receives it back in the other pocket,” Mr. Kirkhope said.

Polls show that the public is dubious of government funding for anyone outside the core line of succession. And Harry and Meghan’s departure has intensified the focus on how and why the public pays for the royals’ lifestyle.

Palace aides have indicated that Prince Charles may dip into his personal investments, rather than the Duchy of Cornwall, to fund Harry and Meghan’s lives in Canada. But that and much else remains unresolved, including how long British taxpayers will pay for the couple’s security.

“It’s the third rail of public discussions about the royal family: royal finances,” said Patrick Jephson, a former private secretary to Diana. “It is royal people and royal advisers’ least favorite topic of conversation.”

Mr. Davis says that among people the Isles of Scilly, around where he lives and pays his rent to the duchy, the mood has hardened against Prince Charles.

“They hate him basically,” Mr. Davis said. “Most people can’t abide him. All the money he gets goes out of the island. And that’s how he can afford to give Harry £2.3 million to live his lifestyle.”

from WordPress https://mastcomm.com/event/harry-and-meghans-big-funding-source-is-private-sort-of/

#Event

0 notes

okkrist-blog · 6 years

Text

TONY BLAIR: ‘THE WHOLE COUNTRY HAS BEEN PULLED INTO THIS TORY PSYCHODRAMA OVER EUROPE’

The last time I met Tony Blair in person, I got quite a shock. It was two years after he had left Downing Street, and the former prime minister resembled nothing so much as Francis Maude done up as a drag queen. Plucked and buffed, caked in makeup, his whole face gurned and twitched, the eyebrows and teeth performing a bizarre kind of eightsome reel. The man’s discomfort in his own skin was disturbing to witness.

The figure who greets me this week in the London office of his new Institute for Global Change is unrecognisably altered. The facial dance has vanished and he is strikingly composed; performative agitation has been replaced with centred gravitas. The cadence of his speech has changed, too; the curiously verb-less sentences are gone, along with the faux glottal stops. But then, lately, an awful lot about Blair’s life has changed, too.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

In autumn last year, he announced the closure of Tony Blair Associates, his private business empire, and the winding up of complex and controversial financial structures that have earned him so many millions and so much opprobrium. Reserves of £10m, and henceforth 80% of his time, would be devoted to his not-for-profit work. Aged 64, he is returning to frontline British politics using his institute as a platform to promote progressive centrist policy ideas and combat the rise of populism. He categorically denies any plans to create a new political party, but confirmed last weekend that he has fully committed himself to a mission to reverse Brexit.

“To leave the European Union is just an extraordinary thing to do,” he says quietly. “It’s a decision to relegate ourselves as a country. It’s like being a top-six Premier League football club, and deciding to play in the Championship from now on.” Can he recall any historical precedent for a nation volunteering to demote itself? “Not in the modern developed world, no. And if you think it’s the most important decision this country has taken in living memory, then even if you think there’s only a small chance of it being changed, if you think that’s the right thing to do, you should be up arguing for it.”

Blair is perfectly aware that many, not least on his own side of the argument, consider him so toxic that any intervention on his part can only be counter productive. I’m curious to know if he factored this in before deciding to, as he has put it, “stick my head out the door” and “get a bucket of wotsit poured all over me”.

“Of course, there will be some people who refuse, literally refuse, to listen to you because it’s you. But my experience with people most of the time is that, if you’re making a reasonable argument, they’ll listen to you on that argument, even if they disagree on other things. In any event, frankly, if there was a stampede of people getting out there then I’d be very happy to be at the back. But I don’t notice this stampede. I think this is such a serious moment for the country that it’s your obligation to go out and state the argument.”

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Blair believes it is still possible to prevent us leaving the EU, through a combination of grassroots pressure and parliamentary opposition. His problem, of course, is that, notwithstanding this government defeat on the EU withdrawal bill, his own party refuses to oppose Brexit.

“I understand it’s a very pragmatic position that the Labour party’s taking. And I don’t disapprove of pragmatism in politics at all. But I still think it’s the wrong choice. I think what the Labour party is essentially doing is saying: ‘There are a number of Labour voters who voted leave, and if we are painted as the anti-Brexit party, we’re going to lose that support. Therefore, what we should do is say: We’re going to do Brexit, and try to take Brexit out of the equation for our electorate, so they can vote [for us] on other issues.’ I completely get that. It’s a piece of political strategy. It’s actually what a lot of people would advise you to do.”

Still the legendary political operator of our time, Blair refers to “strategy” with the kind of objective respect a racehorse breeder might accord to a rival’s thoroughbred.

“I totally get it. But I think there are two problems with it. The first is that our language may be different, but we’re actually in the same position as the Tories, which is to say we’ll get out of the single market but we want a close trading relationship with Europe. Your risk is that, at a certain point, you get exposed as having the same technical problem that the Tories have, which is: here’s the Canada option, here’s the Norway option, and every time you move towards Norway you’ll be accepting the rules of the EU, but you’ve lost your say in it, and every time you move towards the Canada option you’re going to be doing economic damage. That’s the essential dilemma of the Tories, which I think will be exposed over time, and Labour’s got that problem, too.”

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Blair’s second problem with the strategy is that it prevents Labour from making what he calls “an election-winning argument”. Voters, he argues, need to be told that all their concerns about jobs, public services, opportunities for young people and, crucially, the NHS, are correct and legitimate. “But Brexit is not the answer. You can make a huge point of not just the destructive impact of Brexit, but the distractive impact of Brexit, because it’s that distraction that means that this government has no time to deal with the health service. It’s got no time to deal with the problems of poverty. It’s got no time to deal with the problems of inequality. It’s got time to deal with one thing only. The whole country has been pulled into this Tory psychodrama over Europe.”

I wonder if Blair might, like many passionate remainers, be underestimating the public ferocity towards politicians who tell them they voted the wrong way in the referendum.

“Now of course, you’d have a huge fight. But you’d be fighting from a point of principle. Think of what a galvanising movement you would have in those circumstances, because you would actually be – well, for a start you’d be saying what’s right. That’s quite an important thing to start with. Secondly, I think the impact on the Tories would be really profound, because you’d be driving a wedge right into that Tory division – and the Tories are a profoundly divided party.”

Lots of Labour politicians I talk to share this view in theory, but argue that it’s hopeless in practice while the polls fail to indicate any significant shift in public opinion against Brexit. “And I say to them, ‘But what about leadership?’” Many believe the reason the country voted to leave was precisely to defy its political leaders; if they want the public to change its mind, invoking “leadership” is the last way to go about it. Blair rolls his eyes. “Guys, come on! I mean, what the hell are you in politics for? Of course, you’ve got to listen to people, but you’ve also got to lead them. You’ve got to be a bit more robust.”

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Instead of telling leave voters they were wrong, I suggest, Labour could now have an opportunity to capitalise on Jeremy Corbyn’s own well-documented ambivalence towards Europe. Were Corbyn to say to the country: “I shared many of your misgivings. But having seen the harsh reality of what Brexit really looks like, I’m now convinced we shouldn’t do it,” would that convey both humility as well as leadership? Blair looks surprised, and pauses to consider this. “Yes. I think that’s a really good idea. I think that would be actually quite powerful. I agree, if Jeremy Corbyn was to say, ‘Look, I’ve always been sceptical about Europe, but I’ve now looked at this …’ Yes, that would be powerful.” He pauses again. “But you’ve got to want to do it.”

What does he mean? “You’ve got to want people to change their minds. I may be wrong about this, but I think there are elements of the Labour leadership who think that doing Brexit increases their possibility of winning power.” Does he mean they have calculated that it’s a strategic price worth paying for office? “Yes.”

Blair is certain this is a miscalculation. “I actually believe stopping Brexit is the route to win power.” But suppose they were right, I say, and supporting Brexit is indeed a strategic necessity for reaching No 10 – arguably not unlike new Labour’s 1997 electoral pledge to abide by Tory spending levels. Would Blair agree it’s a sacrifice worth making to win? “I don’t, actually. No. I think this principle’s too important. I do.” So given a straight choice between stopping Brexit and getting Labour elected, he would choose the former? “I’d like to see a Labour government in power. But I think the key national priority right now is stopping Brexit. I would put it above everything else right now for the country.”

The irony of Blair cast as the selfless politician willing to sacrifice power for principle, and Corbyn the power-hungry arch-triangulator, is not lost on either of us. “Yes, there is an irony in it, yes,” he agrees, smiling. “I’ve thought about that, too, and whether it’s me that’s forgetting what it’s like to try and win power.”

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Labour’s performance at the polls in June caught Blair, along with most New Labourites, by surprise, so I ask what he had failed to see in Corbyn. He smiles again. “I think what he does have is a genuine personal charm. I’ll give him that. You know, when the rightwing media were trying to build him into some sort of demented Marxist, I think his demeanour was of enormous assistance. I pay tribute to that, I genuinely do. I mean, I actually admire that.” But he puts Labour’s success chiefly down to a Tory campaign “more incompetent than any I’ve ever seen ... And I don’t think the same rules will necessarily apply in the next election.”

Blair’s faith in the politics of the centre ground remains as ideologically implacable as Corbyn’s faith in socialism. But when the demographic centre of property-owning, middle-income middle classes is collapsing, is the political centre even relevant?

“We’re in an era when people want change. I still believe you can mobilise people to vote for a vision of the future rather than two competing visions of the past, one that is this nostalgic nationalism, which is what the Brexit thing amounts to in the end, and the other, these old-style, leftist policies of the 60s. If this is the choice, OK, then people are going to choose between those things. But I still think we’ve got a huge number of people who don’t really want either of those.”

Whether Blair can still connect with the centre is unclear to me. His repeated protestations in recent years that he is “never going to be part of the super-rich” are weirdly tin-eared from a man who counts his wealth in multiples of tens of millions. He is also conspicuously uncritical of Donald Trump’s presidency. Trump represents precisely the kind of populism Blair’s institute is dedicated to fighting – and yet, he says, were he still in office, he would have invited Trump to Britain, and would not have withdrawn the invitation following the infamous Britain First retweets. He told Alastair Campbell, in a GQ interview this year: “The left media finds it very hard to be objective on Trump,” and complained that Democrats “just go mental” when he even tries to suggest Trump’s administration could do anything good. Why does Blair find it all but impossible to criticise a US president? “Look, this will not appeal to much of your readership, but I really think it’s really important that America is strong in the world – clear, consistent and predictable with its allies. I always want to protect the relationship, because its important.”

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

But if nothing matters more to Blair than Brexit, presumably it’s even more important than our relationship with the US. What I don’t understand, I say, is why he doesn’t desist from making comments about Corbyn and Trump that will only alienate the very people in Britain he is trying to win over. Telling them they’re wrong about Corbyn, and wrong about Trump, feels like more of his old compulsion to chastise the left.

“I’m not telling people they’re wrong about Trump. I’m just saying it’s not a debate I want to get into at this point in time. And there’s no point in me saying: ‘I’ve now decided Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership is fantastic and I think he’s the answer to Britain’s problems’ – because you wouldn’t believe me.”

I can’t decide which surprises me more – Blair’s resolve to privilege speaking his mind over strategising, or the impression he conveys of a man restored to peace with himself. The two are almost certainly not unrelated. But I think I detect something else in his air of calm authority. Iraq had always seemed to be almost entirely about him – first as a vehicle for his ego, then as a battleground of his reputation. What makes his campaign against Brexit feel very different, and compelling, is a sense that it has little to do with him, and everything to do with the issue itself.

But is it winnable?

“I can’t predict it. I’ve given up predicting politics. I used to be really good at it, and then I was not so good at it, and now I think it’s probably inherently unpredictable. So where do you camp in those circumstances? You camp on the ground you believe in.”