Politics

COMMENTARY: The Conscience Of Generations

| IZui0uMTe2

From the trenches of Spain to TikTok activism: How each generation finds its own way to fight injustice. I take a look at what defines moral courage across nearly a century of activism.

The photographs are fading now, fresh faces, serious beneath berets, holding rifles they barely knew how to use – ‘but if they could shoot rabbits they could shoot fascists’. They were clerks and miners, teachers and labourers, probably born around the time of World War One and united by nothing more than a conviction that fascism had to be stopped. In the winter of 1936, they kissed their wives and girlfriends goodbye at Victoria Station and caught the boat train to Paris, then walked across the Pyrenees to join a war that wasn’t theirs.

Ninety years later, their grandchildren are hunched over smartphones and laptops, typing furiously. Organising boycotts of Israeli goods, coordinating with activists in Manchester and Glasgow through encrypted messaging apps. Their enemy is different, their methods transformed, but the impulse, that peculiar British inability to mind one’s own business when faced with injustice, remains precisely the same.

This is the paradox of moral courage: it appears constant across generations, yet manifests in forms so different that each age struggles to recognise virtue in its predecessors or descendants. The young man boarding the train to Spain in 1937 and the student sharing TikTok videos about Gaza today are separated by everything except the essential thing: the refusal to be a bystander.

The Weight of History

The Spain volunteers were products of their time in ways they barely understood. They had grown up on tales of The Great War, that ghastly demonstration of what happened when good men did nothing whilst imperialism organised itself a war machine prepared to send tens of thousands to their deaths for twenty yards of Flanders. The unemployment queues of the twenties and thirties had given them first-hand experience of how political decisions destroyed ordinary lives. When Hitler began his march across Europe, they possessed a clarity of vision that seems almost enviable today.

It was a simple decision, Fascism was visibly, unmistakably evil. The choice was binary: fight or surrender civilisation itself.

Their media diet reinforced this clarity. The Left Book Club, founded by Victor Gollancz in 1936, distributed serious political analysis to tens of thousands of subscribers. These weren’t soundbites or slogans, but hefty volumes that provided comprehensive frameworks for understanding the world. Members read Orwell’s “The Road to Wigan Pier” and Edgar Snow’s “Red Star Over China” with the same intensity that previous generations had reserved for scripture.

The Communist Party of Great Britain, despite its relatively small membership, provided intellectual structure for much of the anti-fascist movement. Party members attended evening classes in Marxist theory, studied the writings of Lenin and Stalin, and engaged in lengthy debates about the contradictions and solutions dialectical materialism. It was serious, systematic, and utterly certain of its moral foundation.

This certainty came at a cost. The volunteers who returned from Spain, barely half of those who went, found themselves isolated in a society that preferred to forget their sacrifice. The government had banned participation; employers dismissed them as troublemakers; families often disowned them. They had acted on their convictions and paid the price.

The Television Generation

By the 1960s, everything had changed. Television brought warfare into British sitting rooms with an immediacy that print could never achieve. The Vietnam War, though fought 8,000 miles away, became as real as the evening news. Young people watched napalm falling on villages and made their moral calculations accordingly.

But television also fragmented attention. The Spain volunteers had spent years preparing for their moment of choice, reading widely and thinking deeply. The sixties activist might encounter a crisis on Tuesday evening news and be marching against it by Saturday afternoon. The intensity was different, more diffuse but potentially more democratic.

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament demonstrated this new model perfectly. Founded in 1958, it brought together people across traditional political divides, vicars and communists, housewives and students, united by a single issue rather than a comprehensive ideology. The annual march from Aldershot to London became a ritual of moral witness, drawing tens of thousands who might never have joined a political party.

“We weren’t trying to overthrow capitalism,” recalls Canon John Collins, an English-American priest, activist, and one of CND’s founders. “We were simply trying to prevent the incineration of humanity. It was a more modest ambition, but in its way equally urgent.”

The anti-apartheid movement perfected this approach over the following decades. Beginning in the early sixties, it combined traditional tactics, boycotts, protests, lobbying, with innovative approaches that made distant injustice personal and immediate. The boycott of South African goods meant that every shopping trip became a political choice. The campaign against sporting contacts meant that cricket and rugby matches became sites of moral conflict.

This movement also pioneered the use of celebrity endorsement. The 1988 Wembley Stadium tribute concert for Nelson Mandela reached a global audience of 600 million people, using entertainment to advance political goals. It was a technique that would become standard practice for later campaigns, but still revolutionary at the time.

The Digital Natives

Walk through any university campus today and you’ll find young people who carry the world’s suffering in their pockets. Their iPhones buzz with updates from Gaza, Myanmar, and Ukraine. They receive real-time footage of air strikes and refugee camps, police violence and peaceful protests. The question is not whether they know about global injustice, they’re drowning in it, but how they can possibly respond to such overwhelming information.

Previous generations had the luxury of ignorance, today’s students know more about global crises than foreign correspondents did thirty years ago. But knowledge without power can be paralysing.

The response has been to develop new forms of engagement that previous generations struggle to recognise as political action. Hashtag campaigns can generate millions of posts within hours. Online fundraising ‘crowdfunding’ can raise substantial sums for distant causes. Viral videos can shift public opinion more rapidly than years of traditional campaigning.

The #MeToo movement demonstrated the power of these new tools. Beginning with a simple hashtag, it created a global conversation about sexual harassment that achieved swift legislative changes and cultural shifts across dozens of countries. The climate activism organised through social media has brought millions of young people onto the streets in coordinated global protests.

Yet digital activism faces unique challenges. The rapid news cycle means that even severe crises can replaced in the news and disappear from public attention within days. This can be manipulated by senior management of media organisations in favour of their own political affiliations. The personalisation of social media means that activists often speak primarily to those who already agree with them – an echo chamber. The volume of information can lead to compassion fatigue, where audiences become numb to repeated exposure to suffering – it becomes less painful to scroll on by.

The Palestine Question

Nothing illustrates these challenges more clearly than contemporary activism around Palestine and specifically Gaza. Social media platforms enable rapid sharing of information and imagery from the territory, creating immediate and highly emotional connections between British audiences and distant suffering. Young people encounter footage of destroyed homes and dead or severely injured women and children with an immediacy that traditional media could never achieve. Traditional media older generations might recognise is perpetually behind the curve now.

The movement has achieved remarkable success in shifting public opinion, particularly among younger demographics. Polls consistently show that 18-34 year olds are more likely to support Palestinian rights than their parents’ or grandparent’s generation. This shift has occurred largely through peer-to-peer education disseminated via social media platforms.

Digital tools have also enabled new forms of economic pressure. Some activist movements use apps to help consumers identify targeted products, whilst campaigns against particular companies can generate thousands of emails and social media posts within hours. University students have occupied buildings and demanded divestment from Israeli companies, echoing the tactics used against apartheid South Africa – specifically contra to government policy causing an authoritarian shift in the rules around assembly and organising protest.

But the digital nature of much contemporary activism also creates vulnerabilities. Online harassment can be severe and persistent. Employers increasingly monitor social media activity. The Israeli (also Russian and Chinese) government has developed sophisticated techniques for countering digital campaigns, including the use of artificial intelligence to generate pro-Israeli content. Just this week the Israeli-supporting US Government has severely sanctioned Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, a pro bono lawyer employed officially by the United Nations to report on the abuse of human rights and contraventions of international law. The contradiction is stark, they host an internationally wanted world leader while sanctioning a person working for free trying to protect innocent civilians. This is not unique to modern democracies, the UK proscribes civil disobedience organisations, both human rights and climate, arresting peacefully protesting grandmothers while simultaneously hosting murderous former ISIS leaders. Geopolitics, hard and soft power work in mysterious ways.

The surveillance tools are more powerful as are the forces arrayed against change. Young activists today face surveillance and repression that previous generations couldn’t imagine.

The Persistence of Conscience

Despite these challenges, certain constants persist across generations. Each era produces individuals willing to sacrifice personal comfort for abstract principles. The 1930s volunteer who risked death in Spain, the 1980s activist who spent weekends outside the South African embassy, and the contemporary campaigner who faces online harassment for posting about Gaza all demonstrate the same fundamental impulse: the refusal to remain passive in the face of injustice.

The forms of engagement have multiplied rather than simply evolved. Today’s most effective activists often combine traditional tactics with digital tools. They might use social media to organise, but still attend physical protests. They might share information online, but also donate money and contact elected representatives.

Take Greta Thunberg, who began her climate activism with the most traditional gesture imaginable, a solitary protest outside the Swedish parliament. Yet her message spread globally through social media, inspiring millions of young people to stage their own protests. The combination of personal witness and digital amplification created a movement that achieved more in two years than traditional environmental groups had managed in decades. The cost to her personally, years of targeted abuse and harassment as she expands her activism from climate to human rights – recently her own courage and fame protecting those around her.

The Measure of Moral Courage

The temptation is always to romanticise past forms of engagement whilst dismissing contemporary ones. The Spain volunteers have achieved heroic status in progressive mythology, whilst today’s digital activists are often dismissed as “slacktivists” who mistake online participation for real engagement.

This misses the essential point. The British volunteers to Spain were no more inherently virtuous than today’s activists; they simply operated within different constraints and opportunities. They faced a clear enemy at a time when physical courage was the obvious response. Today’s activists face more widespread threats in a world where information warfare is often more important than physical confrontation.

The measure of any generation’s moral response to international crises should not be whether they replicate the actions of their predecessors, but whether they fully utilise the tools and opportunities available to them. By this standard, contemporary British activism, from the climate movement to international solidarity campaigns, demonstrates both the persistence of moral concern and the creativity required to address global challenges in an interconnected world.

The man who walked across the Pyrenees to fight fascism and the student who organises boycotts through Instagram are part of the same tradition. They have recognised that injustice anywhere threatens justice everywhere, and they have refused to be bystanders. The methods change, but the conscience remains constant.

Perhaps that is enough. Perhaps that is everything.

PS. If you are reading in the U.K. I suggest switching to Channel 4 News.

RETROSPECTIVE: Mind Bomb. A Frighteningly Accurate Crystal Ball

| IZui0uMTe2

Matt Johnson’s most urgent statement burns with uncomfortable relevance in our divided age.

Thirty-six years on from its release, The The’s third long-player stands as one of the most unnervingly prophetic albums of the late Eighties. While other bands were content to fiddle with samplers and worry about their haircuts, Matt Johnson already losing his was constructing a sonic manifesto that would prove to be a roadmap to our current cultural crisis.

The The Mind Bomb Retrospective Album Review High Quality Writing


Mind Bomb arrived in 1989 as the Berlin Wall crumbled and history supposedly ended (as Francis Fukuyama would famously argue), yet Johnson’s vision was one of perpetual conflict, religious fundamentalism, and the corrosive power of media manipulation. The album’s opening salvo, “Good Morning Beautiful”, sets the tone with its caustic examination of morning television culture, but it’s the relentless “Armageddon Days Are Here (Again)” that truly captures the album’s apocalyptic zeitgeist. Johnson’s lyrics about holy wars and the clash between East and West read like tomorrow’s headlines, not yesterday’s paranoia.

The absolutely top drawer production, helmed by Johnson himself with assistance from Warne Livesey, is a masterclass in controlled chaos. Multi-layered sampling, aggressive compression, and strategic use of space create a sound that is both claustrophobic and expansive, matching the album’s themes of global anxiety. The sonic palette ranges from the industrial clatter of “The Violence of Truth” to the tender vulnerability of “Kingdom of Rain”. Every snare hit feels like a hammer blow, every guitar line a barely contained scream.

Johnny Marr’s contributions cannot be overstated. Fresh from The Smiths’ acrimonious split, the guitarist brings a neurotic intensity to tracks like “Gravitate to Me” and “Beyond Love”. His playing here is less about the jangly romanticism of his previous band and more about channelling pure anxiety into six-string fury. The interplay between Marr’s guitar work and Johnson’s programmed rhythms creates a tension that never quite resolves, keeping the listener perpetually on edge.

Sinéad O’Connor’s appearance on “Kingdom of Rain” provides the album’s most emotionally devastating moment. Her voice, already a weapon of considerable power, oscillates between consoling whisper and wounded wail, embodying the song’s spiritual uncertainty. The track’s exploration of spiritual searching feels particularly resonant in our current age of cultural confusion, where traditional certainties have dissolved into competing narratives and alternative facts.

The album’s political content has aged with disturbing accuracy. “Armageddon Days” speaks of religious extremism and cultural conflict with a clarity that seems almost supernatural. Johnson’s warnings about the rise of fundamentalism, both Christian and Islamic, have proved grimly prescient. The line “Islam is rising, the Christians mobilising” could have been written yesterday, not in 1989. The song’s examination of how religious fervour can be weaponised for political ends has only become more relevant as we’ve witnessed the rise of authoritarian movements wrapped in religious rhetoric.

“The Beat(en) Generation” offers a scathing critique of Eighties materialism that feels equally relevant in our current age of social media narcissism and conspicuous consumption. Johnson’s voice, never conventionally attractive but always emotionally honest, delivers lines about spiritual emptiness with the fervour of a street preacher. The song’s examination of how capitalism hollows out authentic human connection has only become more pressing as we’ve become increasingly atomised and digitally mediated.

The album’s sonic adventurousness hasn’t dated either. The use of samples, field recordings, and electronic manipulation creates a sound world that feels both of its time and timeless. Tracks like “The Violence of Truth” build from minimal beginnings into towering walls of sound that mirror the album’s themes of escalating conflict and social breakdown.

Perhaps most remarkably, Mind Bomb’s pessimism feels less like Eighties angst and more like prophetic realism. Johnson’s vision of a world torn apart by religious extremism, media manipulation, and cultural confusion has largely come to pass. The album’s subtitle, “Armageddon Days Are Here (Again)”, suggests a cyclical view of history where each generation faces its own version of the apocalypse. In our current moment, with democratic institutions under stress and authoritarian movements on the rise, Johnson’s warnings feel less like artistic exaggeration and more like uncomfortable truth.

The album’s enduring power lies not just in its prescience but in its refusal to offer easy answers. Johnson doesn’t provide solutions to the problems he diagnoses; instead, he forces the listener to confront the uncomfortable realities of modern existence. In an age of increasing polarisation and cultural splintering, Mind Bomb remains a vital document of how it feels to live through the collapse of consensus reality.

Mind Bomb deserves recognition not just as a remarkable album but as a crucial historical document. It captures the exact moment when the post-war consensus began to fracture, when the Iron Curtain ‘certainties’ of the Cold War gave way to the complexities of religious and cultural conflict. That Johnson managed to channel this historical moment into something so musically compelling is testament to his vision as both artist and prophet.

In our current moment of global crisis, Mind Bomb feels less like a relic of the past and more like a survival guide for the present. It’s an album that grows more relevant with each passing year, a dark mirror reflecting our own divided times back at us with very uncomfortable clarity.

RETROSPECTIVE: Joe Strummer’s Culture Clash Single

| IZui0uMTe2

The Clash’s Reggae Revolution Examined. Just two years into the Seventies British punk era, this is no three-chord thrash. A brave, culturally and politically insightful brilliant record that asked questions the scene wasn’t ready to answer.

Four Colour The Clash White Man In Hammersmith Palais


Many years on from its release, Joe Strummer and Mick Jones’ most pointed cultural critique still cuts like a razor through the pretensions of punk’s supposed solidarity. ‘Seventy Eight’s “White Man In Hammersmith Palais” wasn’t just The Clash dipping their toes into reggae waters, it was a full-blooded dive into the contradictions of being white, privately educated (or art school) punks singing about revolution whilst signed to a major label.

The genesis of this track lies in Strummer and Don Letts’ pilgrimage to see Jamaican acts like Dillinger, Leroy Smart, and Delroy Wilson (the ‘Smooth Operator’) at the famous West London venue in early 1978. What they witnessed wasn’t the cultural communion Strummer expected, but a stark reminder of his own position as an outsider looking in. The resulting song became punk’s most honest examination of cultural tourism and political posturing.

Musically, it’s The Clash at their most adventurous pre-London Calling. The always under appreciated Topper Headon’s ska beat is perfect, not a ham-fisted attempt but a genuine understanding of reggae’s rhythmic subtleties. Mick Jones’ guitar work walks the tightrope between punk urgency and reggae’s more spacious approach, whilst Simonon’s bass provides the crucial foundation that makes the whole thing swing rather than simply thrash.

But it’s Strummer’s lyrical dissection of the disappointment of that night in the lightweight way the bands presented – plus the culture clash South London zeitgeist that elevates this from mere genre experiment to the essential punk document it has become. His observations about fashion victims “too busy fighting for a good place under the lighting’ and weekend revolutionaries were aimed squarely at punk’s emerging orthodoxies and not for the first time. That fabulous line about ‘turning rebellion into money’ and the hollowness of sloganeering hit closer to home than many wanted to admit. This wasn’t The Clash having a go at the establishment this was them turning the mirror on themselves and their scene, one now infiltrated by the Far Right.

The single’s commercial failure at the time, it barely scraped in, seems almost inevitable in hindsight. A huge fork in the road that was too reggae for the punk purists, too punk for the Rastas, and too uncomfortable for those who preferred their politics less complicated including anti-violence, wealth distribution, unity. Lyrically Strummer is really kicking off. Radio programmers didn’t know what to do with it, and neither did much of the press initially. This ain’t no White Riot redux.

Urban mythology has built up around the track over the years. Some claim Strummer wrote it in a fit of disgust after seeing Far Right punks and skinheads doing Nazi salutes at the Palais gig, though those who were there aren’t convinced of that. Others insist it was a direct response to criticism from Jamaican musicians about white bands appropriating reggae. The truth, as usual, is probably more mundane: four young men trying to make sense of their place in a musical and political landscape that was shifting beneath their feet.

What’s undeniable is the track’s influence on what followed. Without “White Man,” there’s no London Calling album, no “Rudie Can’t Fail,” no bridging of punk and reggae under the influence of Letts’, and that became one of The Clash’s defining characteristics. It opened doors not just for The Clash but forother bands who realised that punk’s year zero mentality was creative suicide and a punky reggae party might be route one for them too.

The production, handled by the band and Sandy Pearlman is sparse without being minimal, allowing each element space to breathe whilst maintaining punk’s essential urgency. The decision to keep Strummer’s vocals relatively low in the mix was inspired it forces you to lean in and listen rather than simply absorb. I’ve got four copies and I dread to think how many times my white ears have heard it. It’s impossible to get bored with.

Looking back, “White Man In Hammersmith Palais” stands as perhaps The Clash’s most prescient moment. Its questions about authenticity, appropriation, and the commodification of rebellion feel more relevant now than they did in 1978. ‘If Adolph Hitler flew in today, they’d send a limousine anyway’ they’d also get his opinion of this week’s Nazi atrocity. In an era when punk has been thoroughly sanitised and packaged for consumption, Strummer’s uncomfortable truths about the music industry are prophetic.

The Clash would go on to greater commercial success, but they never again achieved quite this level of self-awareness. “White Man” remains their most honest song, a moment when they looked in the mirror and didn’t like everything they saw, but had the courage to share that reflection with the world.

ART POP / POP ART: Jerry Dammers’ Multi-Cultural Vision

| IZui0uMTe2

Or Rude Boy Revolution: Jerry Dammers Two Tone Vision.

In the drab concrete wasteland of late-70s Coventry, while the rest of Britain was busy ripping its clothes and safety-pinning them back together again, a bespectacled keyboard player with a vision was plotting a different kind of revolution. One that would eventually come dressed in sharp suits, pork pie hats and checkerboard patterns.

Jerry Dammers the dentally challenged architect of Two Tone Records, founder of The Specials, and perhaps the most criminally underappreciated musical visionary of his generation didn’t stumble upon his aesthetic by accident. The roots of Two Tone’s striking visual identity and multicultural musical fusion can be traced directly to Room 057 of Lanchester Polytechnic’s art department, where young Dammers spent his days absorbing influences that would later explode into a cultural phenomenon.

The Art School Radical

Lanchester Poly (now Coventry University) in the mid-70s was hardly Central Saint Martins, but what it lacked in glamour it made up for in gritty authenticity. While Malcolm McLaren and Jamie Reid were cooking up the Sex Pistols’ confrontational visuals in London, Dammers was in Coventry, quietly developing his own radical visual language.

“Art school was where I learned about Constructivism and Bauhaus,” Dammers once explained in a rare interview. “That black and white check pattern came directly from studying those movements, simple, bold, impossible to ignore.”

The checkerboard motif that became Two Tone’s signature wasn’t just visually striking, it was loaded with meaning. Black and white squares existing side by side, neither dominating the other. In Thatcher’s Britain, with racial tensions simmering and the National Front on the march, Dammers’ art school education gave him the tools to create a powerful visual metaphor for racial unity.

His tutors recall a serious, somewhat detached student whose sketchbooks were filled with record sleeve concepts years before he had a record label to release them on. While other students were making self-indulgent installations, Dammers was obsessively designing logos, posters, and manifestos for a cultural movement that existed only in his imagination.

The Coventry Sound System

If art school provided the visual framework, Coventry’s streets supplied the soundtrack. The city’s substantial Jamaican community had brought with them a rich musical heritage that fascinated Dammers. He spent countless nights in West Indian blues clubs, absorbing the hypnotic rhythms of ska and rocksteady, watching how the music created community in the dingy basements of a city best known for being bombed to smithereens in WWII.

“The thing about those Jamaican sounds,” recalls Neville Staple, who would later join Dammers in The Specials, “was that they were already fusion music. Ska itself came from Jamaicans late-night listening to American R&B on crackling radio stations and reinterpreting it through their own cultural lens.”

This was the critical insight that Dammers took from those nights, that musical cross-pollination wasn’t appropriation but conversation. The idea that white punks and black skinheads could find common ground on the dance floor became the foundation of the Two Tone philosophy. A near identical philosophy being formed by Joe Strummer, the white man In Hammersmith Palais.

The Poly Basement Tapes

Lanchester Poly’s dingy rehearsal rooms became the laboratory where Dammers conducted his grand experiment. The Automatics (later renamed The Specials) began as a ragtag collective of art students and local musicians, with Dammers as the unsmiling conductor, pushing his bandmates to fuse punk’s energy with ska’s rhythmic sophistication.

It wasn’t always harmonious. Punk purists thought the ska elements were gimmicky; traditionalists found the punk influence sacrilegious. But Dammers, with the single-minded determination of the true art school obsessive, drove the band forward through sheer force of will.

“Jerry would bring these complicated charts to rehearsal,” remembers original Specials guitarist Lynval Golding. “Most of us couldn’t read music that well, but he had this complete vision in his head. Sometimes we’d spend hours on just two bars of a song until it had exactly the tension he was looking for.”

That tension between disciplines, between cultures, between chaos and control became the defining characteristic of The Specials’ sound. It was the musical equivalent of a Bauhaus design: stripped down to its essential elements, each serving a specific purpose, no ornamentation for its own sake.

The Birth Of Two Tone

When Dammers finally launched Two Tone Records in 1979, it emerged fully formed, with an aesthetic coherence that betrayed its art school origins. Everything from the label’s logo to the bands’ uniforms to the stark black and white promotional photos spoke of a unified vision that was simultaneously retro and futuristic.

The label’s first release, “Gangsters” by The Specials, was pressed with an initial run of just 5,000 copies. Dammers personally designed the sleeve, a stark black and white affair featuring Walt Jabsco, the label’s rude boy mascot adapted from a photograph of Peter Tosh. It sold out immediately, and the Two Tone revolution was underway.

What followed was a brief but incandescent moment in British music history. The Selecter, Madness, The Beat, and others joined the Two Tone stable, each putting their own spin on the fusion sound Dammers had pioneered. For a glorious 18 months, these bands dominated the music charts, bringing their message of racial unity to Top of the Pops while the country burned with riot and discontent.

The sad irony is that Dammers’ art school training, which gave him the tools to create Two Tone’s unified aesthetic, also contained the seeds of the movement’s demise. Like so many art school idealists before him, from Brian Eno to Pete Townshend, Dammers couldn’t stop evolving while the movement he’d created crystalized around him.

By the time of The Specials’ masterpiece “Ghost Town” a harrowing sonic portrait of urban decay that hit number one during the 1981 riots Dammers was already restless, pushing toward more experimental sounds that left both bandmates and audience bewildered.

When The Specials inevitably fractured, Dammers formed the jazz-influenced Special AKA, creating the anti-apartheid anthem “Free Nelson Mandela.” It was another masterpiece of political pop, but by then the Two Tone moment had passed. The art student had moved on to new experiments while his classmates were still copying his previous breakthrough.

Legacy

Today, Lanchester Polytechnic is long gone, absorbed into Coventry University. The concrete brutalism of 1970s Coventry has been softened by redevelopment. And Jerry Dammers has become something of a recluse, occasionally emerging for DJ sets of obscure jazz and world music.

But the impact of that collision; between art school theory and street-level reality, between black and white musical traditions, between design and visceral energy continues to reverberate. From the multicultural dance collectives of the 90s to the post-genre experiments of today’s London scene, Dammers’ Two Tone vision has proven remarkably prescient.

Perhaps the most telling testament to Dammers’ achievement is that the checkerboard pattern he adapted from his art school studies has transcended its origins to become a universal signifier of ska music across the globe. From Tokyo to Mexico City, bands still don pork pie hats and two-tone suits to pay homage to the vision of a serious young art student from Coventry who dared to imagine that black and white could create something more powerful together than apart.

In an age of algorithmic playlists and frictionless fusion, it’s worth remembering that Two Tone wasn’t just about mixing musical styles. It was a complete artistic statement; visual, musical, political and crafted with the disciplined vision of a true art school radical. And somewhere in a dusty archive at Coventry University, there may still exist the student sketches where Jerry Dammers first dreamed it all up, years before the first needle dropped on “Gangsters” and changed British music forever.

“The thing about Jerry, is that he was never just a musician. He was always creating this whole world with its own rules and values. That’s what you got from him being an art student he saw the big picture while the rest of us were just trying to get a gig on Saturday night.” Neville Staples.

In that sense, Two Tone was perhaps one of the greatest art school movements in British pop, marginally less famous than the one that gave us the Sex Pistols, but in many ways more enduring. After all, McLaren, Lydon and Pistols told us there was “No Future.” Dammers and his Two Tone multi-cultural vision insisted there could be if only we were brave enough to imagine it together.

Jerry Dammers attended Lanchester Polytechnic, Coventry, 1972-1975

—

Art Pop / Pop Art: a study of the influences of art school, famous artists and movements on pop and rock music. Those institutions where failure is motivation, where the eccentric and pretentious emerge into the fascinating space where art and music meet.

CURRENT AFFAIRS: America’s Reserve Currency Status Anxiety

| IZui0uMTe2

How Trump’s Trade Wars Threaten the US Dollar’s Global Crown

Since the Bretton Woods Agreement of 1945, the American dollar has reigned supreme in global finance. Like a trusted old friend, it has been welcomed across trading floors from Tokyo to London, from Sydney to São Paulo. Yet this remarkable privilege, often taken for granted in Washington’s corridors of power, now faces an existential challenge that few Americans properly comprehend.

When foreign manufacturers ship their trainers, televisions and trinkets to American shores, they collect dollar payments that subsequently flow through the veins of the global economy. These greenbacks grease the wheels of international commerce, particularly in vital commodities markets where oil, wheat and metals trade exclusively in Uncle Sam’s currency. The arrangement has served America handsomely, with foreigners regularly returning these dollars to purchase US Treasury bonds, effectively financing American government spending at bargain-basement interest rates.

This seemingly magical arrangement comes with a seldom-discussed requirement: America must run persistent trade deficits. Far from being an economic weakness, as populist politicians frequently claim, these deficits actually supply the world with the dollars it needs to conduct international trade. It’s a peculiar financial alchemy that transforms America’s appetite for imports into global financial influence.

The dollar’s supremacy isn’t merely about national pride, it’s the foundation of America’s financial advantage. When foreigners willingly hold dollars and dollar-denominated assets, they’re essentially providing interest-free loans to the American economy.

Yet this delicate system faces mounting pressure. The recent American embrace of punitive tariffs against major trading partners resembles nothing so much as a game of financial Russian roulette. As global commerce redirects away from American markets, the circulation of dollars naturally diminishes. Foreign exporters, holding fewer greenbacks, subsequently purchase fewer Treasury bonds.

The consequences quickly cascade. To attract sufficient buyers for its debt, the US Treasury must offer more generous returns, pushing interest rates upward across the American economy. Mortgages grow more expensive, corporate borrowing costs soar, and consumers face steeper credit card bills. Meanwhile, the American government’s interest payments balloon, exacerbating already troublesome budget deficits.

What many fail to grasp is that the dollar’s global status isn’t guaranteed by divine right, it depends entirely on the confidence of individuals and institutions worldwide, confidence that appears increasingly fragile.

Historical precedent offers little comfort. Reserve currency status, once lost, proves devilishly difficult to reclaim. The British pound’s agonising descent from global prominence after World War II provides a cautionary tale that American policymakers would be wise to heed.

Perhaps most concerning, America’s financial system operates with remarkably slim margins of safety. A Swiss watch requires a screwdriver not a hammer. The federal government’s debt has swollen to unprecedented levels, while interest payments consume an ever-larger portion of tax revenues. In this precarious context, preserving the dollar’s international standing isn’t merely a matter of prestige, it’s essential for America’s financial survival.

As spring sunshine bathes Washington’s cherry blossoms, America’s financial future hangs in the balance. Nobody but Trump and his team know if this is just a lull in the storm, or the strong arm tactics of Asia-Pacific countries and Canada selling US Treasury Bonds has given them the shock they require to back off this tough and misguided tariff policy? Do they fully appreciate the gravity of what’s at stake. For a nation accustomed to dollar dominance, the adjustment to a multipolar currency world or a pretender to the currency crown would prove jarring indeed.

See also, USA Rogue State and The Great Crypto For Gold Heist.

#GlobalFinance #DollarDominance #TradePolicy #ThinkTank #EconomicOutlook #InternationalTrade #FinancialMarkets

CURRENT AFFAIRS: The Great Crypto For Gold Heist

| IZui0uMTe2

The Golden Cryptocurrency Caper: A Tale of Modern Alchemy

In which your correspondent discovers how America’s richest men plan to transform Fort Knox’s gold into digital fortune

Picture, if you will, the ultimate Monte Carlo card table game being played out in the Washington halls of power. The stakes? Merely the entire gold reserve of the United States. The players? A fascinating cast of characters that would make Ian Fleming envious: a maverick billionaire whose rockets link the stars, a disruptor president with a golden tower, and digital age ‘Tech Bro’ alchemists who’ve convinced themselves, and the president, they can transform base mathematics into pure profit.

The scene unfolds at Fort Knox, the imposing Kentucky fortress that has captured the imagination of many a crime writer. But unlike the unsophisticated schemes of yesteryear, this caper requires no guns, explosives, no tunneling, and no masks. Instead, our protagonists come armed with legislation, algorithms, and the kind of audacity that only billions in paper wealth can buy.

At the heart of this contemporary tale lies a simple scheme. Our casual looking crypto conspirators have discovered themselves in possession of vast digital fortunes; Bitcoin, Dogecoin, and their algorithmic kin yet find themselves unable to convert their mathematical wealth into the more traditional trappings. Their solution? Convince Uncle Sam to become the ultimate cryptocurrency whale.

The mechanics of the plan display the kind of elegant simplicity that would make a Philip Starck proud. First, manufacture a crisis, in this case, a suddenly urgent need to “verify” Fort Knox’s gold reserves, which have been resting quite comfortably these many decades. Then, through the convenient vehicle of the unwieldy entitled ‘Boosting Innovation, Technology, and Competitiveness through Optimized Investment Nationwide Act of 2024’ AKA the BITCOIN Act (a name that manages to be both simultaneously accurate and misleading), create a legal framework to revalue this gold dramatically upwards from its current modest $42 per ounce. 

Potentially a crowd silencing $400 billion in gold, transformed through legislative alchemy into $677 billion of crypto purchasing power, as per the act, to be directed toward the acquisition of Bitcoin at a pace calculated to keep the market buoyant while the currently hamstrung crypto-wealthy now out gracefully.

Consider the sophistication of the play: crypto interests have invested over $100 million in recent elections, to them an early play in thus high-stakes game. Elon Musk, a modern-day Howard Hughes, has contributed $29 million of his own funds, a trifling sum compared to the potential returns.

Most amusing is Donald Trump’s evolution from cryptocurrency skeptic to digital evangelist. DJT’s journey from declaring crypto a “scam” to embracing it as the future of finance has been both dramatic and already highly lucrative.

The true genius of the scheme lies in its solution to what one might call the cryptocurrency gentleman’s dilemma: how to convert theoretical wealth into the kind that can buy islands, yachts, or other necessities of the well-lived life. The largest holders of Bitcoin face a predicament worthy of a classical tragedy. They’re billionaires on paper, but attempting to sell would destroy the very market that makes them wealthy.

Their solution? Make the American taxpayer their buyer of last resort. Regular currency is backed by a lender of last resort; e.g. The Bank of England or the Federal Reserve. The now legally planned purchase of 200,000 Bitcoin yearly for five years isn’t just financial policy it’s an escape hatch for the digital lords, allowing them to quietly cash out their otherwise unsaleable positions while the public treasury takes their place in the crypto nobility.

One must admire the sheer panache of it all. No masks, no guns, no getaway car, just paperwork and pixels, transforming public gold into private fortune with the stroke of a pen or key. Robber barons with style. 

Where are the watchdogs? Perhaps they’re too busy admiring the technical brilliance of the plan to raise the alarm. Or perhaps, they’ve been generously encouraged to turn a blind eye.

The entire affair raises an interesting question for the modern political philosopher: When does financial innovation cross the line into grand larceny? Is there a meaningful difference between a digital heist and a legislative one? You could argue the Bush family and friends’ Gulf Wars were legitimised heists through the military industrial complex and their owners. These are the kinds of questions one might ponder over a bottle of mineral water, preferably while one’s cryptocurrency holdings are still worth something.

For now, the game continues. The players lecture the masses with the confidence of those accustomed to winning, while the rest of us watch with the kind of fascination normally reserved for high-wire acts performed without a net. One thing is certain: when the music stops, someone will be left without a chair, and it probably won’t be the gentlemen who wrote the rules. Excuse the mixing of metaphors. 

In the meantime, you can only admire the audacity, preferably from a safe distance, because they’re buying Bitcoin at a record high *cough* perhaps while enjoying a martini, shaken, not stirred as a modern day Ian Fleming may contemplate how the ancient art of the confidence trick has evolved so elegantly in our digital age. The villain elevated to the most powerful individual in the world. You couldn’t write it because in a short while, truth may be stranger than fiction. 

CURRENT AFFAIRS: USA Rogue State?

| IZui0uMTe2

What If The United States Became a Rogue State? Should Great Britain Be Worried?

Let me be clear: I’m not engaging in hyperbole when I pose this question. As we witness the unfolding transformation of American governance under the restored Trump presidency, the international community faces an unprecedented dilemma. The special relationship between Britain and America – long the cornerstone of global democratic stability – now presents us with profound challenges.

The Project 2025 blueprint, meticulously prepared during Trump’s hiatus from power, reads less like a traditional transition plan and more like a manifesto for institutional demolition. Its architects have made no secret of their intentions: the systematic dismantling of what they term the “deep state” – in reality, the very bureaucratic safeguards that have long prevented executive overreach.

Consider the appointments. The installation of loyalists across federal agencies isn’t merely standard political patronage; it represents a fundamental restructuring of American governance. Career civil servants, those repositories of institutional knowledge and regulatory expertise, are being replaced by individuals whose primary qualification appears to be unwavering personal fealty to the president.

The consequences for Britain’s defence and security infrastructure are particularly alarming. Our military doctrine, built upon decades of joint operations and shared intelligence, suddenly stands on unstable ground. The Five Eyes intelligence-sharing agreement – arguably the most sophisticated multilateral intelligence arrangement in history – faces unprecedented strain. American intelligence agencies, now under explicitly political leadership, have already begun restricting certain intelligence flows, citing “national security reorganisation priorities.”

Consider the implications for our armed forces. Joint military exercises, long the backbone of NATO interoperability, are being cancelled or dramatically scaled back. British commanders report increasing difficulty in coordinating with their American counterparts, many of whom have been replaced by political appointees with limited military experience. The integrated defence systems that protect our shores – many reliant on American technology and real-time data sharing – face potential compromises in their effectiveness.

The economic ramifications are equally concerning. The City of London, which has thrived on its role as a crucial hub for dollar-denominated transactions, faces new uncertainties. American financial regulators, now operating under a “America First” directive, have begun implementing measures that effectively discriminate against foreign financial institutions, including British ones. The pound sterling’s traditional correlation with the dollar has become a liability rather than a stability mechanism.

Our defence industry, deeply integrated with American suppliers and technologies, faces severe disruption. Critical components for everything from our nuclear deterrent to our cyber-defence systems rely on American cooperation. The new administration’s “domestic preference” policies threaten to sever supply chains that have taken decades to build. British defence manufacturers, who have invested heavily in joint projects with American partners, now face the prospect of being frozen out of key markets.

The foreign policy pivot is particularly alarming. The new administration’s embrace of what they call “pragmatic nationalism” has effectively translated into the abandonment of longstanding alliances. NATO, already weakened during Trump’s first term, now faces existential questions about its relevance. The president’s recent remarks about “letting Putin sort out Europe” sent shockwaves through diplomatic circles, yet they barely raised eyebrows in Washington’s new political reality.

For Britain, this presents an excruciating dilemma. Our diplomatic corps, accustomed to navigating the special relationship’s occasional turbulence, now faces a fundamental question: How does one maintain a strategic partnership with a nation that increasingly rejects the very international order it helped create?

The impact on our cyber security is particularly worrying. The integrated nature of British-American cyber defence means that any degradation in cooperation immediately increases our vulnerability to state-sponsored attacks. The National Cyber Security Centre, which has relied heavily on real-time threat intelligence from American partners, reports a significant decrease in the quality and quantity of shared information.

The parallels with historical shifts in global power dynamics are unsettling. Like the decline of previous empires, America’s transition from global stabiliser to potential disruptor isn’t happening through military defeat or economic collapse, but through internal transformation. The machinery of state remains intact; it’s the operating system that’s being rewritten.

Critics might dismiss these concerns as catastrophising from the liberal establishment. But consider the concrete actions: the withdrawal from key international treaties, the deliberate undermining of multilateral institutions, the embrace of authoritarian leaders while democratic allies are publicly berated. These aren’t theoretical risks – they’re happening in real time.

The implications for Britain’s defence posture are stark. Our nuclear deterrent, while operationally independent, relies heavily on American technology and support. The new administration’s ambiguous stance on nuclear cooperation agreements has raised serious questions about long-term sustainability. The Royal Navy’s carrier strike groups, designed to operate in concert with American forces, may need to be reconceptualised for a world where such cooperation cannot be guaranteed.

Some in Whitehall advocate a “wait and see” approach, suggesting that institutional inertia will temper the administration’s more radical impulses. This misreads both the scope of the Project 2025 agenda and the determination of its implementers. The systematic placement of ideological allies throughout the federal bureaucracy creates a multiplication effect that could outlast the administration itself.

What’s required is a clear-eyed reassessment of Britain’s strategic position. This doesn’t mean abandoning the special relationship, but rather reconceptualising it for an era where American partnership comes with new risks and complications. Strengthening European security cooperation, diversifying intelligence partnerships, and building resilience against potential economic coercion should be immediate priorities.

The question isn’t whether America will remain powerful – it will. The question is how that power will be wielded, and whether the international community can adapt to an America that increasingly views global relationships through a transactional, zero-sum lens.

For Britain, this may mean making difficult choices. Our diplomatic tradition of constructive ambiguity – maintaining close ties with both Europe and America – may no longer be sustainable if those relationships pull us in fundamentally different directions.

The coming months will be crucial. As Project 2025’s implementations accelerate and the new administration’s foreign policy takes concrete form, Britain’s response will shape not just bilateral relations but our place in the emerging global order. The special relationship isn’t dead, but it’s entering uncharted territory. We must navigate with our eyes wide open to both the risks and the opportunities this presents.

This isn’t about abandoning our American allies – it’s about protecting our own interests in an era where those allies may be operating under a radically different set of priorities. The question in my headline isn’t merely provocative; it’s one that British policymakers must seriously consider as they plan for an increasingly uncertain future.