"The highest ambition of the integrated spectacle is still to turn secret agents into revolutionaries, and revolutionaries into secret agents".

-Guy Debord, Comments on the Society of the Spectacle.

The flat-out insinuation that one of the leaders of the anti-war movement is a spy will horrify many. It is not, however, as though such a thing is unprecedented - the trade union movement, for instance, has harboured its' fair share of spies, as have most independant activist groups.

But Geoerge Galloway? A man whose integrity cannot be doubted? Well, there are doubts about that. For instance, his role in the scandals around Saddam Hussein's oil has still not been clarified, and his constant threats of libel action, backed by vast amounts of money that he got from somewhere are notorious among critics of the firebrand MP, and this makes it difficult for anyone who can't afford to defend such a case to investigate further.

In addition, Galloway has many of the characteristic features of a high-functioning personality disorder - his quick smile, which is almost like a facial tic, the way he changes his emotional range from very angry to calm and urbane depending on the audience, yet sometimes switching his trademark fury on and off like a light switch (as any fan of his radio talk show will attest).

Galloway is known to fund an extremely expensive lifestyle. Homes in New York and London, expensive cars, first class air travel between the Palestine convoy and other engagemetns and back again, Savile Row suits, Cuban cigars...

In other words, Galloway fits the profile, as they say - he has the sort of personality that would gravitate to treachery, he has expensive tastes and there are indications that he could be a target for blackmail.

His recent rant about T.E. Lawrence is very telling. Lawrence himself was an interesting character and very similar politically to Galloway - he was very pro-Arab and thought that giving the Arabs a large, single country would benefit Britain. The two are not neccesarily mutually exclusive.

In any case, the State often engages in friendly relations with its supposed enemies. The Iran-Contra affair proves that. The Americans and Israelis gave a vast amount of advanced weapons to their sworn enemies in return for cash and the speedy repatriation of American prisoners. Could a similar effort be going on right now, behind the scenes?

Compared to the above act of treachery, Galloway hasn't harmed the British state at all. Quite the reverse - He's channeled Islamic hostility against Britain in the direction of Israel instead.

In fact, anyone who genuinely threatens the State can be crushed like a bug. Look at what happened to Arthur Scargill - they smashed him and his trade union, literally. In fact they had spies right next to him just like in those nasty undemocratic foreign countries we hear so much about.

Galloway and his movement in no way threatens the State, although they do give the appearance of challenging State power, which is all to the good as it gives him credibility with activists and extremists alike - possibly even the reader of this article, whom I imagine to be recoiling in horror at my suggestions.

The results of George Galloways' leadership are certainly undeniable: Galloway's actions and those of his compadres have in fact saved the British State considerable trouble. They have taken a movement that could command a million people onto the streets of London and turned it into a small pressure group whose main target is not USUK's War On Terror or even the war in Iraq, but some country called Israel and people whom they call "Zionists", a racially loaded catch-all term that is used to silence anyone who disagrees with one politically.

What they have done is to make the "Zionists" (or just possibly, the Jews), into scapegoats for the War On Terror. Before this happened the British State were looking at some serious civil disobedience if they went ahead with their attack on Iraq, there's not much chance of that happening now though.

A side benefit of Galloway's scapegoating tactics is to channel the aggression of Islamic Fundamentalists away from British interests and onto Israel. Every pound that's donated to Hamas is not being donated to the Iraq insurgency.

There is another possiblity. It is well known that the West's allegiences change constantly - Saddam was our best friend when he was blowing away the Iranian Shia, I myself distinctly remember being taught in school that the Iraqis were "moderate" compared to the "extremist" Shia Iranians. Perhaps our governments' alliance with Israel is similarly shallow.

It certainly wouldn't surprise me if he was some sort of unofficial diplomat to Hamas, possibly funneling funds to them in exchange for influence or merely for a moratorium on attacks on British soil. We might just find out in thirty years - they'll couch it in terms of Galloway being a "back-channel", of him "influencing moderates" - just as the bare-faced treason of Iran-Contra is described as a deal with "moderates" today.

Of course, this is all just a bit of a laugh and these are all just co-incidences that I bring to amuse you all. Parapolitics shouldn't be taken too seriously.