Porter’s Pensées

[I’ve been nervous of publishing this, in view of the way that any criticism of Israel can be labelled ‘anti-semitic’ by dedicated supporters of the modern Israeli government. (See – again – Asa Winstanley, Weaponising Anti-Semitism, 2023.) I don’t regard myself as anti-semitic by any stretch of that word; and seriously hope that what I write here won’t be taken in that way.]

‘Israel stands on stolen territory’. Well, yes; but to start with we should acknowledge that many if not most nations of the world are the results of theft: built, that is, on land taken from others. I imagine that the Celts or Britons who originally lived in the part of England I come from were pretty cross with my Saxon antecedents when they pushed them westwards to allow them (the East Saxons) to settle in Chelmsford. (Or where Chelmsford is now.) A more recent example of course is the entire American continent, both north and south, whose present populations are by and large not the ones that lived and ruled there 500 years ago. Humanity’s history has been one of successive waves of territorial expansion and robbery. So, historically, Israel’s situation today is not unique.

In fact it fits this pattern pretty well. The land on which the modern state of Israel stands was stolen from its previous inhabitants and rulers – mainly Arabs and Ottomans at the time it was taken over – by a people whose ‘title’ to it rested on disputed interpretations of an ancient religious text, implying that God, no less, had ‘promised’ it to the Jews several thousand years previously. There were other and I think better reasons for their occupation, which I’ll come on to later; but these can’t alter the fact that it involved blatant land robbery: a form of ‘colonialism’ familiar from what we are taught to despise in the European history of a century or two ago. For a historian of that period and of that episode, the parallels are striking: the seizure by force of an already occupied land; the ‘settlement’ movement going on now in the West Bank, involving the bulldozing of Arab villages to make room for Jewish incomers; the religio-racism that lies at the foundation of Israel’s very existence; and the virtual ‘apartheid’ found in many areas of Israeli social life that this gives rise to. These are all genuine throw-backs to, or continuations of, the original and much despised ‘European age of imperialism’; with its colonialist character given extra credence by Israel’s supposed origin in the infamous ‘Balfour Declaration’, which was issued by a British imperialist for imperial motives of his own.

So, the creation of Israel started off as a crime; but then what state hasn’t, if we look far enough back in time? More serious is the fact that it has become obvious subsequently that it was also a huge diplomatic mistake, bearing in mind the troubles it has given rise to, right up to the present day. Some of these have been the results of a misreading of Balfour’s original ‘Declaration’, which promised the Jews only ‘a national home’ – whatever that meant – ‘in Palestine’; and – crucially – ‘its being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine’. Israel of course has gone some way beyond that; which is one of the reasons (not the only one – clearly Hamas bears a great portion of the blame) why she and the Palestinians are in conflict with each other today.  

But history – even historical crimes – should not determine the present in every situation. Otherwise we should need to give America back to the Amerindians, Northern Ireland back to the original Irish, and Chelmsford back to the Welsh. History, whether modern or very ancient, as in this case, can be a useful tool for understanding the present; but it can’t be allowed to confine our present-day options in any way. The most it should do is to make the ‘winners’ of past events – modern Americans, Ulstermen, Chelmsfordians; in this instance Israeli Jews – aware of the ways in which they have ‘won’ their new countries, and of the resentments that may still linger from those times.

The other – and to my mind better – factors said to justify the Jews’ takeover of this territory are, of course, the appalling atrocities committed against their people over the centuries, culminating in the Russian persecutions of the 19th century and then the Nazi Holocaust; against any repetition of which it is perfectly understandable that modern Jews feel that a nation-state of their own will safeguard them. Of course the Palestinian Arabs had nothing to do with any of this, which is what makes it doubly unjust that they should be saddled with the West’s tardy act of contrition for allowing it. But the Jews’ appalling suffering in comparatively recent times must explain and even justify the sympathy that many of us have for them, and consequently for the solution that was found for them in 1948.

That this solution has turned out so problematically should not justify our turning back on it completely, as Hamas for example proposes. But it surely ought to encourage Israeli governments to tread more softly than they have over the past few years in response; keeping in the front of their minds the original offence – so far as the Palestinians are concerned – from which all this horror sprang. Clearly bombing the living daylights out of the Gaza enclave is not doing this. And it is also turning many of Israel’s and Judaism’s former friends and admirers into what are now being slandered as ‘anti-Semites’, when they clearly aren’t.

In fact it surely can’t be, when those critics include many Jews themselves, both in Israel and in the diaspora. Here is one example: prominent members of the highly influential British Board of (Jewish) Deputies, coming out against Netanyhu’s and the IDF’s actions yesterday. ‘Israel’s soul is being ripped out and we, members of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, fear for the future of the Israel we love and have such close ties to’.  (See https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c77ndzkz778o.) That is powerful.

In Britain a crucial economic decision – the government taking over control of the steel industry – requires the recall of Parliament to endorse it; which it did today. Over in the USA the President, entirely on his own, makes deep and sweeping economic changes – mainly the imposition of tariffs – under the terms of an emergency law passed years ago, and intended to be used only in case of war; without Congress getting a look in. Which is the more genuine ‘democracy’?

On another but related topic, here’s a piece on Trump’s and Vance’s current attack on the Smithsonian: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/04/14/at-the-smithsonian-donald-trump-takes-aim-at-history.

Eric Blair – thou shouldst be living at this hour.

The Swedish Vänsterpartiet (‘Left Party’: formerly Communist but no longer) is currently being attacked on exactly the same specious grounds as Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party was a few years ago. (See Asa Winstanley, Weaponising Anti-Semitism, OR Books, New York, 2023.) Here’s an English-language account of the Swedish controversy: https://www.jns.org/eja-calls-for-swedish-mp-to-apologize-or-be-expelled-for-sharing-antisemitic-image/.

Of course the image referred to there – originally published on social media (only), and attributed to one ‘Mohamed Hadid’ – picturing an Israeli hand ‘controlling the world’, clearly reflects a common anti-semitic trope from the past; and whether or not it was intended to be directed against Jews as a people should clearly not have been used. It’s also apparent from her written comment that Lorena Delgado Varas, the Vänster MP held to be responsible for republishing it, was not thereby endorsing it; although it would obviously have been wiser if she had put a little more distance between the anti-Semitism it implies, and her own point of view.

What was depressing to me, after my British experience of Labour under Corbyn, was to see the same ‘weapon’ being employed here in Sweden, against a party that has historically been more anti-racist and supportive of Jewish causes than most, just as the British Labour Party was. I happen to be a (quite recent and very inactive) member of the ‘V’s, which I suppose gives me an interest in this; and am pretty sure that the slur against us is totally unjustified. Personally I’m a philo-semite rather than the reverse, albeit struggling these days within myself to resist the anti-Jewish prejudices that both this ‘weaponising’ of anti-Semitism, and of course Netanyahu’s cruel and disproportionate onslaught on Gaza, must be arousing elsewhere.

Here’s the Rektor of Stockholm’s equivalent of the LSE, describing the Trumpian assault on America’s universities, and the resulting exodus of some of their top academics to European and Canadian universities; and making the same point as I did yesterday about Marx.

https://www.dn.se/kultur/lars-strannegard-det-pagar-en-motorsagsmassaker-pa-amerikanska-universitet/

Of course you’ll need to read Swedish to understand it, or perhaps feed it through Google Translate.

Most of the discussion here, however, is about Trump’s mental state. The words ‘narcissism’ and ‘fascism’ crop up a lot.

Historians are usually quite good at pointing out precedents for what is happening in their own times. But I’m afraid I can’t think of any close precedents for what is going on today. For the clear ‘Fascist’ tendencies in modern politics, yes, certainly: 1930s Germany, for a start. For tariff wars: OK, there were several of them in the past. But for a tariff war on this global scale, accompanied by other fascistic measures, perpetrated by a leader who seems to have accrued absolute power, and in America, supposedly a bastion of modern democracy: no, I believe there’s nothing in the past to compare with this. We’ve suddenly been plunged into a new and alarming age.

For historians (like me) of a moderately Marxist bent, it does make a sort of sense. Donald Trump is a real estate developer – a very modern kind of capitalist – above everything, now appearing on the political scene at what Marxists would recognise as a ‘late stage’ in the natural evolution of the capitalist system. As it evolves, capitalism becomes more ultra-competitive, more monopolistic, more amoral, and – as a consequence – less democratic. In the USA this tendency has resulted in some of the most prominent capitalists of the day, mostly fabulously rich technocrats, exerting more and more influence on government, and by this means shaping national policy to satisfy their commercial needs; and – more importantly – to adopt their business philosophy and methods. These methods are profoundly undemocratic, quite understandably: no CEO of a business is going to want to be told what to do by the people. And so a ‘democracy’ like America’s becomes in effect an oligarchy, if not a dictatorship. The rest all follows: universities defunded and controlled; ‘improper ideologies’ (the ‘woke virus’) banned; dissent crushed; barriers erected; immigrants summarily expelled; blame for domestic failures placed on foreigners – ‘looting, pillaging, raping, and plundering our nation’, as Trump put it last week: all of them attitudes and measures that in any other context – for example in 1930s Germany – would be openly called ‘Fascist’; suddenly foisted on a country that had used to be known for (among other less admirable traits) its liberalism and toleration.

Fascism wears different clothes in different situations. So we shouldn’t look for too close parallels with pre-War Germany or Italy. (The Jews can relax – for the time being. Unless they want to join in. If Netanyahu hasn’t already.) This is a very American version of Fascism; which is also influenced by other traits in the US’s historical culture, but is au fonde the end-product of her ultra-capitalist evolution. As Marx might have concluded if he had been alive today.

He would have also viewed it as inevitable (‘historical determinism’). That’s where I would part company with him, albeit more in hope than out of conviction. Apparently – although it’s difficult to see it from this side of the pond – there is resistance to Trump and Trumpism in America; which nation of course embraces other cultural traditions besides the proto-fascist ones (see https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz79ewg193ro). Or a stock market crash might bring the whole building down. So in the end it could turn out alright for us wokerati. Let’s just trust that if this happens, it’s without the ‘new American civil war’ that some are already predicting.

Anyway, that’s my sub-Marxist theory. It may be a simplistic one, and I can’t prove it. But it fits.

‘For decades, our country has been looted, pillaged, raped and plundered by nations near and far, both friend and foe alike’. That was the line Donald Trump took on Tuesday (April 2), to justify the long list of ‘reciprocal’ American tariffs on foreign imports he was announcing on what he chose to call ‘Liberation Day’. Included in his audience were a number of invited American autoworkers, who were asked to blame foreign tariffs on their exports and other ‘unfair’ practices for the decline of the car industry in Michigan and elsewhere.

That is being debated currently; as well as the question of whether Trump’s draconian taxes really will help revive American industry more generally: an issue I’m afraid I’m not competent to judge. (I would guess that Volvos sell better in the US partly because they’re superior cars; but that may simply be my pro-Swedish prejudice.) What interests me more, however, is the role that Trump is placing his country in, of ‘victim’ to all those horrible foreigners.

It’s clearly a canny card to play, in a world where most decent people side with the weak and hard done-by, rather than with the powerful bullies who are tormenting them. Britain has played it in most of the wars she has been involved in over the last hundred-odd years: defending ‘poor little Belgium’; ‘plucky Falklanders’; ‘brave Ukrainians’, and so on. Many of her colonial exploits were claimed to be justified as means of rescuing or safeguarding weaker native peoples. Israel has employed the same rationale continuously since 1948, exploiting Jews’ reputation as History’s leading ‘victims’: not only on account of the Nazi holocaust, but for centuries before. It’s a powerful trope; and so it’s not surprising to see Trump using it. Poor little America: ‘looted, pillaged, raped’ – eh? – ‘and plundered’ for all these years.

It’s odd, though, to hear the argument employed by the President of a powerful country that for decades has been seen as dominating, colonising (in one way or another) and ripping off other countries for at least eighty years now. And used to punish little countries (including one uninhabited one!); whose use of tariffs to safeguard their ‘infant’ industries against big rivals was even justified by the doyen of free traders, Adam Smith. It really is hard to see the USA as a long-term ‘victim’, in any way that would justify sympathy. Perhaps a victim of her own economic system? But that might not play so well.

Maybe it’s simply personal and psychological, on Trump’s part. It’s common knowledge that he’s a narcissist, and not as intelligent as he boasts. He must hate the derision that’s hurled at him, which makes him feel a ‘victim’ too. (That’s why he’s nice to those other world leaders who are – or pretend to be – nice to him.) It’s why both he and his Vice-President ‘hate’ Europe, where almost no-one apart from a few far Rightists gives him the respect he believes is his due. And it’s why he is so revengeful against his critics; with that revenge expressed now in the strongest way that he as a capitalist knows: through their nations’ pockets.

I’m still astonished by the revelation that the American Constitution gives so much unchecked power (as it seems at present) to a single person. George III had nothing like the same authority; and some of his royal predecessors met gruesome fates when they tried to assume it, over the heads of Parliament.

It is even more surprising when we learn, as we are expecting to do later today, that this power extends over foreign countries too. (We’re still waiting for his announcement on tariffs.) Again, that would be unthinkable in most other ‘democracies’. It’s no wonder that Trump’s closest soul-mates today are Putin and Netanyahu; who must feel that they’ve been given carte blanche to pursue any policy they choose.

I would like to feel a constitutional revolution coming on. Or a civil war (17th-century English style). But probably not.

Easy, isn’t it? – USA gets Greenland, Russia gets Ukraine, China gets Taiwan. All neat and tidy. Everyone agrees. No more wars. Back to the 1790s: https://bernardjporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/caricature_gillray_plumpudding.jpg.

(See https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/28/putins-endorsement-of-trumps-greenland-takeover-reflects-their-vision-of-a-new-world-order.)

For academics a crucial aspect of ‘Fascism’ is the way it plays out in universities. As a retired academic I’ve been shocked by some of the reports coming from America over the past month featuring censorship of free speech in colleges, not by radical Left no-platformers (although they disturb me too), but by the Federal or State authorities, and ordered by Trump. Here’s one recent example: de-funding programmes which teach ‘improper ideologies’, including portraying America’s ‘founding fathers’ in a less than heroic light:

https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/politics/2025/03/27/trump-executive-order-on-smithsonian-targets-funding-to-programs-with-improper-ideology/?__vfz=medium%3Dconversations_top_pages.

‘Improper ideologies’! Doesn’t that have a whiff of ‘1984’ about it? Or of the old Soviet Union? For the State (in the person of the President) to be ordering professors what and – more importantly – what not to teach surely goes right against the independence and intellectual freedom that are usually associated with and valued by institutions of higher education; or were in my time, at least. Questioning the motives of the ‘founding fathers’ might undermine a certain sort of ‘patriotism’, which I imagine is what is troubling the MAGA lot; but ‘patriotism’ is emphatically not what universities are there to teach.

There are many more indications of this kind of US government hostility towards universities, and even, one suspects, towards intellectual enquiry itself. Courses have been suddenly de-funded; foreign graduate students forcibly (and illegally) flown out of the country (or in one case down to Louisiana) for demonstrating peacefully against America’s support for Israel in Gaza… and so on. Other examples are featured here: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/29/trump-ice-deportation-universities. Or you can simply Google ‘Columbia’. – If you don’t think that ‘Fascism’ quite fits the bill here, then ‘dictatorship’ or ‘authoritarianism’ should cover it. In any case it’s scary.

I’d hate to be teaching at Yale again now. Clearly I’m not alone. At least three current Yale Faculty are fleeing over the northern border to find academic freedom there: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/28/us/yale-university-scholars-toronto-trump/index.html. Presumably the USA’s loss here will be Canada’s gain. Or – more likely – Trump won’t care. After all, what do ‘intellectuals’ know about the ‘Art of the Deal’?

Ages ago I considered the idea of researching and writing a history of the political ‘Right’ in Britain, following on from my works on ‘imperialism’ and its enemies. I’ve still got notes on this, in a file somewhere back in the UK; but they never came to anything. One of my reasons for abandoning the project was that by then – the 1970s – most people assumed that Right-wing ideas had lost their contemporary relevance, in the face of the social democratic tide that had engulfed Britain and most of continental Europe, and appeared to be the most likely path to be followed – soon, we hoped – by the rest of the world. The Right had come to be widely mocked and satirised, as old-fashioned, stupid, invalidated, nasty, or even simply ‘silly’; so that any research I might do into it would be merely historical, and of little or no relevance to the (then) present day. Rightists were dinosaurs; still surviving in one or two places (Peterhouse Cambridge was one; Enoch Powell’s West Midlands another), but with no future ahead of them, in the bright liberal-progressive climate that had emerged from the War. Researching the Right might be interesting – I personally have always been fascinated by the genus; but of no practical use or interest to anyone.

I’m not sure that I completely shared this assumption – I’ve always been reluctant to risk predictions based on history; but to the extent that I did, the 1980s soon disabused me. In Britain, the Right came storming back with Thatcher; in America I guess with Reagan; and within a few years ‘reaction’, as we Leftists saw it, became the new ‘progressive’ trend of the time. It even spread to the Soviet Union, the lodestar for (some) Leftists ever since 1917; whose counter-revolution in and after 1989 left Russia as economically reactionary (i.e. capitalist) as any country, and rather more totalitarian than most. Political liberalism, as we understood it, was in retreat.

Recent events in the USA – the ‘shining city on the hill’ for many liberals in the past – have compounded this. We’re all aware of the rapid lurch to the Right that America took immediately after Donald Trump began his second Presidency in January this year, and which is continuing helter-skelter as I write. ‘Fascist’ used to be a word only used by the far Left to describe this, and dismissed as paranoia by reasonable folk; but now it’s a common way of characterising Trump and his approach to government. Political preferment is restricted to those who are loyal to the ‘leader’; crude nationalism is favoured over internationalism (‘Make America Great’); immigrants are subjected to mass deportations; foreign students expelled for supporting the Palestinians (Netanyahu, another wannabe dictator, must have had a hand in this); books are banned; universities are bullied into conformity; liberal (‘woke’) ideas are mocked and even censored; truth is blatantly distorted (‘alternative facts’); government (‘bureaucracy’) is cauterized; racism and toxic masculinity celebrated; anti-intellectualism encouraged; violence, in the ‘right cause’, tolerated or celebrated; public protest for other causes criminalised; billionaire oligarchs brought into government; imperialistic projects openly floated (Greenland, Gaza, Panama, Canada); – and all this done by mere executive fiat – ‘dictat’ may be a better word for it – in clear contravention of America’s much vaunted Constitution, and in particular its ‘separation of powers’: the ‘checks and balances’ that were supposed to keep the Executive branch (the President) in check. This America isn’t any longer the one whose history I studied at university in the sixties, and experienced first-hand when I lived there; which of course had many flaws (as every nation does), but none of them so ‘Fascistic’ as those that Trump is bestowing on it today.

Of course America, in common with everywhere else, has always harboured the seeds of Fascism. There was an overt Nazi movement there in the thirties, for example; and then there were slavery, segregation, lynching, eugenics, genocide, McCarthyism, and of course the glorification of violence in ‘Western’ movies, and guns. You can see a fascist potential there, clearly, a historical back-story; but it’s Trump who is now bringing that to fruition. The process is not yet completed, and might never be, if the Democrats, perhaps, or even old-fashioned decent Republicans, can grow some cojones. (Is there much popular resistance to Trump in the USA? From where I’m based – Sweden, presently – it’s difficult to see any; but that may be because of the width of the Atlantic, and the noise and confusion created by the MAGA mob.)

Clearly this situation doesn’t only affect America, but the rest of the world too. For a start it must encourage Rightist and dictatorial movements everywhere, including in Europe and the Middle East, where authoritarian, illiberal and reactionary movements have in any case been growing recently, and now have America’s example to encourage them. Trump has admirers in Britain, where Nigel Farage is one of his leading fans. The Right is now confidently surfing this new historical tide, leaving Left-‘progressive’ forces uncertain how to counter it; especially now that it’s allied to what is called ‘populism’, which makes it appear more ‘democratic’.

But there are diplomatic and geopolitical aspects to it as well. America used to be regarded, and to regard herself, as the guarantor of democratic and liberal values throughout the world, either unilaterally or via NATO and other international agencies. Now that guarantee has lapsed. Trump wants to abandon NATO. As a result Western Europe can no longer depend on the USA to defend her against – presently – Russian expansionism; which is why Britain and other democracies are rapidly re-arming: to be able to defend Ukraine initially (and after that, Finland and the Baltic States?); and also why Ukraine’s own situation now looks so fragile. For America is no longer basing her foreign policy on principle – ‘freedom’ (however you define it); but on Realpolitik: the politics and morality in this case of the property developer, which is all that Trump was and essentially still is; based on the ‘deals’ you can make with the ‘cards’ in your hand, and nothing more principled. This is what happens when you elect a real estate capitalist to be in charge of things.

The global event that took ‘principle’ out of the equation for American leaders was of course the fall of communism in Russia and eastern Europe; which back in the ‘Cold War’ years had been considered – not unreasonably – to be an ideological and domestic threat to the West, as well as a military one. It was also one that could spread, infecting and engulfing other nations – and even America herself – if not staunched. That was what incentivised all post-war American Presidents to employ their military power, in America’s own interests, to defend other ‘free’ countries as well as their own. When the communist threat collapsed, it left America and Russia with nothing ideological to separate them, with both sides now playing on the same realpolitikal pitch. It is this that has brought Trump and Putin together, with the former admitting to admiring the latter more than he could have done in communist times, as someone he could ‘deal’ with, to use his favourite property-developer’s word. Hence his betrayal of Ukraine, which is simply a pawn (or a bit-player) in his game; and also of the Palestinians in Gaza, whom he sees not only as ‘losers’, with Israel holding all the ‘cards’, and so not worth rescuing; but even as a winner for him personally, if he can turn it into another prime development for rich Americans. (You’ve seen the video: https://bernardjporter.com/2025/02/26/satire/.)

Where does all this leave Europe: now flanked by two autocracies (or at least one and a half), in place of the autocracy to the east and the friend to the west: the pattern that had dominated the European diplomatic map for half a century? With American leaders like JD Vance and Pete Hegseth now expressing their disdain for and even ‘hatred’ of Europe, supposedly because of the latter’s ‘wokeishness’ and ‘pathetic free-loading’ off the USA (https://www.politico.eu/article/freeloader-john-healey-pete-hegseth-europe-uk-defense/), it is clear that we (here in Europe) can no longer trust America to come to our aid if Russia – or any other power – threatens; which is of course why we are hastily building up our own military capacity. More generally, liberal and social democracy as most of us in Europe understand it, together with Canada and many (not all) of Britain’s other ex-colonies (why I wonder are they so much less Trumpian than the ones that gained their freedom in 1783?), are now under threat from both sides – both of them autocracies if Trump gets his way. That adds an ideological and cultural element to the picture.

In 1992 the Chicago political scientist Francis Fukuyama published a famous book, The End of History and the Last Man, which people took as predicting that  present-day liberal capitalism was the last stage or climax of human progress; leading to a kind of stable utopia, with no more ‘historical’ development to follow. So far that theory has not worn well, and in particular the ‘liberal’ part of it. Capitalism does indeed seem to be progressing strongly; but now in highly illiberal clothes. It has become – in both America and Russia, and also in China, which may soon overtake them both – almost the opposite of ‘liberal’ in that word’s political and social (as distinct from economic) sense; obeying another once oft-touted theory of historical progress, which saw it in neo-Darwinian terms: natural selection; survival of the fittest, or strongest, or in the present context the richest and the most techno-savvy; with ‘moral’ (human, ethical, social) considerations of little account. That may be our future.

Unless, that is, American true democracy can get its act together. Until then it’s Europe (and its ex-colonial offshoots) on whom we must rely to keep social-liberalism – or ‘genuine’ democracy – alive. No wonder that it’s there that Trump, Vance and the world-wide Right are presently training their rhetorical guns.

*

(Obviously I shouldn’t have abandoned my ‘history of the Right’ project when I did. But then others have taken it up.)