Porter’s Pensées

Global wars in the past – i.e. those that have spilled over the confines of single continents – have generally been fought about territory, trade, religion, sovereignty, security, ideology, race, and/or the personal ambitions of those most responsible for provoking them.

The next World War may be different. It will embrace several of these motives and traits, but with another great ‘divide’ dominating them. That’s the one between ‘the West’, and the ‘Other’; Europe and the USA on the one side, representing so-called ‘democracy’, liberalism in its many guises, and ‘enlightenment’; and on the other side countries – or governments – rejecting these ideals, maybe regarding them as false or hypocritical, and falling back on ‘tradition’ – and traditional kinds of dictatorship – to set against the seductive blandishments of the West.

All the countries presently opposed to the West share these latter characteristics. Some are religious autocracies (Iran); others deeply reactionary and secular (Russia); and yet others simply anti-Western, because of the harm they feel the West has done to them, especially during the era of European and American imperialism; and still is doing in the eyes of some. Many of these claims are justified: exploitation, annexation, other forms of theft, racial and cultural arrogance, and the consequent diminishing of those ‘inferior’ societies and their values in the eyes of the ‘superior’ West. Many in the ‘Other’ parts of the world are still smarting from this.

This is what brings together all those presently pitted against the West: Iran, Russia, China, North Korea, militant Islam, and others; in mutual sympathy, if not  (yet) in the form of military alliances. It also works to undermine the resilience of the West as a counter to it, attracting as it does extreme Rightists in Britain, for example, who have always questioned elements in their own liberal societies (the ‘woke’ ones), and hankered after more ‘disciplined’ régimes. That’s what brings Putin, Kim Jong Un and Farage together; and also probably the reactionary and autocratic Trump, if he gets in again.

I’m tempted to call this ‘nostalgicism’, because of its ‘reactionary’ character. For people and nations unnerved and confused by ‘modernity’ (as it shouldn’t be called), with their traditional cultures and even identities under threat from so-called American ‘imperialism’, and wanting to feel ‘Great’ again, but on their own terms; for all these the faux-familiar past provides a comfort zone, a sort of stability, and an alternative basis for national regeneration. It may be a more powerful influence than we think. If there is a Third World War, on any level, nostalgia could well provide the common bond between some mighty – and otherwise highly disparate – enemies.

Whatever became of noblesse oblige? In feudal times it was supposed both to justify the upper classes, and to soften their impact on society more generally. The idea was that if you were very rich and privileged, you had a duty to serve (oblige) those less fortunate than yourselves. Then the latter wouldn’t be minded to riot or rebel. It was an ethic encouraged in the old ‘public’ schools, and was a factor behind the creation of the welfare state, and the Haileybury-educated Clement Attlee’s conversion to socialism. It was also a reason why even a dyed-in-the wool socialist like me could get on pretty well with many of the aristos I met at university, whilst recognising that their friendly attitudes to my more plebeian sort could be patronising, and even condescending. They were often amusingly self-deprecating. ‘I’m not allowed to vote. That puts me in the company of criminals, lunatics and lords. I’m not sure which category I’m in: ha ha!’ It was disarming.

Conservative cabinets generally had a sprinkling of these types in them, exemplified in Thatcher’s time by her faithful country-squire retainer William Whitelaw (‘every prime minister needs a Willy’, as she is reported to have said once, quite innocently); until they were thinned out, firstly under her, in the course of her weeding the ‘wets’ out of her party; and then under the more summary purge of ‘Remainers’ undertaken by Johnson in 2019. That left only the pur free marketists, many of them educated in ‘public’ schools which by now had lost most of their old social-paternalist ethic, and had become mere staging posts for rich boys (and a few girls), on their way to ‘raising’ themselves materially in their personal lives. Sunak is one of those; rich beyond almost anyone’s dreams, educated at Winchester (even older than Eton), who last year demonstrated the ethic he must have imbibed there by his desire to close down university courses which did not enhance their students’ earning power. That was his only criterion.

So it is hardly surprising that so many modern-day Conservatives seem to regard the profession of politics not primarily as a means of ‘service’ (oblige) to their country, but as a ‘career’ opportunity merely; a means of ‘bettering’ – by which they usually mean ‘enriching’ – themselves. Which must help explain the arrant corruption that has been eating away at the party’s vitals over the past several years; including of course the ‘betting scandal’ which is the most recent manifestation of this. If that’s the reason they went into Conservative politics, what can be wrong with using their ‘insider’ knowledge to have a flutter on the side?

OK, I’m back in Blighty, after six months. And what a contrast to the European countries we’ve driven through! Dirty streets, shuttered up shops, few public amenities working, a corrupt government, and a vile public political discourse; quite a shock, after what we’ve seen and experienced in Sweden, Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands. Or is that just Hull, our final destination; and – with regard to the discourse – the British gutter press?

It’s depressing to be here; but also fascinating, on the eve of a General Election that has the potential – I’ll put it no higher than that – to change most of this. I’m disenfranchised here, by the way, by virtue of my having secured a postal vote, sent to our Swedish address, when I, and most of my compatriots I gather, assumed that the election wouldn’t come before the autumn. If Labour loses North Hull by one vote I’ll be mortified. But even as a non-participant it will be exciting to witness it, in a sporting kind of way: which is how all our British elections are treated by the press (‘Who loses and who wins; who’s in, who’s out’: King Lear); and to witness what is predicted to be the total annihilation of this criminal Tory government. Or does that sound too much like Schadenfreude?

This morning the media debate is centred on Nigel Farage’s claim in a TV interview that Russia’s Ukraine invasion was ‘provoked’ by the expansionary policies of the EU and NATO; which was the sort of excuse (or one of them) trotted out by Hitler before World War Two. It has been roundly condemned in the media. But as it happens, and however much I revile the awful Farage generally, I think there’s some truth in it. I’ve not checked back, but I believe I’ve raised in previous blogs and books over the past ten years my fears that EU and NATO enlargement (‘imperialism’?) could be seen by Russia as threats, with possible dire consequences. Of course that’s no excuse for Putin, as it wasn’t for Hitler; but in the case of nations playing these old-fashioned ‘superpower’ games, it’s a factor to be taken into account.

And it can be seen as another way – Farage’s line of reasoning, that is – in which Moscow could influence British politics; in addition to all the Russian money that has poured into the Tory Party’s coffers, and the cyber attacks that have their origin there, or there-abouts. (Has that inquiry into ‘Russian influence’ on Brexit ever been published, or even completed?) Brexit was obviously to Russia’s advantage; which takes care of the ‘cui bono’ argument there.

Incidentally, and as I’ve mentioned before: in the recent EU elections (where I did vote) Sweden and the other Nordic countries went against the general Rightist trend in the rest of Europe, with the Reds and Greens gaining votes, and the populist and proto-Fascist Sverigedemokraterna falling back. I’ve never been more certain than I am now that I was right to acquire my (dual) Swedish citizenship. I can hardly wait to get back to normality and decency; hopefully in about a month.

I’ve had a host of messages – well, three – regretting my decision to give up blogging, and pleading with me to come back. So here I am again; presently preparing for our journey back to Blighty – by car to Rotterdam and then overnight ferry to Hull – where we should arrive next Monday morning, staying in the UK for about a month. That will take in the British general election, where I hope I shall be able to vote in person, despite having been granted a postal vote (I didn’t expect the election so soon); and having just voted in the EU election, using my dual Swedish citizenship. Scandinavia, incidentally, seems to have bucked the right-wing trend in Europe generally, with the Left and Greens doing better, and the Sverigedemokraterna (proto-Fascists) falling back. Why doesn’t the British media report that?

I’m presently engaged in writing a ‘My Life and Times’ sort of book, probably not for general readers, but privately published (if at all), and for my kids. There’ll be a chapter on my time at Cambridge, for the Corpus freshman who wrote to me recently asking about that. But nothing too personal.

Last night Kajsa attended a meeting she had spent weeks arranging in a nearby suburb, for the ‘Left’ and ‘Green’ parties in Stockholm, to discuss the threat of ‘Fascism’ in Sweden; only to have it brutally attacked by neo-Nazis, dressed in black, with their faces covered by masks, and carrying smoke canisters and red paint sprays. Kajsa – who suffers from asthma – hid in a cupboard with a couple of others, but the smoke still got through, and they had to rush out – holding their breath – for air. It was a terrifying experience. Outside there were dozens of police, police cars, ambulances and even fire engines; which eventually restored order, and somehow sucked the smoke out, so that the meeting could resume. It was the main news item on Swedish TV last night; there’s a long report in today’s Dagens Nyheter; and it even made it into the Independent in Britain: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/sweden-masked-attackers-fascism-event-b2534448.html. Kajsa eventually got home safe and sound; but she’s still – this morning – shaken. She’s contacted news agencies to ensure that her family name is not mentioned, as it’s an unusual one, and could make her a target; especially as the meeting was all her doing. (To me she’s a hero!) One of the Greens had already been personally threatened before the event, when she was putting up posters for the meeting. Kajsa had alerted the police to that.

I suppose that one good result of this incident is that it shows that the ‘threat of Fascism’ is real, and not just scare-mongering. On the other hand – and not intending to belittle it – there were only five (5) of the masked attackers; and one of them was revealed to be a young-ish boy (14?) when his mask slipped. This was not a mass riot, and nothing should be read into it about the strength of Fascism in Sweden. Fascism and Neo-Nazism have been always been present here, as in Britain, waxing and waning according to the political weather, but rarely significant on their own. We should avoid the tendency, which is more characteristic on the political Right, of exaggerating single incidents – the occasional (query) anti-semitic banner on a pro-Palestinian march, for example – into something more general and sinister. These were in all likelihood only half-a-dozen kids, probably idiots, out for a bit of excitement. I don’t know yet whether any of them were caught and arrested. When they are, we’ll doubtless know.

Neo-Fascism is a danger, which we all – Swedes and Brits – need to be wary of; but it’s far more likely to come in other, more ‘innocent’ guises than last night’s scary incident in Gubbängen.

Incidentally – and following on from my last post – I used to think that writing novels must be far easier than writing history; not insisting, as history does, that you are bound by facts, but allowing you instead to make them up as you go along. What freedom! However, having just ventured momentarily into fiction-writing (see my last post), I now realise that that assumption is totally wrong. Fiction is much harder; and mainly because it doesn’t provide you with the crutches that the facts afford you, helping you to navigate the chaos and confusion that is your imagination – if you have any of the latter at all. (Remember, my English teacher told me I didn’t.) I wonder whether other authors who have switched from history to fiction have felt the same? (I know one here in Sweden who is trying to make the transition, and finding it difficult. I must have a chat with her.)

I may take up my ‘alternative history’ novel again, later; but shorn of my previous happy illusion that it will be a doddle, probably to be completed in a couple of months. Come on, imagination; buck yourself up!

Serious blogging will, I hope, resume later.

What’s the point of blogging? Only a tiny handful of people read the posts of obscure academics like me. To be fair, a large audience was not what I expected, or even wanted, when I began this blog ten years ago. Its purpose was simply self-indulgence; I needed to write, and still enjoy reading what I have written back to myself. (Isn’t that narcissistic?) Admittedly, it would be nice if I could influence opinion on certain historical and political matters; but that tiny and even unlikely degree of influence is more likely to come from my books. Even there, I’ve never written for wealth or for fame, and never bothered much about either; which is probably partly why I’ve accrued neither in the course of my career.

Which must now be nearing its end. Elderly, infirm, tired, world-weary and forgetful, I’ve come to realise that I can no longer contribute significantly to the sum of human knowledge, even in my small corner of the academic wood. I still have the old urge to write, part of the ‘creative’ imperative that I believe is shared by nearly every human being (just look at their gardens), and which may even distinguish us as a species; but no longer the time, energy or enthusiasm to put the effort – the research – into writing anything original or valuable. So my days as a historian are – well – history. I can just about live with that, in my declining years.

To help me live with it, however, I’m presently exploring ways of extending my writing life without involving the preliminary work that has preceded all my previous efforts. I’ve had three specific ideas, and indeed have written short introductions for each of them. Here they are. All of them broke down after about a quarter of a page of E4. You’ll see why.

(1) Autobiography. That would start dramatically (I was born, backwards, in the middle of Hitler’s London Blitz), but would then peter out into a kind of middle-class normality. I doubt whether anyone – not even my children, perhaps – would be interested in the ‘history of a nobody’; which in any case has been done already – by George and Weedon Grossmith in 1887, to be precise – and would be too boring, because I know it all, for me to sustain any enthusiasm for writing it. In any case it seems a rather egotistical thing to do. My memories of school, Cambridge and the other universities I’ve worked in, British, American and Australian, and my experience of living in Sweden, won’t add much to what is already known about those places generally; and certain more personal aspects of my life – like my boyhood, early relationships with girls, marriage and parenting – I’d rather keep quiet about. It’s bad enough having lived an uneventful and unimportant life; to have to write about it – to live it again, in other words – would merely compound the pain and embarrassment.

(2) I then had the idea of writing a ‘history of the British empire’ for children; rather like Lady Callcott’s notorious Little Arthur’s History of England (1835) – in its simplicity, that is, and not of course its chauvinism. Of course I already have the knowledge for that. The problem with it, however, was that I found it impossible to probe deeply enough into the minds of children to be able to translate fairly complex ideas into forms they could relate to. Perhaps I should have tackled this when I was reading bed-time stories to ten year-olds of my own. This is sad; not least because we have an artist neighbour and friend here in Stockholm who could illustrate the book brilliantly. Children’s authors are usually a special breed; and more suited to imaginative literature than to non-fiction.

(3) My third idea, a long-fermenting one, was to use my already detailed knowledge of late Victorian and early Edwardian police, imperial and architectural history, to write a novel; a detective thriller set around that time, referencing real historical figures and events, but with a totally fictional plot. It’s the plot that is still stumping me. (I remember my otherwise inspirational English master at school telling me: ‘The trouble with you, Bernard, is that you have no imagination.’ That’s probably why I read History at university rather than English literature, as he had hoped.) The single idea I’ve had for the novel is based on a Special Branch detective’s report I unearthed on the movements of Karl Marx, dated a couple of years after he was supposedly dead and buried. There’s also a cricket connection here. (The first leader of the first overtly Marxist party in Britain was a Sussex County Cricketer. He’s in Wisden.) Here, then, is the plot. – Marx doesn’t die, but climbs out of his grave in Highgate Cemetery, joins Gloucestershire County Cricket Club, and becomes WG Grace. They both had bushy beards, after all. – No? Anyway, the dates are wrong. And the one thing we historians can’t mess around with is chronology.

Those are my thoughts currently. I may take one or two of them up again. In the meantime, I’m giving up blogging about the events of this mad, mad time; madder even, I feel – but comparable in some ways: dictators, incipient Fascism – to the situation into which I was born. I may return to it in the lead-up to the next British general election. We’ll see.   

Strictly speaking, democracy can be squared with dictatorship if the demos is choosing its dictators for itself. That – for those of us who wouldn’t welcome this outcome – is the great danger of the ‘populism’ which is gripping so many countries today. If every four or five years the people are allowed to elect a leader who thereafter will decide everything for them, then the most simple and basic requirement of democracy is met.

Russia probably fits this pattern today, even allowing for the undoubted electoral chicanery there; China too, and North Korea; and possibly next year’s USA, if Donald Trump gets in again. (That’s judging by some of his recent pronouncements, and the foreign leaders he most admires.) In Britain the political Right is displaying similarly authoritarian tendencies; and in other European countries too. Many people – possibly a majority – don’t really want to have collective ‘control’ over their lives, beyond a certain limit; or even to think deeply about politics. It’s too hard; and easier to treat ‘democratic’ elections  simply as personality contests, or as games. Other sorts of ‘democrat’ – the ‘Social’ kind, for example – need to keep this in mind. The Right does, to its great electoral advantage; and to the detriment of the rest of us.

Sadly, I’ve discovered that we can’t necessarily rely – as I have tended to do until recently – on Social democratic Sweden to keep us more liberal democrats on track. It has an unpleasant Right-wing tendency too, organised as the Sverigedemokraterna, rooted historically in Sweden’s old Nazi party; and although not formally a part of the governing centre-right coalition government clearly exerting influence on it. I’m told the SD is currently debating whether to come out in favour of a ‘Swexit’ of its own; which would put it in the company of Britain’s UKIP, and of UKIP’s toxic successors.

The main factor behind this shift to what is now increasingly being called out as ‘Fascism’ – down there beneath the right-wing propaganda, Britain’s awful popular press, Boris Johnson, desperate late-stage capitalism and all the rest – could simply be a large number of people’s basic desire to be led, rather than to have to take decisions for themselves. In other words, to want daddy – or mummy – back in their lives again. Daddy Putin must be a comfort.

I’ve just finished reading Tom Baldwin’s Keir Starmer, The Biography.  The author insists that it’s not ‘authorised’; but it could well be, relying as it does on sources very close to Starmer, including the man himself, and being overall pretty positive and complimentary. It could almost be an autobiography, painting Starmer as he would like to appear. Readers can probably assume, therefore, that the Keir Starmer described here is roughly what we’ll get when he enters No. 10 Downing Street later this year, as is almost universally predicted. Unless, of course, there’s a demon lurking behind the eyes, as Tory propagandists liked to make out there was behind Blair’s.

He does appear rather dull and ‘lawyerly’, certainly by contrast with one or two of the prime ministers who will have preceded him, a fact he acknowledges. But his – and Baldwin’s – argument is that we’ve had enough of smoother and more glittering premiers in recent years, and could do now with someone rougher, solid, honest, and more cerebral. He could turn out to be the Attlee pour nos jours. (Can there be any disputing that Clement Attlee was the greatest peacetime British prime minister of the 20^th century?)

From an electoral point of view he has a lot going for him. His given name – Keir – links him with the first leader of the Labour Party, which should warm him to the historically-minded Left. His father was a toolmaker and his mother a nurse, which attest to his genuine (aspirant) working-class origins. The ‘Sir’ which is now affixed to his name was awarded for his previous career as Director of Public Prosecutions, and not for party favours or donations, which seems to be the usual passage to a knighthood in these corrupt times. The fact that he had a serious job stands him apart from those – mostly but not exclusively Tories – whose only previous life-experience was in cheap journalism or student politics. And it will good to have a leader whose early world view was not framed at a ‘public’ boarding school. He went to a local (London) grammar school, then to a northern university (Leeds), and managed to avoid Oxford, apart from a year there doing a postgraduate Law degree. His legal expertise was in Criminal and Human Rights Law, rather than fields which might have earned him more money. (But he’s still obviously comfortably off, if not so filthy rich as Sunak.) ‘Human Rights’ distinguishes him usefully from many of today’s Tories. He’s married with teen-aged children, which makes him very normal; and lives in an ordinary terraced house (I think). He’s soccer-mad (Arsenal), and still regularly plays eight-a-side. He enjoys a pint at his local pub, with a bunch of ‘mates’ who are socially varied. He’s serious, sometimes wooden, in public, but apparently loosens up in private, when the ‘real Keir’ is said to shine through. Critics wish that it would shine through more. He presents the image of a man of honesty, integrity, a sense of public service and what in the 18th century was called ‘bottom’, which contrasts strikingly with most of his predecessors, save possibly the unfortunate Theresa May. – Much of this resonates personally with me; as does his defence of the arts – announced in a speech yesterday – which contrasts markedly with Sunak’s and much of the latter’s party’s materialistic Gradgrindism. Whether any of it will attract other voters is yet to be seen.

My own reservations have to do with (a) his caution, although that might be necessary to dampen down expectations, in view of the almost universally acknowledged economic and social mess the Conservatives will have left behind them; and (b) his treatment of those who briefly ran the party before him, many of whom he has very publicly banished. As an old ‘Corbynista’ myself, who resigned from the Party on these grounds, I feel strongly and even bitterly about this, and against the false anti-semitism that was ‘weaponised’ in order to get rid of Corbyn and others when Starmer came along (see https://bernardjporter.com/2024/02/09/anti-semitism/). But I’ve returned to the Party now, realising that this is only one issue among many; and that if giving the impression of having cleansed the Augean stables is necessary for victory, and for warding off the fast approaching ‘neo-fascism’ in our politics, we may all need to hold our noses and jump.