Porter’s Pensées

Yesterday evening came news that Priti Patel was to be given overall control of the British Security Services. – Priti Patel! The most outrageously authoritarian (or proto-Fascist, if you like) member of the present UK government; she who wants to bring back hanging, and to imprison lifeboat crew who save asylum seekers from drowning at sea! ‘I must write a blog about that’, I thought, being as I am a bit of an authority on the history of the security services (seen from the outside, I hasten to add), and probably more genned up on it than she is. I was planning the post as I fell asleep, fitfully; only to awaken this morning to find that Johnson had ‘u-turned’ on this in the meantime, and had appointed someone else. So I’ll leave the juicy topic of the relationship between the secret services and the political Right for now. (You can follow it up in my Plots and Paranoia, 1989, if you’re interested.)

The incident however did get me thinking about Ms Patel, and her extraordinary situation, as the daughter of asylum-seeking immigrants (Kenyan Asians) turning out to be the most anti-immigrant minister Britain has ever had – even including Theresa ‘hostile environment’ May. At the very least I thought that this must have something to do with her ignorance of the more liberal aspects of Britain’s ‘national identity’; which may in turn have had something to do with her education, which so far as I can gather took in very little history. Others might point to her ‘ethnic’ origins, or to her gender; not in the sense that implies that only Anglo-Saxon men can be truly ‘English’, but in giving her a feeling of ‘alien identity’, on both these grounds, which inclines her towards what she believes are more assertively ‘English’ attitudes, in order to establish her Englishness. Or perhaps she’s just pandering to the ‘mob’? Or, alternatively, and to give her the benefit of the doubt: perhaps she has in fact thought it all through rationally, and genuinely believes in what she says and does.

Whatever: the phenomenon of ‘outsiders’ adopting more fervently ‘insider’ views in order to compensate for their foreign or lowly origins is a fairly common one. I remember that one of the most Right-wing members of our ‘High Table’ when I was a Cambridge Fellow was the only one (apart from me) who wasn’t upper-class and Public school-educated. (The genuine ‘nobs’ may have been no less Rightist, but had learned – perhaps at their schools – to politely conceal it.) And isn’t it interesting how many of the present Tory cabinet are of Asian and African origin (admirable in itself, of course)? And how many of the leading Brexiters have scarcely-hidden ‘foreign’ family origins: Nigel Farage, Mark Francois, even Boris himself, born in America and with some ‘Turkish’ DNA? And remember that Hitler was an Austrian, and Stalin a Georgian. (No other comparison with Farage and Co. intended here!) There must be other examples; all of them ‘outsiders’, anxious to establish their ‘insider’ credentials.

This impressed me too when I was studying British imperialism in the 19^th and 20^th centuries: that many of the most rabid ‘British’ imperialists and imperial propagandists of that time had either German or Indian or Ulster Protestant backgrounds, placing them outside the general run of English liberal thought. (I’ve cited examples in my ‘imperial’ books.) I don’t know how significant this pattern is; but Priti seems to fit it to a ‘T’.

Towards the end of writing my ‘Patriot’s History’ book (see previous posts), and coming up to the present day, I found myself getting more and more opinionated. I’m sorry, but I can’t see Brexit as anything other than a huge mistake, and the people who misled the electorate into voting for it as other than short-sighted or malign, in one way or another. Boris’s lies are called out in the book (though I call them ‘fibs’, to soften the impact a little), and I make no secret of my distrust of his motives, and my poor opinion of the competence of most of his cabinet. I try to be fair to ‘both sides’, and my ultimate explanation for the Brexit fiasco is I think well argued and reasonable; but it may strike unsympathetic readers as a bit ‘left-wing’, and so lacking the objectivity that one should expect of a history book written by an academic. My response to this would be that I believe my interpretation to be based less on my present-day prejudices than on my knowledge of British history, which gives me the right, for example, to say that the present British government is the most incompetent and corrupt in history; and, secondly, on my conviction that this judgment will endure and be corroborated by future historians looking back on our times; unless, of course – which is perfectly possible – an even worse government intervenes, or the Age of Unreason finally comes upon us. 

That being so – if it is so – why should I be prevented from saying it, simply because it may be taken to be partisan by readers at the present day? If I’m wrong, I shall be retrospectively punished for it in future history books. I remember from my school days that we were not allowed to study any history beyond 1914 (yes, 1914) on the grounds that more recent events no longer qualified as ‘history’, but as ‘politics’, which it was feared Leftist history teachers might turn into ‘propaganda’. (‘The General Strike? Far too controversial.’) But if I believe there are important historical factors, some of them coming from ‘the Right’, which helped to skew the 2016 referendum result, shouldn’t I be allowed to say so?

I really do believe that a study of history can shed huge light on present-day events; not in the form, necessarily, of ‘precedents’ or ‘lessons’, but by providing a broader context to what is happening, and so putting ‘Brexit’, in this instance, in its place. That’s one of the two main purposes of my ‘Patriot’s History’. The other is to demolish some of the more conventional kinds of ‘patriotism’, which rest on false or misleading views of modern British history. Most of those – but not all – are found, I’m afraid, on the ‘Brexit’ side.

I wouldn’t particularly welcome a revolution; firstly because you never know how they’re going to turn out, and secondly because – on the personal side – I’ve got a certain amount of ‘stuff’ I’d like to keep. But it’s hard to see how we Brits (or half-Brits, in my case) can get out of the mess we’re in without one. Parliament isn’t working. The Labour Party doesn’t seem to have much going for it just now: nothing, that is, to inspire the enthusiasm  (but also to provoke the hostility) it did under Corbyn. Our politicians aren’t half the men and women they used to be; unsurprisingly, in view of their poor reputation as a class, which stalks ahead of them. Those who rise to the top – in cabinet – seem to be the worst of the lot. This must be the most incompetent, dishonest and corrupt government Britain has ever had in her history. The bulk of her ‘people’ are apathetic, accepting it all as ‘normal’, and dreadfully misled by their media; manipulated as that is by plutocrats who don’t have their true interests at heart. This isn’t just the result of Brexit, which has simply been used – I would say – by those plutocrats and others to pursue their  interests. How else would they be able to ‘complete the Thatcher revolution’, which is the explicit ambition of many of them? (Viz. my next book.)

There may be ways of correcting all this: electoral reform, press reforms, tax reform, social reform, political education (that is, simply teaching kids about ‘democracy’ and the checks and balances that are necessary to keep it ‘pure’); but that would take far more time than we have at our disposal, with the forces ranged against us, including apathy and stupidity, and the widespread popular prejudice, especially, against ‘politics’ of any kind. Incremental reform may not do it. Which would only leave the barricades.

But in the meantime it may be worth trying for an anti-Tory electoral coalition next time around (that looks awfully far away just now!) to emphasise the Conservatives’ – and especially these extreme authoritarian Conservatives’ – minority appeal in the country as a whole. I would put aside my own Leftist principles – and my doubts about Starmer – to achieve that. Once Boris and his crew have been replaced by a wider-based progressive government we can debate and see to all the other things that need mending (culminating in the climate crisis – if there’s still time). Is that the way to go?

Even this, however, might require more popular backing than seems likely now. For a political shift on this scale people need to get really worked up, and against their true enemies; not immigrants or the EU, but the Brexiteers, and the plutocrats behind them. (Hopefully Eton would lose a bit of its shine too.) Unfortunately I can’t see much sign of this just now. Virtually the only ‘anger’ I can discern out there (from across the North Sea) is over empty supermarket shelves; and even those are being blamed by the yellow Press on the EU. 

Are people only  thinking of their stomachs? And in the individualist selfish way Thatcher taught them to? And not for example about Priti Patel’s assaults on their traditional liberties? Is not being able to buy Spanish peaches (or whatever) a solid enough foundation for a popular movement that could remove a government peacefully; and – more to the point, perhaps – replace it by a liberal one? If not I can see only a kind of fascism, or a much less gentle Leftist revolution, looming ahead. 

So let’s go for a progressive alliance: Labour, Lib-Dems, Greens, SNP, PC, Independents and the ‘wetter’ (and wiser) of the Tories, shelving their tribalism for a while, and pulling together for the common good. Like they are supposed to have done in World War II. 

I see what they’re doing. They’ve worked out that very few people really care about politics, or about the conduct of their rulers; so long as it doesn’t involve paedophilia or… actually, I can’t think of anything else that would turn people seriously against them. Politicians’ minor peccadillos – cheating on expenses, using their influence to reward themselves and their chums, sticking their dicks into dead pigs’ mouths, and of course barefaced lying – are now accepted with a shrug, as characterising the whole breed – ‘they’re all the same’ – and so discrediting politics overall. ‘OK, Boris is a disaster, but Corbyn would have been worse.’ Which incidentally makes me half-grateful that Labour lost the last election: just imagine what the press would have made of a Corbyn government coping with Covid-19 only a tenth as badly as Johnson’s! (Or even better.) 

The demeaning of ‘politics’ is nothing new, of course, but it has been immeasurably exacerbated by politicians’ own scandals over the past decade or so (expenses, especially), and blown up by the Right-wing popular press in pursuit of its own agenda, to prevent regulation of itself (Leveson), and – beyond that – to stop the ‘people’ from interfering with the ‘market’ generally. One result has been a noticeable decline in the intellectual and moral  qualities  of the men and women who are elected to represent us. That must be obvious. (Especially the Old Etonians, of course. When will we summon up enough courage to abolish that appalling institution?) Another has been the collapse of all resistance to the ultra-authoritarian measures that are being enacted right now – most of them on Priti Patel’s initiative – to undermine basic democratic and liberal rights that were fought for in Britain over centuries. They include our freedom to protest, for example, and to uncover government wrong-doing, now to be categorised as ‘spying’; and the constitutional ‘checks and balances’ which used to protect us from hasty and foolish legislation; in addition to offending against our wider global and indeed humanitarian obligations, like the duty to rescue people found drowning at sea. These are being protested, but seemingly ineffectively, and not particularly popularly: indicating, again, the weakness of our – I would say traditional and patriotic British – defences against these appalling assaults. ‘The people’ don’t care. It’s the genius of our ultimate rulers – the ‘they’ of my first sentence – to have jumped to this. (Maybe Boris isn’t as stupid as his comedic persona suggests.) Brexit and the myths surrounding it, against the background of an anti-political popular media, gave them the perfect opportunity to manipulate this situation to their own advantage. That’s why we are where we are now. What ‘their’ real purpose is, is not difficult to deduce.

I can’t see a way out of this; short of Michael Gove being revealed as a kiddy-fiddler. (No, of course not.) So it’s neo-fascism – of the cuddly Boris variety – next stop. Never trust an Etonian; and an Etonian comedian least of all.

Finished A Patriot’s History of Britain yesterday – apart, obviously, from corrections and additions to come later. I never trust my computer – or electronic things generally – so I decided to copy all the files on to a memory stick, preliminary to printing them out on to good old-fashioned paper, in case there’s a sunburst or something that wipes all these invisible things out. Then: Panic! The files disappeared! All that work wasted! I screamed and thrashed about, in what I imagine was the first stage of a nervous breakdown. Then Kajsa came up and sorted it out. I don’t think it’s because she’s cleverer than me (although incidentally I think she is), but simply because she can remain calm. Anyway, everything is ready for the print-out this afternoon, when we’ve bought more paper. Then, holding my baby in my arms, I’ll feel more secure. 

My publisher still has to accept this final version, although I can’t imagine – after the glowing reports we received on the Proposal – that they’ll turn it down. Apparently their ‘Board’ doesn’t meet until next month, which is a bit of a bugger if the book’s to come out before Christmas, as I’d rather hoped. It’s very topical; which means that it could get out of date quite soon. In particular, Boris might be gone in the meantime; which may render the term I coined for his government this morning (in the bath, where all my best ideas come to me) may seem less apt than it does today. The phrase is the one at the head of this post. Has anybody thought of it before, I wonder? I’m quite pleased with it.

I guess I’m in a minority – possibly of one – among Leftists in supporting and admiring our despised capitalists’ ambitions to spend their ill-gotten gains on space rockets; when, as so many are pointing out, the same amount of money could do a lot of good in combatting famine or homelessness or climate change or one of the other horrors afflicting or threatening us here on earth. But surely there should be enough lucre in rich people’s coffers for both? And there must be other items of expenditure by rich bastards – like big houses and expensive yachts and donations to the Conservative Party – that are far less worthy than are trips to Mars, or even to the edge of space? And – most importantly –  someone has to get going with developing the means for us – the human race – to find a home on another planet, for when our planet dies. As it will, of course, by plunging into the sun eventually, or by us humans killing it off far sooner than that. Possibly very  soon, if present climatic conditions are anything to go by.

Ideally it should be governments, and coalitions of governments, that should be doing this, as they are to an extent – especially America and China – right now. But will they do it quickly enough? It’s hard to imagine this, especially when they’re in the hands of democracies – or “democracies” – with other priorities, and pestered by the ‘charity begins at home’ brigade most of the time. I hugely disapprove of Musk and Branson for how they accumulated their riches. And I’m sure you can read a lot of cod ‘psychology’ into the penis shapes that their ambitions are taking on. But at least they’re investing their fortunes in humanity’s future; which is more than can be said for most plutocrats.

Personally I’m not greatly worried about humanity’s demise. But I would find it infinitely depressing if I thought that its cultural achievements would not survive for ever. If Musk or Branson could help save Mozart for eternity (Mozart standing in here for other great works of art, of course) all would be forgiven, in my book; even their tax avoidance, destruction of small businesses, exploitation of labour and designs on the NHS. I long to know that my descendants, aeons in the future, could still hear Mozart played on a terraformed Mars. And then in Alpha Centauri; and beyond.  If we need capitalist bastards to do this for us, then so be it. It might even be thought to justify capitalism.

Sorry for the long pause, by the way. Eight week old puppies take a lot of looking after. And they don’t seem to have any respect for writing.

Am I getting paranoid? A couple of weeks ago I inserted a couple of references into the text of the book I’m currently working on – full publication details, etc – which I got from the British Library website. 24 hours later Amazon sent me an unsolicited message suggesting I buy these selfsame (and rather obscure) old books from them. Do they monitor one’s ‘Word’ files? Then I saw my (Swedish) doctor about a (query) broken ankle, only to receive an advert for elasticated ankle socks: again, shortly afterwards. Thirdly: we’re in the process just now of buying a new ‘Soft-Coated Wheaten-Haired’ puppy; again, I’ve been plagued with unsought offers of exactly the same breed from all over. And yesterday we went to a friend’s summerhouse for lunch under a canvas awning that had been (mysteriously) torn; we were discussing – verbally – how our friend could get it replaced, when – immediately – I got more Facebook adverts from an awning-maker. Coincidence? Or Big Brother? 

At least I don’t get any of those adverts for penis-extensions any more. (I used to wonder how they knew.) Or about Lesbian sex, apparently prompted by my googling ‘Mata Hari’ – the WW1 exotic dancer and spy. (I was working on the history of espionage at the time.)

Anyhow, here’s the new doggy. We collect her at the end of the week. Kajsa wants to call her ‘Doris’. Sounds a bit like ‘Boris’; which will be very apt when she starts pissing all over the floor.

Just to say that I have been banned from Facebook for 24 hours for posting a picture of three Swedish poets with huge stomachs deporting themselves in a field naked (no genitals visible); which apparently goes against Facebook’s ethical standards. This probably means you won’t get this post. Could you let me know if you do?

Three Swedish poets, one of them Gustaf Fröding, seeking inspiration through dance. (Steady on now, ladies!)

It’s amazing and frightening what Johnson’s government is getting away with – being allowed  to get away with – under cover of the pandemic and the football controversy, and on the back of a Parliamentary majority gained through lies and chicanery. First there was was its ‘extreme’ version of ‘Brexit’, pushed through against most people’s obvious wishes, with the results we’re beginning to see now. Secondly there was Priti Patel’s drastic limitation of the right to protest, which is usually regarded as a fundamental democratic liberty. Then there were the measures passed yesterday to facilitate privatisation in the NHS. After that came Priti Patel’s almost unbelievable – except it is Priti Patel – proposal to prosecute and imprison captains and ‘helmsmen’ of ships who dare to try to rescue drowning asylum seekers at sea; which goes against universally-accepted maritime law, as well as, of course, against any definition of morality. On top of all this there’s Johnson’s rampant inefficiency, cronyism and corruption. (Appointing an ex-Bullingdon chum to his Ethics Committee?! Is he serious?) Coming up, and well signposted in the last Tory Manifesto, are the limitations to Parliamentary and judicial scrutiny of legislation that Johnson and his cleverer Machiavels are no doubt working on now. Only the other day Parliament agreed to cut Britain’s foreign aid budget drastically. We know that Patel wants to bring the death penalty back – is that going to be in the next round? 

Living just now in my own political asylum none of this is going to affect me directly, though I still feel depressed about its effect on the country I was brought up in, and whose virtues, I felt – if you can attribute ‘virtues’ to countries – always balanced out its defects. Like very many people in England just now, judging from their comments, I no longer recognise the nation I used to feel comfortable in, and – yes – even mildly ‘patriotic’ towards. I’ll be touching on that in the book I’m just now in the process of completing.

That is, if I’m allowed to. In order to do that I was planning to take a short trip back to Hull in September to check a few notes and references I can only access there – not through Google, for example – and which are fairly necessary to my apparatus criticus. (Or can I use the pandemic as an excuse?) The other day I felt encouraged by reading that travellers from Sweden to Britain would be allowed in without the need to quarantine, so long as they’ve had their two jabs: which I have, in Sweden (Pfizer). Then today I learned that the jabs would have to have been administered by the NHS. Can narrow nationalism get any more petty? None of those nasty foreign jabs! So I’m likely to stay in limbo for some time yet. 

Well, there are worse limbos. And the longer I stay here, the more Swedish I’m beginning to feel. Which means British, but in the old way.