Nazi Satanism in Britain: the far-right, esoteric occult ideology and chaos

Britain might seem like an unlikely location as a crucible of far-right radicalism and Nazi-Satanism.  In recent years, though, a succession of extreme far-right groups, advocating violence and Satanic ideologies, have proliferated in the UK.

It’s important to understand what these groups really represent. On the whole, they are NOT “Nazis” in what many think of in the traditional sense; since the Second World War, many so-called “neo-Nazi” groups are more exactly “Nazi-inspired” than direct ideological successors. While there are have been plenty of far-right nationalist groups in recent decades that certainly continue the anti-Semitic “race war” ideology of the Nazis, many other groups take their inspiration from the Nazis in a more esoteric form.

In this sense, the Satanist far-right groups in the UK nowadays (like in other parts of the Christian West) are “Nazi” in the sense that they see the Nazi ideology and the persona of Hitler as an “inspiration” for their own nihilistic, anti-Christian agenda. They see the Nazis as a "force of chaotic energy" that fits their own. Their agenda is the destruction of Western civilization, as the Nazis was, through the use of extreme violence and “shock tactics”; but the "Nazi Satanists" of today are using their own moral degeneracy as a weapon to infect the rest of society like a virus. These are the same tactics that Fascism used nearly a hundred years ago,using extreme violence and powerful esoteric rhetoric to instill chaos in society, and not unlike how Islamic fundamentalists have done in the era since 9/11, ISIS in particular wanting to create their own "Islamo-Fascist" state in the Middle East.

Violence, moral degradation and psychological terror are the weapons that the far-right uses, along with spreading paranoia and conspiracy theories. It’s no coincidence that “climate skepticism”, “flat earth theory” and campaigns against “cultural Marxism” are all propagated within the far right; the origins of these beliefs are anti-Semitic in their origin, and some of them go back a hundred years or more.


Fascism as a modern-day "in-joke"

At the same time, however, the “crackpot” beliefs disseminated by the far right (and the Nazi-Satanist creed in particular) are held as a kind of “in-joke” by their own ranks. 
Unlike when Fascism and Nazism first appeared, the 21^st century incarnation doesn’t take itself too seriously; it spreads nonsensical beliefs and conspiracy theories more as a tactic to confuse society (i.e. as a form of psychological terror). The rituals held by the Nazi-Satanist groups in Britain, for example, are clearly absurd, and are meant to be; but they instill terror in everyone else all the same, which is entirely beneficial to their cause; their cause is to instill fear, confusion, moral degradation and chaos. 
This is why when the “alt-right” first came to popular prominence through the image of “Pepe the Frog”, it was all meant as a joke at everyone else’s expense; the joke was on society, and society – unclear about how to interpret what was happening – played along at its own deprecation.

This was how the “alt-right” was able to become so powerful, disproportionate to its own numbers. Other Populist groups achieved a similar level of recognition and “air-time” using the same tactics, making their fringe ideas mainstream by exploiting the malleability of fallibility of society’s beliefs. When no-one can claim to know what is right or wrong, or true or false, a land of “alternative facts” is never far away.  

Likewise, by spreading fear and confusion, the agenda of the pagan far-right is furthered. Using, for instance, a picture of Hitler as part of a Satanic ritual is certainly shocking; but then, that is the entire point. When the far-right advocates social or ethnic cleansing, it does so more than anything to influence wider opinion, by making these views “normal”. By spreading these ideas on social media, for example, its chaotic ideology seeps into the popular imagination. This is how “random” acts of violence, or hate crimes on the street, become more and more endemic. Views that would have once have been seen as extremely racist or hateful (and indeed still are, by any objective standard) are instead seen as “typical”.

The mainstream media plays along with this, by giving these extreme views a form of “moral equivalence” on talk shows or debates. Extreme views are then publicized without criticism, or not even by pointing out where they are factually inaccurate. In this way, nonsensical beliefs become “mainstream”.

This has been happening gradually since 9/11, but accelerated after the global financial crisis, and Britain has been one of the crucibles of this ideological transformation. These days, Britain has become a country in the grip of a “belief-based” project. No one in their right mind thinks that Britain could benefit economically from leaving the EU, but the power of belief over facts was behind what led to the referendum result in 2016.

The power of belief – of “the will” – is also a strongly-held concept in the far-right. The fact that some of the beliefs are nonsensical, as mentioned earlier, is also a kind of “in-joke” at the expense of society; if they can convince the rest of society that they are serious they have already succeeded in their task at manipulating society.  

This is why the psychology of the “cult” is so similar to that of the far-right: they are ran according to belief systems that defy rational thought; their agenda is, indeed, to destroy rational thought (or at least, make enough people question it). If their beliefs are then shown to be in error when they come up against reality, it is not the fault of their belief system, but reality itself that in in error; the only explanation for this dichotomy must be some kind of conspiracy against them.

This is why conspiracy theories find such fertile ground in the far-right: they are the only way to rationalize how their beliefs are so self-evidently nonsensical.


The cult of chaos

Britain nowadays seems a fertile ground for conspiracy theories,“magical thinking” and “cultish” ideology. All these things have come together under the convenient banner of “Brexit”, and it is no coincidence that the same crackpot conspiracies once held by the far-right gradually came to be held by a large portion of the electorate: the EU is responsible for all the ills in British society; the EU is a Jewish plot; the EU wants to abolish the British army etc. etc.

The “Nazi Satanists” in Britain are meanwhile reveling in the potential they see for chaos; spreading race hate, hate between the Abrahamic religions, hate for minorities, outsiders and those from alternative lifestyles. Their aim is to create fear and chaos between them all in order to make civilization disintegrate, and replace the old order with an ideology completely free of morality; an age of Satan. 
No-one in their right mind expects Britain to morally desintigrate to that extent; but Nazi Satanists only need their degenerate beliefs to infect enough of society to create moral disorder and a spike in intra-community violence in order to consider their methods to have been successful. Their use of the internet is the way they have been promoting their extreme ideas.

Britain has a tradition of the esoteric and the occult, with Aleister Crowley being one of its most famous figures. It was said his disciples tried to form a connection between him and Hitler, in the end to no effect. The esoteric world blossomed in Germany in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, around the same time as in the UK. The factors behind the fascination were the same; the rapid change in society and technology sent many looking to alternative routes for guidance amidst the uncertainty of an ever-changing world; falling back on ancient wisdom was something that had a strong tradition in both German and British paganism, through Nordic and Celtic (Druid) culture.

Satanism has become mixed in with these among the modern far-right in Britain. Fascism, since the global financial crisis, has had a "reboot" as a force for energetic, chaotic change. The hypnotic power of esoteric symbolism has seen a new home in the changing social and economic climate in Britain, and it will take a radical rethink if its dark forces are to be defeated.

The Brexit Party and Farage's "moment": the charisma, the strategy and the opportunism

Here's a quick reminder of where the British government stands currently.
It has a Prime Minister who leads a government that has no leadership: its ministers can say almost anything they want on the most important political crisis in living memory. The government is in a parliament in which it has no majority to agree on any decision relating to the most important crisis in living memory. The Prime Minister’s own party is desperate to get rid of her, but she refuses to relinquish (her meaningless) power, and they lack the means to force her out before more damage is done.

The governing party cannot agree how to deal with the most important political crisis in living memory, but neither can the opposition either; in this way, the two main parties are each divided into three or more incoherent and contradictory factions. The only established party that has a coherent position on the issue (the Liberal Democrats) are themselves being challenged by other (newer) parties, thus fracturing their wider cause into disconnected and uncooperative elements.

Given the nature of the crisis and the intellectual inadequacies nakedly displayed by the people involved, a way out of the current crisis looks impossible. All that can be agreed is to defer agreement on how to deal with the crisis, which has now simply resulted in the sudden emergence of the “Brexit Party”, with Nigel Farage poised to take ruthless advantage. There are no options on the table now that do not look bad for the main parties; only a menu of choices ranging from politically bad, to terrible, or apocalyptic. Nigel Farage looks likely to be able to exploit all of them.

In this way, Britain’s political class is divided and rudderless as never before.

As mentioned, into this “perfect storm” rides Nigel Farage, strategically positioned to take advantage of the “black hole” that Brexit has sucked in the Westminster establishment to a death-spiral of political oblivion. Using a strategically-adept sense of timing, Farage has allowed Westminster to simply destroy itself from within, its established parties simply displaying their own innate contradictions and failings in the face of Brexit.

Farage is both politically smarter than his established opponents give him credit for, and strategically more adept in understanding the fundamentals of modern politics compared to those who have only worked within the anachronistic structures of the Westminster bubble.

Playing the long game

While Farage is no intellectual, he has shown on several occasions a extremely canny reading of the political landscape, content to play the long game. Over a period of twenty years, he has succeeded in making an issue that very few people thought about (EU membership) become the defining issue of British politics. While his career has shown ups and downs, looking at things in the current situation, the trend of his political career has shown an unquestionable movement towards a greater and greater domination of the British political landscape. Yes, his career has had knock-backs (such as the numerous times he has failed to become a MP, and his various spells as UKIP leader); but the wider trend shows how he has been able to take an opportunity to make political capital of a situation and exploit it ruthlessly.

This is what has made him a political figure that his opponents have underestimated at their peril. While his appeal was initially marginal, his charisma seems to have appealed over time to a larger and larger segment of the electorate, when measured against his political opponents. In this sense, while Farage’s initial charisma was seen as a trivial distraction from the serious work of politics, the leading politicians in Westminster have over time simply displayed more and more of their inadequacies. Farage has the advantage of not needing to demonstrate his intellect compared to his political “betters” because his persona has that factored-in from the start. His supporters follow Farage because of his charisma, not his intellect; his appeal is his persona as a “man on the street” (regardless of whether it is a true reflection or not).

This was the impression he gave from the very beginning, so everyone identifies with that aspect of his personality. People like Cameron or Miliband could never hope to project that same impression because they would always be known for their orthodox political careers; they were “regular” politicians, and any attempts to show their charisma would always be balanced against that.

May and Corbyn, the “next generation” on, have other failings. May’s personality issues are now well-documented, while Corbyn’s charisma is, while genuine, limited in impacting only on those who share his old-fashioned view of politics. Given the changes of leadership in the mainstream parties, Farage is in some ways now an “established insurgent” in the political scene, given his long career on the sidelines, and his sharp rise in influence since 2010.

As said earlier, Farage’s high public recognition gives him the advantage of familiarity (everyone knows who he is, even if they disagree with him). Then the fact that his charisma is equally well-established in the public consciousness is another advantage. The last remaining factor is the actions of his opponents. Back at the “height” of UKIP popularity five years ago, Farage’s party came top of the European parliament elections (finishing in the high twenties), just above the other main parties. Five years on, and thanks to the collective rank incompetence of his opponents, he has been given an open goal (or at times failed to appear on the pitch at all); this explains how his new “Brexit Party” can manage to poll in the low thirties, at least ten points ahead of the next party.

The situation is extraordinary in every sense of the word, but Farage’s opponents have simply been doing most of his work for him, destroying each other’s credibility when not destroying their own. Farage simply has to step back from the fray (as he had been doing until a few months ago), and wait for the moment to strike. Worse, his opponents have given him all the rhetorical ammunition he needs to stir the emotions of the electorate in his favour. 

The “betrayal” narrative is now in full flow; the people who voted for Brexit have been stabbed in the back by traitorous politicians, who have simply rolled over to appease the European conspiracy against British independence. See? That’s how easy it is say such things, regardless of how many distortions and mistruths that narrative might involve.

Farage knows how to play the rhetorical game to a tee, though, and seems not to care too much about where that might lead. As said earlier, Farage may well have been playing a ”long game”, not too bothered about the means used to get what he wants, as long as the “end” is ultimately reached. He may have once been pilloried by Russell Brand as a “Pound Shop Enoch Powell”, but in the longer view, such slights can be laughed off or dismissed as the complaints of the “metropolitan elite” who simply play into Farage’s own well-established rhetoric of outsider victimhood. Beyond the city limits of London, Farage’s sentiments would be shared by many.

Given that the politicians in Westminster were never able to play a “long game” like Farage, they were only interested in generating the next headline in the “Daily Mail”; and such short-termism has consequences, as David Cameron found out. Theresa May’s own political strategy has been arguably even more cynically short-term (and a sign of her lack of intellectual foresight): she seems to be only ever interested in doing what is necessary to stay in power until the following month, which explains her Brexit strategy of delaying any decision where possible, or finding a route that can avoid her position being challenged.

The "Betrayal Party"

Now that the “betrayal” narrative has a willing and captive audience, Farage can exploit this to make as much political capital as possible. As the “last man standing” from the Brexit imbroglio, it is quite possible that he will be the only politician with public recognition that many people will be willing to trust. The advantage of Farage’s well-established rhetoric is that he has made it easy for himself to deflect blame for any errors on his part towards the actions of his opponents: he can play the perpetual “victimized outsider”, targeted by an elite only interested in suppressing his "popular uprising". He has already used the term “coalition against the people” to describe Westminster and Whitehall, while in the past has referred to his movement as a “people’s army”. This is the rhetoric of a Populist demagogue.

Farage doesn’t need to win over a majority to get what he wants; he only needs to convince enough people that their will is being betrayed, and already around a third of the electorate seem to fall into that category. In this sense, Farage’s “Brexit Party” could more fittingly be called the “Betrayal Party”: it is supported by those who feel they have been betrayed. These people are happy to lend their support to a one-man personality cult whose agenda is opaque beyond evocative slogans and divisive rhetoric. They seem happy to place it all on trust; and given the dearth of quality shown in the leading parties, you can see how they would do so. A vote for Farage is both a vote for blind hope and selfless trust. It is support out of desperation and anger. It might not be the first time that politics has led people to turn to turn people and agendas they didn’t fully understand, preferring to see what they wanted to see rather than the ugly truth hiding in plain sight; but it is the first time in living memory this has happened in Britain.

A couple of years ago, the author wrote that it had appeared that Theresa May had found a way for a mainstream party to exploit Brexit for their own advantage. Farage seems to have seen the reality, though: Brexit is a decisive “turn” in politics that none in the old order are able to deal with without it destroying them. It was only a matter of time before that revealed itself.

The opportunity lying before Farage is an extraordinary (and dangerous) one, unprecedented in British politics. Never before has the entire British political class looked so intellectually and strategically moribund; a beast on its last legs, just waiting for the end to come. It is a frightening prospect to witness. Westminster is an establishment on political life support, seemingly in a fatalistic end-of-days mood, unable and unwilling to deal with reality outside its doors. But reality, in the face of Farage’s peculiarly British brand of Populism, is camped at the doors, seemingly just waiting the moment to act.  

Britain, social hierarchy and Fascist ideology

A hundred years ago, Europe was in the turmoil of the aftermath of the First World War. The social hierarchies that had supported the empires of Germany, Russia, Austria and the Ottoman Empire had either been dismembered or were in the last throes of their life. All the social hierarchies that had existed on the side of the Central Powers have long since ended. On the allied side (i.e. the “Entente”), the only social hierarchy to have survived is that of Britain.

Britain’s social hierarchy is both the longest and only surviving social hierarchy in the Western world. The USA’s social hierarchy is more complex and younger, while the only other surviving monarchy of similar stature on the continent is Spain’s, whose own survival during the 20^th century went through the long period of Franco, and also stood neutral during both world wars. In this sense, Britain’s social hierarchy – its “establishment” – survived through adaptation. It has survived through two wars and the economic welfare reforms of the postwar Labour government.

It is its survival, and the successful projection of its image to the world as representing values of decency and moderation, that gave the rest of the world the image of Britain as a bulwark against political extremism. The problem is that the establishment’s projected image is very different from the reality. The fact that the Britain’s social hierarchy remained largely intact after two World Wars meant that the political system remained largely unchanged as well.

The irony is that Britain’s rigid social hierarchy is also the aspect of Britain that its supposed “enemies” also most respected.

As the oldest surviving social hierarchy in the Western world, other imperial powers looked to Britain (or more exactly, England) as the exemplar of traditional patrician, socially-hierarchical values. In this way, the way that England’s ruling elite were able to dominate first the British Isles and then much of the rest of the world, gave an impetus for other aspiring imperial powers (such as the nascent German Empire) to follow.

The parallel with Germany is relevant in other ways. The German Empire created following a decade of sudden military triumphs, had its roots in the Kingdom of Prussia. In a similar way to how the Kingdom of England came to dominate over the British Isles, Prussia came to dominate over its other German-speaking neighbors. The roots of both England and Prussia emanate from their status as early medieval “frontier states”, on the wilder fringes of Europe’s Western and Eastern edges. Both emerging states were able to dominate the other social groupings in the region (such as the various Celtic tribes in England’s case, and the various Baltic tribes in Prussia’s case). Such historical parallels were not lost even on Hitler of all people.

If we jump forward to the years before the First World War, we see a Prussia-dominated German Empire ruled by a militaristic “junker” class of Prussian aristocracy. Meanwhile, the British Empire’s ruling elite has long been ran by an English-dominated aristocracy. While the First World swept away Germany's Prussian elite, in Britain it survived; older, more well-established, and more able to adapt to survive. It is this "survival instinct" that even draws the respect of Britain's enemies. All the ancient culture of Britain and its Anglo-Saxon ruling class is what the older European aristocracies respected. The social hierarchy in Britain was (and still is) one of the most rigid in the Western world; it is this that the other imperial powers respected. Brought forward to today, the respected image that Britain has been able (until recently) to maintain was due to this long tradition of social hierarchy - of an undefeated English-speaking elite that still dominated world affairs far beyond what the law of nature would allow. Gulf Arabs, Russian oligarchs and Chinese billionaires all bring their money to corruptly "invest" in London because they are seduced by the bricks-and-mortar symbols of an ancient social elite.  

True, the day-to-day running of the country lies with a government chosen from parliament, but Britain’s electoral system is still dominated by parliamentarians who came from the social elite. Britain only had as much democracy as its ruling elite believed it could get away with giving; just enough to offset the danger of social revolt until the next election. 

To this day, its electoral system remains as unrepresentative as it was in the days of empire; all that has changed is its cosmetic makeup. With a modern media that largely comes from the same socially-incestuous background,it is neither in the politicians’ nor the media’s interests to highlight the fundamental injustices in Britain’s social hierarchy that they benefit from. It is much better to provide distractions and scapegoats, such as immigrants, or the EU.

Britain's class system versus India's caste system: differing models of Julius Evola's Fascism?

Apart from the class system, which retains the highly unequal social divisions, the issue of land is at the heart of understanding Britain’s economic divisions. The class system makes Britain the most unequal social in the Western world, apart from the USA. Ownership (and thus scarcity) of land is the main division between British social classes. Compared to other developed countries, land ownership is still the privilege of the aristocracy, and is one of the main forms of their economic dominance. It is also this issue that makes Britain’s social structure most akin to that of a developing (or pre-industrial) country.   

In this sense, British society is a social hierarchy in the same way that Indian society is a social hierarchy. India’s culture is ancient, and its social structure is highly stratified into castes. It is this caste system that Fascist philosopher Julius Evola used as his intellectual justification for Fascism: he saw society as naturally unequal, and that the ruling elite were naturally bred to rule, in the same way that the peasant or worker class was destined to be peasants or workers. The Fascism of Hitler and the Nazi Party was intellectually separate from Evola’s more traditionalist, hierarchical perception of society. While Hitler saw Fascism as a force for change in creating a new elite, Evola was more inspired by India’s ancient culture and saw Fascism as a restoration of ultra-traditional, rigidly hierarchical values.

Britain’s social hierarchy has historically been portrayed by the media in more genteel, patrician terms; the “establishment” as a moderating force on society’s passions. But this same thinking can be found in that of Evola, albeit in more black-and-white terms. To Britain’s “establishment”, society is to be tamed and guided in the right direction, so that any change that occurs only does so when it can also benefit the ruling elite. This explains the gradual changes that have occurred in Britain since the execution of Charles I.

The Fascism of Julius Evola is therefore not so very far removed from the perspective held within some circles of Britain’s ruling elite. While they would never say it publicly, they may well hold the same views as Evola privately. How could they otherwise justify to themselves such blatant social injustice?

Such a social hierarchy can thus only be justified to itself in “Fascist” terms, on the lines of Evola’s thinking. The boys at Eton do not give Fascist salutes, but in their minds they are educated to believe themselves to be as “ubermensch”; born to rule and educated to believe they were born to rule. This is the self-justification that also lies in the heart of Fascist ideology.

Those that dismiss such words as “left-wing radicalism” miss the point. “Fascism” is not just about black-shirts and salutes; to think of it in such narrow terms is to be dangerously blinkered, careless, condescending and complacent. As the philosophy of Evola demonstrates with its parallels to the Indian caste system, its thinking can be much more insidious. Some of today’s right-wing politicians in Britain’s parliament show such contempt for the fate of the working class, dismiss disabled people as“fakers” and openly cite xenophobic rhetoric against Muslims in particular and foreigners in general. If they had been in parliamentarians in 1930s Germany, by this logic some of them might well have seen the Nazi Party as their ideological home.

Evola’s intellectual concept of Fascism could in these terms also be called “traditional elitism”. In this sense, it can be seen as the elite ruling and the rest suffering, as is their fate under a social hierarchy. The fate of Ireland in the 1840s is an example of this rationale in action: the population of Ireland collapsed during the potato famine due to the British government’s ideological indifference. To them, “charity” was a dirty word: better that Irish people die of starvation than set a “dangerous” moral precedent of feeding them for nothing.

Yet this is also the intellectual logic of the Fascist. But no-one today would use that word to describe the actions of the British government at that time, regardless of its potential relevance. It should also be remembered for the record, that the Bengal famine in India during the Second World War occurred under similar circumstances of governmental indifference, headed by Winston Churchill. He was also renowned for despising Indians, as well as advocating gassing rebellious Iraqis.

"New" versus "old" Fascism

If we bring forward how “Fascism” relates to British society today, on the one side we see traditional elitists of the “establishment” (some of whom would naturally align with Evola’s philosophy). On the other, we see a resurgent radical far-right with its social roots in the white working class; this group’s ideology is more aligned with the bottom-up hierarchy of the Nazis, with the idea of sweeping away the “establishment” to create a new hierarchy.

This is where Brexit has brought both these groups from the opposite ends of the social hierarchy together. We see the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg in the same ideological universe as Tommy Robinson; both want Brexit, but for differing reasons. Both of their core philosophies are about bringing about a cultural revival of British (in fact, Anglo-Saxon) heritage. To use a phrase named after one of Julius Evola's most famous works, both JRM and Tommy Robinson are implicitly promoting a revolt against the modern world. 

JRM's agenda is about destroying the remnants of Britain's industrial infrastructure (and thus turning the country into a deindustrialized - and backward-looking - state); a state with the superficial trappings of 21st century technology but ran very much like an 18th century one. In many ways, this is what the Gulf Arabs have achieved with oil and gas; Libertarians like JRM want to achieve it in Britain with ideology alone.

The "Tommy Robinson" agenda is much more Populist and modern in its methodology; in that sense, borrowing more from the anti-establishment rhetoric initially harnessed by the Fascists in Italy and Nazis in Germany; honed to the 21st century using modern technology, fears about native cultures being destroyed by globalisation on one hand and Islamism on the other. There is a very good reason why the militant far-right use phrases like "white jihad"; using the same tactics as Islamic extremists who they fear on one hand but secretly respect on the other.

Britain has thus been a culture that fascinated the rest of the world for its rigid and ancient social hierarchy. It's a pity that few inside of Britain can see it as well.

Brexit's esoteric symbolism: the power of beliefs, and the far-right's "Aryan resurgence" fantasy

It has been blatantly-apparent since the EU referendum that Brexit has opened a "Pandora's Box" of social issues in Britain, that has been exploited by opportunists on both the far left and far right. Furthermore, it has even been promoted by movements outside of Britain to promote a wider, destructive agenda: Brexit Britain has thus become a kind of exemplar, a standard-bearer for other like-minded movements to follow. We'll explore the deeper symbolism of this a little later.

One of the most striking aspects of the EU referendum and how it was won was the use of emotive arguments over factual analysis. It was a case of the heart winning over the head; the power of belief over the power of argument. That has remained the same ever since, with those still determined to leave the EU basing this solely on the force of their beliefs. While the "remain" side used facts to demonstrate the basis of their beliefs, for the "leave" side the most important thing was the power of the beliefs themselves to win others over.
In this very concrete sense, the "remain" side lost the case because they didn't know who or what they were arguing against. In the same way that an atheist can never use rational argument to convince a religious fanatic of the irrationality of their beliefs, the same was true of the EU referendum. You cannot use rational argument against an irrational belief.

The power of belief versus evidence-based analysis is historically the story of how mankind advanced its understanding of science. It is also the main thing that separates traditional, theocratic ideology and concrete materialist thinking.
Put in this deeper perspective, Brexit and the "belief system" that goes along with it follows a trend of conflating globalization, materialism and liberalism with a wider rejection of cultural identity. We could also argue that the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) was the real turning-point in this trend: both the Brexit movement gained traction in the UK (particularly non-metropolitan England) in the years that followed, while Donald Trump's rapid rise was really following-on and exploiting the rise of the TEA Party movement that was instigated by the Koch brothers in the same time-frame.

Modern far-right movements across Europe, and more widely "Populist" movements in various high-profile countries today, all share the same skepticism of "global" values. It seems to more a collective rejection of the values that led to the GFC, which they have conflated with the materialist and heterogeneous values of social liberalism.
The problem is that we've been here before, following a earlier financial crisis: the Great Depression. Unlike in the 1930s, we don't have strongmen with private armies; with technological advances, we instead have online armies of "trolls" to intimidate virtually (with their anonymity arguably making them just as effective a force of dissuasion). Their ability to guide the direction of discourse and subvert the democratic process is similar to the tactics used by authoritarians in the 1930s; the only difference is how technology has changed their capabilities. While there are gangs of thugs to intimidate people as well (while claiming the right to free speech that their despised liberals so value), much of their real influence and "nudging" is done online, by exploiting the weak controls of social media.

In this way, the rise of Populism and the far-right since the GFC mirrors much the same trajectory of the 1930s, albeit over longer time-frame. If the banks hadn't been bailed out in 2008, the GFC would almost certainly have been a "Second Great Depression", rather than the drawn-out downturn and stagnant economies that have transpired in reality. A "Second Great Depression" would doubtlessly have led to a sudden surge in extremist politics in a very short time; what we have had instead is a "slow-burn" effect of far-right values slowly seeping in to mainstream discourse as people get more and more wearied of the seemingly-endless slog towards an ever-receding sun-lit horizon.


Brexit as an "Aryan Resurgence" fantasy

Relying on the power of beliefs, culture and spirituality is the classic reaction against materialist liberalism. In the eyes of Fascist theorist Julius Evola, this was part of a historical trend where scientific rationalism and materialism had led to a collapse in the moral values of hierarchy and a deeper spiritualism. He saw Fascism as a justifiable reaction against society's moral decay.
We can see many of today's authoritarian leaders using the same kind of rhetoric to justify their actions. In the Anglo-sphere, both Brexit and Trump supporters talk about the morality of their cause, seeing in their movements a deeper meaning: where the potential for chaos is seen as justifiable, and the threat of violence is never far from the surface. To borrow a phrase, Brexit and Trump are both a "Triumph Of The Will", to be enforced through mob rule if necessary.

In the eyes of Evola, Fascist ideology is in a battle for the restoration of ancient civilization i.e. the morality of the warrior. Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany were, in his eyes, attempts to restore the "natural" racial hierarchy that he believed existed before the rise of Christianity in Europe. Pagan "Warrior races" like the Germans and the Romans had proved their superiority in battle in the ancient battles they had fought to dominate Europe. Bringing this rationale to the 20th century, Evola then used this to justify Germany and Italy's carving up of Europe, with the ultimate expunging of liberal thought and the subjugation of inferior races. When the Nazis applied this to its "logical" conclusion, it was about the elimination of the Jews entirely.
As a matter of record, Hitler wanted an "understanding" with Britain, as he saw Anglo-Saxon culture as a fellow Aryan tribe. Hitler's fantasy was the German domination of the European continent from the Atlantic to the Urals, while leaving the British Empire intact. As we know, Churchill was having none of it, Nazi Germany over-reached with its invasion of the Soviet Union and was defeated.

The following post-war period was one of radical strategic realignment. To Fascist die-hards that lived through the post-war period, the advance of Communist influence across half of Europe, with Germany itself divided, materialist America triumphant and the slow disintegration of the British Empire, meant they had only their fantasies to believe in. The emergence of the EU as a political institution, with its zenith reached with the accession of former Communist Eastern Europe countries might have been seen as the real nadir for the fortunes of the far-right. But things were soon to change.

The GFC was the turning-point for the far-right, as they saw in the economic chaos an opportunity that had eluded them.
The cultural symbolism of English identity was based to an extent on "otherness". Being apart from the continent through their island geography, they felt emotionally detached from European culture, even when they were engaged in it politically. This sentiment was picked up on by Europe itself (most famously by Charles De Gaulle, when he rejected Britain's initial attempts to join the EEC). This meant that when Britain did join the EEC, they spent most of the time complaining about it, even when they had got the best "deal" of all.
In this sense, the more esoteric argument is that the instinctive scepticism that English culture had towards European integration and culture was an inadvertent echo of the same hostility found in historical Fascist circles. By this reasoning, England's "true" cultural identity is not materialist or liberal in the European sense, but more naturally traditional and authoritarian. Following this narrative, England's desire for Brexit was the subconscious desire to "carry the torch" of far-right ideology, first by breaking away from the materialist EU culture and then to encourage other like-minded nations in Europe to do the same. The "Aryan resurgence" fantasy is thus realized by England recognizing its destiny as the liberator of a materialist, liberal Europe, with a grateful Germany finally free from the guilt of the Second World War, and Brexit Britain as the instigator and leader of this supra-national neo-Fascist movement. In this nightmarish fantasy, it is England, using the "dark power" of Brexit, that brings about the collapse of the EU and the eventual "restoration" of Fascist rule across Europe. This would be achieved not through the military might of old, but through economic warfare and social destabilization: using the modern weapons of the 21st century to turn back the clock. The signs are already there this is the path the far-right would like to take.

The primal symbolism of the St George's cross mirrors the ancient heraldry of the black cross of the Teutonic knights that colonized Eastern Europe. "Brexit" is exploited by the Fascist far-right as an opportunity to reconnect people with their "roots", and to identify materialist "Europe" (i.e. the EU) as the enemy of their culture.   
But this strategy has already been used to great effect in Russia. It is no wonder that the Kremlin should be a supporter of Brexit: they would see it as another example of exporting "hybrid warfare" even more effectively (and surreptitiously) than has already been used in Ukraine.

Brexit and Britain's slow decline: a society falling to pieces?

Britain in 2018 seems like a country having a kind of slow-burning nervous breakdown. From a social point of view, the bonds that hold society together seem to be falling apart, while from an economic point of view, swathes of the country are populated by towns and cities that have simply lost their purpose, seeming to be there just because people happen to be there, not because the people really have anything to do there.
Both these issues, in the two links highlighted, come at the social and economic perspective from differing ideological ends of the spectrum, but the conclusion that can be reached appears similar: that Britain is socially-broken, and economically-moribund.

The nature of British society has fundamentally changed since the end of the Second World War. Like all developed countries, it has gone from being a male-dominated society, to one where women have a great role in the working world (note, I am not saying that women have "equal rights"; there is still a long way to go on that score). Society has become more racially-diverse (though, again, that does not mean racially-equal), and more sexually-liberal (generally-speaking; in some ways it could be argued to even have backslid, depending on the issue).
On top of that, social bonds have loosened, partly due to changing social attitudes, and also due to the changing (and more unpredictable) nature of work. The "changing nature of work" is partially a result of government strategy (or sometimes, lack of): in the last thirty years, the British economy has shifted massively in the direction of London, exacerbating a slide that had already began with the demise of empire.

Here is where the two articles mentioned at the start overlap in their concerns. The social bonds that have broken have done so as a result, at least in part, due to economic policy. The Libertarians that led the Thatcher government saw how the larger part of the population outside of the South-east of the country were being supported by the industries that were inefficient. Their solution was to either get rid of them, or if they didn't change, allow them to die. Thus we had the huge structural change of the economy from the 1980s onward, with a service-led economy that was only sustainable in the long-term for one part of the country: London and the South-east of England.
The social effects of this were not hard to predict, and are evident in every town and city outside of the South-east of England. In those towns and cities most badly affected by having their key industries disappear, the jobs that replaced them were primarily low-skilled, low-paid and low in productive value. In short, they were what could also be called "shit jobs", where job satisfaction was through the floor.
The vicious circle of this is that it affects all parts of the local community: unhappy workers are also unhealthy workers, low-skilled workers are much more likely to resort to alcohol or substance abuse, domestic violence, and so on. And then there are the unemployed, and unemployable, for whom these issues are even more acute. So the long-term effect is to create, on top of "shit jobs", "shit towns". Not surprisingly, there are even websites devoted to this whole issue.

This was all true before the financial crisis, where the economy outside of the South-east was funded by massive household credit and a large dollop of self-delusion, helped along by the self-interest of the The City. Property speculation is a "British disease" seldom seen in Europe; those countries that had succumbed to this mania (such as Spain) seem to have learned their lesson since the financial crisis.
Not so in Britain, where the self-delusion goes on and on, for lack of any rational alternative. An economy based on services alone cannot maintain a population of sixty million in the long-term. It is economically impossible. To paraphrase a famous political saying, a service-based economy might fund some of the economy all of the time, or all the economy some of the time, but not all of the economy all of the time. The Libertarians who led this structural change more than thirty years ago were not stupid; they knew that a service-based economy would leave half of the country in a permanently-moribund (or deluded) state. They just didn't care.
Bringing this up-to-date, the Libertarians that are leading the charge for Britain to leave the EU without a "deal", seem to be even less interested in the fate of those that are already falling by the wayside in society as it is. The potential consequences of Britain leaving the EU without a deal have been looked at elsewhere, but it is telling of the extent of Britain's decline that the country could be so easily hijacked by the dangerous agenda of these ideological extremists.

Outside of the self-contained bubble that is London and the affluent South-east, the decline of British society since 2010 is visibly evident. The surge in rough sleeping, the surge in food banks, the surge in drug use (even in the countryside), the surge in casual violence etc. etc. These are all unmistakable indications of a society falling apart. With government cutting local spending by half, with some councils already bankrupt or close to it, the predictable social effects are all there in plain sight. The government has an agenda that tells everyone that they no longer care; not about crime, not about poverty, not about the vulnerable.
Inequality in Britain has been high compared to other developed nations for decades, but the post-war consensus was a genuine attempt to reverse that. The Libertarian "project" of Margaret Thatcher quickly "restored" Britain's famed levels of inequality, with some of her advocates even claiming that inequality was a good thing. This is the classic response of a Libertarian. Since the Conservatives returned to power in 2010, they have "succeeded" in reversing all the good work that the previous Labour administration had done in reducing child poverty; in just seven years the Conservatives had "succeeded" in more than doubling child poverty levels, that had been previously halved over thirteen years under Labour. I suppose to a Libertarian, that would be marked as an "achievement"?

The Libertarian "project" that was started under Thatcher has now reached its logical conclusion with Brexit and austerity. After 2010, the latter was economically-justified by the government after the financial crisis on the grounds of necessity, even if there were few economists who could find any real evidence to support its imposition today; its justification was only ever ideological rather than economic. Support for Brexit was then led by a hard-right Libertarian faction with the Conservative Party itself (which itself had its roots going back to Thatcher's time), which has had effective control of the government since it won the referendum. In seeking a "Hard Brexit", they are pursuing what they see as Thatcher's undying wish: to convert Britain into a neo-liberal "utopia".

Politically and ideologically, then, it seems that Britain has run out of road. The ten years since the financial crisis have just seen Britain being led down the road of smaller and smaller gains for more and more economic pain, till the point that no-one can go on any more, as the fate of the "zombie" British high street tells us. This is the take that Pete North (in the linked piece at the start of this article) seems to have.
I have some sympathy with his wider point, but he offers no solutions. He offers Brexit as a "solution" in that it offers seismic change to the fabric of Britain's economy and society. Thus may be true, but the same could be said of declaring war on your nearest neighbour. It isn't a real "solution" if all it offers is chaos for the sake of chaos.

Arguing in favour of chaos isn't offering solutions; it's nihilism. British society deserves more than that; unless you think that British society isn't worth saving. But that (I would argue) would make you little better than a Fascist.
In this toxic social environment, it's no wonder we have "culture wars" between "remainers" and "leavers", where an ideological civil war is taking place at all levels of society; masquerading at times as a war of "them" and "us", it pits the working class against middle class, town life versus city life, even man against woman. Thus far, the "culture war" has remained, barely-concealed, just below the surface, only breaking through at isolated moments and flashpoints. Brexit has come to symbolize both everything that is wrong with modern Britain, and everything that must change to restore Britain. It is a "culture war" that has its roots going back nearly five hundred years.

It's true that, in the current state of affairs, this schizophrenia might only be properly resolved, one way or the other, by Brexit. It is the realisation of this that is so depressing.

Ideology and psychology: Libertarian motivation, right-wing thinking and historic comparison

The link between psychology and ideology is something that cannot be underestimated in terms of its human impact, as politics is about human decisions; flawed psychology leads to flawed decision-making.
This author has written before about the disturbing links between sociopathy and political advancement. The world of politics attracts those who seek either amoral self-advancement, or those who wish to expunge their own psychological insecurities by imposing their own twisted world-view on the rest of society.

In the UK, the issue of Britain's membership of the EU was at one time something of an obsession with "cranks". Nowadays, those one-time "cranks" are in the position of holding the government "hostage", ensuring that their vision of Britain outside the EU is enacted in full.

Who are these people? What are their backgrounds and motivations? Looking at some of the more high-profile of the "Brexiteers" in more detail, a few common themes appear.
First of all, there is the fairly obvious issue that the large majority of those in favour "Hard Brexit" are Libertarians. Brexit has always been a Libertarian project at its heart, going back thirty years. It should be asked how many of the electorate would call themselves "Libertarians": 20%, if not even less than that?
The Libertarian mindset is one of strongly individualistic, anti-government (and psychologically anti-social) motivations. It is vigorously anti-Communist, against any use of government power outside of the bare minimum. This is the reason for the Libertarian sense of historic "betrayal" by the EU. As they thought in entering the EU they were entering the world's largest free trade zone, the resulting regulations and rules that then went with that, along with "ever closer union", they saw as a personal affront to Libertarian "freedom".
When a Libertarian talks of "freedom", they are talking about economic "laissez-faire" freedom: the freedom from government rules, and the freedom to trade and make money without rules. Thus the EU, in needing to have rules in order to create a "level playing field" within the single market, becomes the Libertarians' enemy. While to an objective observer, rules and regulations can be seen to have a common-sense application when dealing with a open border economy involving dozens of countries, to a Libertarian, these rules and regulations become something more sinister: a threat to the Libertarian's "freedom".

In this way, Libertarians have a highly-concrete (and personal) sense of their own individuality and "freedom", where anything that reduces their ability to act as they wish is seen as a threat to themselves personally. This explains how "Brexiteers" respond to any attempt on compromise over Brexit as anathema: having invested so much of their own time and careers to it, they "internalize" their ideology, calling those who call for compromise as "appeasers" or "saboteurs".
This violent rhetoric partially may come from the psychology innate in Libertarian thought itself, which with its strongly individualist themes also encourages an inherently aggressive, masculine world-view. This testosterone-fueled culture that comes from Libertarian thought has pervaded Western thinking, particularly in the dog-eat-dog world of the "Anglo-sphere", where inequality is seen not only as inevitable but actually a positive thing for society, and where personal "drive" is what matters in life, rather than your social background. In this way, poverty is seen as the result of personal failings rather than the result of wider injustice in society. Such a stark, unforgiving moral universe has uncomfortable parallels with even more extreme right-wing ideologies.


Where the "military" and the "diaspora" meet

A closer break-down of the people advocating Brexit reveals yet more curiosities.
Apart from the shared ideology of Libertarianism, a disproportionate number of "Brexiteers" come from military backgrounds: people like (former ministers) Iain Duncan Smith, David Davis and Steve Baker have all had military careers of one sort or another, while some other "Brexiteers" (such as current minister Penny Mordaunt) have military connections through their parents.
A disproportionate number of "Brexiteers" are also what might be called part of the historic white British "diaspora": people who were either born and raised outside the UK (but also outside Europe), or have spent part of their time growing up abroad, or spent a significant part of their adult life abroad. Prominent examples include Boris Johnson (born in New York), Douglas Carswell (born and raised in Africa), Daniel Hannan (born in Peru), Arron Banks (who has significant interests in South Africa), and others.
Lastly, there is yet another disproportionately-represented segment within the "Brexiteers": those of non-white background who are also "products of empire" like some of the white British "diaspora" already mentioned. The significant trio of Sajid Javid, Priti Patel and Suella Fernandes stand out here: all three are Libertarians, of South Asian heritage, and from different parts of the former colonies - Pakistan, Uganda, and Kenya-India respectively. These people are either ministers, former ministers, or powerful personages within the "Brexiteer" side of the Conservative Party.

What this all adds up to is a revealing character portrait of the motivations and backgrounds behind "Brexit". In short, what it tells us is that disproportionate numbers of Libertarians are former-military and/or legacy products (i.e. children) of the "empire".
Should this be surprising? Probably not, but being able to look at the cold, hard facts in this way certainly brings a fresh perspective on the whole "Brexit Agenda". It has been said that "Brexit" is really about creating "Empire 2.0": the "colonial" background of some of the key people involved lends itself to the view that they indeed wish to leave the EU in order to establish a kind of "Commonwealth-with-bells-on". Theresa May's current traipsing around Africa seems to support that viewpoint.

More generally, it might also be guessed that the "colonial" and military background to many of these people would skew their own view of how they see the world and Britain itself. Military people always have tended to be more nationalistic, arguably seeing their nation in a far more emotional (and personal) way than the ordinary person. Equally, those with a "colonial" background may well tend to see Britain through the eyes of mythology: their own distant upbringing taking the rhetoric of Britain as a "sceptred isle", a bastion of civilisation, all too literally, lacking the perspective that close experience of a country creates. In this way, in having a narrow (even disconnected) experience of "real" Britain, they have fallen for their own propaganda.
From a psychological point of view, they therefore invest personally in believing in Britain's unique status, becoming staunch defenders of its freedoms while ignoring its many flaws; and when they see the EU, they see an institution that threatens their own sense of Britain's mythology. As a result, they lash out at anything and anyone that threatens to destroy their own carefully-formed (and insecure) version of the world. "Brexit" therefore is about creating the Britain of Libertarians' own mythology.
The end result is that their view of Britain's place in the world is through the lens of its former imperial status and its status as a military power; by contrast, Britain's physical proximity to Europe they see more as a threat than an opportunity, skewed through the prejudice of two World Wars.

This mythology of Britain is what Libertarians are obsessed with; their own prejudice against Europe comes from their own personal background, equating EU bureaucracy with the slippery slope to Communist oppression and/or dictatorial autocracy that they may have heard about or experienced abroad. Thus they react to EU regulations as though they were the same as Soviet oppression or totalitarian methods of control. The rose-tinted perspective that many Libertarians have of the "colonies" from their parents' stories thus lead them into (masculine) fantasies about restoring British power and prestige, fueled by their own sense of having something to prove.


German parallels

This isn't the first time that ideology and a nation's fate has been guided by the fantasies and prejudice of an alliance of ex-military and "diaspora" ideologues.
Where there are "cranks" that are today Libertarians guiding Britain down an unknown and unstable path, a hundred years ago in Germany, "cranks" of a different kind were also fighting against the spread of Communism in Europe.
By 1919, Germany was in a state of institutional flux, with a weak centre of power in the aftermath of the First World War. Into the void stepped an alliance of ex-military "Freikorps"; right-wing nationalists who sought someone to blame for the mess. They then gained the trust of the German "diaspora" of the (former) Russian Empire, who began to flee from the Russian civil war to Germany: these were people of aristocratic stock (known as "Baltic Germans"), whose heritage went back centuries, to the time when Germans - then called the "Teutonic Knights" - ruled over vast tracts of the Eastern Baltic. These "Baltic Germans" were ardently anti-Communist, and had their own rose-tinted views of what Germany could look like if it were able to take advantage of the opportunity in the east and recapture its "lost lands" in the Baltic.
Into this mix was added their own prejudice. The "Baltic Germans" anti-Communism was also influenced by one of the most influential of their kin: Fyodor Vinberg. Under his tutelage, the Baltic Germans were able to influence a large part of the "Freikorps" into believing Communism was also part of a larger Jewish plot to take over the world. Thus Anti-Semitism became established in right-wing circles of German society thanks to the German "diaspora"; one of those listening was Adolf Hitler. The extreme views of those Baltic Germans went on to feature in "Mein Kampf".

Extremism can take many forms. A hundred years ago, it was the rise of Communism that led to the rise in Anti-Semitism. Today, what were once the fringe views of Libertarians have come to dominate political discourse in British politics. Their own prejudices - their irrational hatred of Europe, and their fantastical view of British exceptionalism - are leading Britain down a path where xenophobia has become normalized, and where casual violence goes unpunished.

This can't end well.

"No Deal" Brexit, "emergency powers" and blaming the EU: Britain's "Reichstag Fire" moment?

With the negotiations with the EU heading in ever more certainty towards a "no deal" situation, talk is now how Britain would be governed after leaving the EU in this event. All the evidence points towards an unprecedented situation where legal barriers would automatically be raised to Britain after its government deciding to leave the single market and customs union. Britain would be an island of itself, in a very literal sense, in large part cut off from the legal connections to its neighbours.

What this would mean in practical terms has been discussed in great detail elsewhere (see eureferendum.com for example). The day-to-day running of the country's industry and services would be hugely affected, akin to a time of war. 

The fact that Theresa May assembled what has been termed a "war cabinet" tells us a lot about the mentality of those in government; to instinctively see the EU as an adversary now that we're leaving. And the government's behaviour during the negotiations has been nothing less than mendacious; from recently going back on previous commitments agreed last December (like over Northern Ireland, and now even threatening to go back on its previous commitment over the "divorce bill"), to now demanding that the EU show more "flexibility" when it has been the UK with its "red lines" that has been the one causing all the hold-ups. What should also not be forgotten is that the December agreement was put in place to avoid a collapse of talks completely at such an early stage; the EU was compromising where possible in order to prevent the potential unseating of May in London. And now, six months on, they realise that she is an untrustworthy figure, who goes back on agreements when it suits her. What does that say about Britain's status as a reliable power?

 From the start, the EU was clear and transparent about what was and wasn't possible through the negotiations and as a potential end-state between the two sides, given the legal consequences (and impossibility of the UK's "magical thinking"). By contrast, the UK government's strategy has been opaque and involved obfuscation at every turn in order to mask the chaos behind the scenes at home.

And now, the chaos of a potential "no deal" outcome is, as predicted, being blamed on the EU. In the UK, the only side that is promoting the feasibility (or even desirability) of "no deal" are the "Brextremists"; the hard-right Libertarians that make up perhaps 20% of the parliamentary Conservative Party.

It's telling that British politics is being guided by a faction of one party; a faction whose views represent not much more than perhaps 10% of the entire electorate, if that. The "Brexit Agenda" has long been a Libertarian project, dismissed for years as the wild fantasy of a bunch of cranks. The Maastricht Treaty was the moment that brought that to the surface, with then-Prime Minister John Major calling them the "bastards".

Major's view, looked at in the current situation, can only be even more true today. As their views were only ever really held by a small faction of their party, and even less well-represented in the electorate, where could their mandate come from? It was the work of UKIP, who were always a Libertarian party at heart - in spite of purposely-misleading talk otherwise - that allowed the "Brexit Agenda" real oxygen in the public sphere. A combination of the financial crisis, exploited worries of immigration, and a peculiar political situation after 2010 that made UKIP seem like an unofficial "opposition", gave that party the space to promote their agenda, with the charisma of Nigel Farage helping the project along. It was David Cameron's combination of insecurity and arrogance that was the final factor in the EU referendum taking place.

Extremist views, such as those held by the Libertarian faction guiding "no deal" Brexit, could only ever come to dominate the political sphere in unusual times. What we are seeing in Britain is, under the circumstances, little better than a quiet "coup" by a group of political extremists. Using "legitimate" means by usurping parliament and blackmailing the government, they are the ones in charge. Any voices of dissent at their actions are dismissed as against the "will of the people", as these Libertarians choose to dictate how Britain should be transformed into a Libertarian "utopia" after leaving the EU. By holding key government ministries, and holding influential positions outside government as "independent advisers", Libertarians maintain their grip on power over a paralyzed government. Thus they ensure that there is no way to reverse their agenda.

Meanwhile, they also ensure that any government attempts at negotiation with the EU are sabotaged from their own side, by submitting proposals to the EU that are bound to be rejected. This is then followed up by them blaming the EU for the lack of progress in the talks, claiming that the EU are untrustworthy, intransigent, and had an agenda designed to "punish" Britain into leaving without a deal.

"Emergency Powers"

It is at this point that we can see how any chaos in Britain after Brexit next year will be blamed on the EU. And, given a compliant (and supportive) media, many in Britain would accept it. 

Using a dark historical parallel, this could be Britain's "Reichstag Fire" moment - when a calamity instigated by one side is blamed on the other, in order to create a specific controlled narrative. While the EU would in that situation be accused of "stabbing Britain in the back" for its behaviour, those Brits still be in favour of rejoining the EU might well be branded "traitors" for siding with a foreign power. Foreigners themselves in Britain during this chaotic time might well (justifiably) fear for their safety. In the meantime, given the potential for widespread disruption to infrastructure and so on in the case of "no deal", the government might well be forced to use "emergency powers" to keep the country running, as in a time of war. Being effectively cut off from much of the rest of the world (even if for only a short while) would make this even easier to implement. Such self-imposed isolation would then allow those in power to take control of the narrative even more completely.

This is the kind of "creative destruction" that Libertarians talk about, where they hope to make a killing on the carcass of Britain's anarchic economy as vulture capitalists. In times of chaos, people look to order and authority, and are willing to suspend their usual common values like democracy and free speech. While Libertarians might look to make a mint in the meantime, deals could well be sought with more unscrupulous far-right authoritarians to create a kind of cultural "revivalism" to bring the nation together, where long-repressed ideas of power and identity are re-invented, at the expense of the "other", and at the expense of diversity.

Such talk has already been seen in Britain and America, with the rise of the unashamed bigotry of the far-right. In a "No Deal" Brexit, Britain could quickly descend; first into chaos, and afterwards, into a kind of "dark alliance" between opportunistic Libertarian vulture capitalists and the neo-Fascism of the alt-right. 

It could happen.

The "Windrush" scandal, racism and British identity: the real meaning of the "hostile environment"

Is it possible for someone to live in a "Fascist" state without realizing it?

It all comes down to a matter of perspective. Some talk of how societies in the same country can live "parallel lives", completely ignorant of the other's way of existence. In this way, those who have a law-abiding life free of everyday concerns can be blithely unaware of how the government creates hardships and denies basic rights to others in society who are equally law-abiding, but are for some subjective reason, targets for persecution.
In the most infamous "Fascist" state, Nazi Germany, the hate and withdrawal of human rights that the government held for some sections of society such as the Jews was overt. Partly, this was due to the extreme ideological conditions that were created out of the Great Depression; in such circumstances, people were susceptible to the easy blaming of scapegoats in society. In the case of Fascist Italy, the Nazis' ideological predecessor, the "hate" was somewhat more nuanced, and the withdrawal of rights from some in society was more gradual.
In both cases, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany were regimes that had come about through "revolution", albeit via the ballot box. Thus, their extremist ideology was a known quantity, and an overt part of their motivation. In this way, the population knew what the regime was going to do to "undesirable" segments of society, and knowingly supported it. In a similar manner, Apartheid South Africa dealt with its black population by considering them effectively as (to use the Nazi term) "Untermensch", whose legal rights were automatically less than the whites. The separatist regime in white-ruled Rhodesia had a similar mentality, even if it went about it in a more nuanced manner.

The treatment of the "Windrush" generation in Britain is not on the same level as these earlier examples, and may not be overtly racist, but their treatment is discriminatory and an abuse of their rights nonetheless. There is no government rule stating that people of a certain ethnicity and circumstance will have their rights withdrawn, but rights have been withdrawn nonetheless. It might not be government design that has led to certain segments of society having their rights withdrawn; but some segments of society have had their rights withdrawn nonetheless. These are not people who have broken any law; they are people who are seemingly random victims of government "persecution".
The law, however, is never random; it is only the seemingly random nature of the "persecution" that makes it appear that way. When a government decides to implement a law that reduces the rights of segments of society, for whatever reason, its motivation is overt. When a government makes a rule that disproportionately reduces the rights of one segment of society, how is this not persecution?
The British government's "hostile environment", while overtly introduced to reduce illegal immigration, has also reduced the rights in an similar manner to those of the "Windrush" generation. Apart from that, many law-abiding foreigners now live "parallel lives" to those Brits unaffected by, and seemingly ignorant to, the reality of the "hostile environment". This is the new reality that has meant rights that were previously protected are now uncertain, where the authorities are more likely to trust the word of a crooked (or paranoid) native than that of a victimized foreigner. Equally, punitive visa rules now mean that those Britons who have non-EU spouses are exiled from their own country unless they have well-paid jobs.

The application of the government's malice appears random, but in fact targets the poor, the disabled, the non-white and the foreign. There is a reason why wealthy, educated "Aryan"-looking individuals are far less likely to be victims of the authorities' wrath, and why poor, illiterate "foreign-looking" people are disproportionately more likely to be victims. It is not "institutional racism" by law; it is the government allowing personal prejudice to determine how segments of society are dealt with. In such circumstances, government officials, public sector workers and others are left to subjectively determine if someone is "worth the risk" of being given the benefit of the doubt. With the "hostile environment" meaning people no longer have the "benefit of the doubt", prejudice and not wanting to take the risk means the law-abiding are losing their rights. This conduct is typical of that seen in authoritarian states, where rule of law is seemingly arbitrary, and human rights unequal.
This is certainly the case with how the "Windrush" generation have been dealt with by the British government, whose rights have been taken away arbitrarily, without the government even openly aware of it. They have literally become a "forgotten" part of society; in a Kafkaesque way, erased from government records. While the Nazis persecuted the Jews by design, the "Windrush" generation have been "persecuted" by ignorant neglect.

This ignorant neglect extends to all of the various segments of society mentioned before: the poor, disabled, foreign and non-White. It is a telling observation that many of those outside of Britain, in a stereotypical manner, see the country almost as a whites-only country. To outsiders' eyes, Britain becomes almost as "Aryan" as Germany was to the Nazi stereotype. This kind of lazy prejudice seems to now have infected the mindset of even those who live and were born here: British identity has become white identity. Anyone who is British and non-white becomes, by extension, not "really" British. Anyone who is British but has foreign connections or foreign interests is, by extension, not "really" British.
This mentality is what lies at the heart of Theresa May's insular, parochial and mean-spirited vision of Britain. This is what lies behind her criticism of citizens of the world being "citizens of nowhere". This explains her enthusiasm for creating a "hostile environment". While it is never overtly stated that the Britain she wants to restore is the one from her childhood, it is implied through all the rhetoric that her government uses. The point is that she doesn't need to state it overtly for it to be understood implicitly. It is an implicit hostility to the poor, disabled, non-white and the foreign. The "hostile environment" is a glimpse into the twisted, inner psyche of Theresa May.

It is this "implicit" culture of hostility that is what everyone in society has subconsciously registered. The culture of hostility that existed in the far-right regimes mentioned at the beginning was was overt and sanctioned in law. The "hostile environment" is not in the statute books written as such, because that would be too insensitive for today's times. Instead it is put in terms that make it seem simply a rigorous application of existing rules.
This is how the vast majority of society would be unaware even of its existence. As how those affected by its insidious effects can appear random and thus not actively "discriminated against", it is easy for those outside its grasp to think that nothing was wrong whatsoever.
This is why the question at the very start was asked. If nothing was wrong with how things appeared, how would the average person be aware of the reality?

This is where the media has a role. It is the media's role to report the news and issues of the day. But if those in charge of the media have an agenda of their own, how can the average person know the difference between "agenda" and a more objective truth?
The "hostile environment", it should be remembered, was largely a media invention that was then pursued by Theresa May and her government for selfish, political interests. She did not do it because she truly, deeply felt that foreign immigration was a threat to British security. She did it gain favour with influential media moguls and advance her own career.

One wonders when she was talking years ago about the "Nasty Party", that she wasn't really talking in some way of her own inner demons. Those petty, reactionary tendencies she once decried are the same ones that now guide her. But one suspects they always were, and that once she had a taste of power in the halls of government, it was impossible to restrain them. May's relationship with the hate-filled right-wing media and her elevation to the queen of the "Nasty Party" brings to mind the story of the protagonist in Klaus Mann's novel, "Mephisto".
In leading the Home Office in the way she did, and introducing the "hostile environment", she has sunk Britain into a kind of moral pit, with everything else about the administration she now leads falling into the same misanthropic mentality.

Ayn Rand versus Julius Evola: The troubling overlap of Libertarians and Fascism

A couple of weeks ago I wrote a post talking about the influence of Julius Evola on Fascist thought, and his influence on contemporary culture, especially in the lens of the political situation in the UK and the USA.
Sometimes politics brings together strange bedfellows, which is usually due to an unusual or turbulent set of circumstances. In the 20th century, for example, the unlikely (and short-lived) alliance of the Bolsheviks and the Liberals brought down the Tsar's regime in Russia in early 1917, with the Bolsheviks as the ultimate victors through their own "revolution" (more like a coup) in October the same year. By 1932, Germany was in the middle of a political upheaval that saw the Communists and the Nazis in a kind of joint campaign of chaos and terror against the political mainstream in the middle of an economic meltdown, which saw the Nazis as the victors.
The "postwar consensus" that was established following the turbulence of the Second World War lasted for around thirty years, until a combination of economic factors like "stagflation" brought an opportunity for right-wing economic extremists to take control of the situation.


"Strange bedfellows": Libertarians and Conservatives?

The "economic extremists" were Libertarians, whose ideas of a shrunk-back state and a "pure" form of Capitalism with unfettered market forces had been widely espoused by their icon, Ayn Rand.
In Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, these ideas were being promoted in the UK and USA respectively by two enthusiastic leaders, with the aim of first winning over their own (Conservative and Republican) parties, and then the country.
The ideas of the Libertarians were not popular initially within their own party, as some of their philosophical ideas seemed directly counter to those of traditional conservatives. Firstly, the "postwar consensus" was still considered an established fact not to be challenged, both with the Heath government in the UK and the contemporary Nixon administration in Washington. It was only the discrediting of both these administrations under different circumstances that gave "outsiders" like Thatcher and Reagan a chance of a hearing. By the mid-70s, Thatcher was leader of her party and Reagan was the "poster boy" of the conservative right. Both would soon be leaders of their country, and "de facto" leaders of the Libertarian movement.
Libertarian thought, as espoused by Ayn Rand, is fundamentally against traditional conservative tenets that emphasize the importance of faith, family and country. Rand's sense of Libertarianism is atheistic, materialistic, and individualistic: it sees the world through the eyes of the free-spirited entrepreneur, detached from the fuzzy, old-fashioned values of orthodoxy. Traditional Conservatism is about community, culture and social hierarchy; ideas that would be anathema to an ideological Libertarian. So how did these two sides reach an understanding?
Apart from the changing dynamics of the economy being on the side of the Libertarian narrative, as mentioned above, the "strange bedfellows" of the Libertarian and the Conservative found out that they did have a few things in common, and enough for an understanding of a common goal.

At its core, one of the central tenets of Libertarian thought is that while the state should do as little as possible, it must provide law and order and security. What this means in practice is that it is the defender of property rights, free choice and the rights of people to earn their own money. In other words, the state is in reality the instrument of the wealthy, as the defender of the rights of the status quo. By definition, it will do nothing to change circumstances to benefit those who are doing badly under the current system, as this would, in its eyes, undermine the impartiality of the legal system.
While Libertarian thought is ideologically meritocratic, in practice their absolute adherence to respecting the rights of the status quo mean that they are really defenders of the social hierarchy; the same social hierarchy supported by traditional conservatism. In theory, traditional conservatism is about creating a culture that unfairly protects its interests through a patriarchal system, while Libertarianism is about getting rid of such artificial constructs that prevent a level playing field. In practice, their absolute adherence to the respect of property rights and free choice means that even under any meaningful changes to the system (say, for instance, the abolition of beneficial subsidies), those at the top of the hierarchy would be guaranteed an in-built advantage.

One example would suffice. The existence of private schools gives an in-built advantage to the richest in society to get the highest quality education for their children. While I'm not here to argue exactly one way or the other (although the author has made his view clear before), it's clear that this could never be called a "level playing field" in children's education. On this subject, Ayn Rand was always consistent in being in favour of the right to private schooling as being a) a matter of parental choice, and b) that private education is no guarantee of a child's intelligence or success, so is therefore "fair".
It is easy to point out that while this may be, technically, true, in practice having a private education gives even the most dim-witted child an in-built advantage over any more intelligent, but impoverished, peer. In short, being born into a wealthy family is like playing a computer game called life in the "easy" setting.

As Libertarians are the strongest advocates of not wanting to tell people how to live their lives or what people should do with their money, this allows traditional conservatives a lot of slack, at least on the second point (if not the first).
Social policy is one area of contention between Libertarians and traditionalists (as any momentary look at how David Cameron's ideas on social policy compare to Theresa May's will tell you). But this is a minor issue when looking at the overlap that they share on their mutual economic interests: they both want to get rich and stay rich. And Libertarians showed the traditionally Conservative establishment how it could get even richer.


A marriage of convenience

For the last thirty-five years, Libertarian ideology on both sides of the pond has created a boon for the richest in society, while on the other hand (especially since the financial crisis) created a period of unprecedented uncertainty and hardship for those at the wrong end. The marriage of interests between (Libertarian-supporting) big business and the (traditionally conservative) establishment was thus based on a trade-off: the Libertarian right made the establishment even richer and more empowered, while the establishment turned a blind eye to liberalizing some areas of social and economic policy.
Issues like gay marriage and the relaxing of drug laws caused traditionalists to make a fuss, but these are cosmetic changes that simply reflect social reality. Meanwhile, the state's real changes to society - such as how the establishment now has unparalleled access to an individual's privacy -go unchecked. This may be another part of "marriage of convenience". Traditionalists turn a blind eye to social policy, but gain powers over other issues like state surveillance; Libertarians gain on social policy, but "lose" on issues like state surveillance. Then again, both traditionalists and Libertarians can also see the longer-term benefit to both these policies to their shared agenda: relaxing social policy feeds the illusion that government has become more "liberal", which masks the fact that it has become much more intrusive in other ways. Meanwhile, the gap between the richest and the poorest grows to their mutual advantage.

In this sense, "Conservatism" has always been a tent of varying interests and (sometimes conflicting) ideas. The Libertarians of today share more in common ideologically with the Whigs of yesteryear in the UK and the USA. The politics of Donald Trump and Steve Bannon seem unlikely bedfellows to people like the TEA Party and Evangelical Christians, but their differences seem to have been (temporarily) overcome in the pursuit of power and mutual self-interest. Across in the UK, the same is true with the most zealous supporters of "Hard Brexit": many of them are ardent Libertarians, while others follow an agenda that seems to pursue an nostalgic form of neo-colonialism and nativism. Like the conflict between Bolsheviks and Liberals in 1917 Russia, or the Nazis and the Communists in 1932 Germany, they all see opportunities in the chaos.

While having very separate visions of their own, Fascists and Libertarians are extremists that thrive on seeing opportunism in social collapse. As said earlier, Libertarianism only found a receptive audience in the mainstream right in the 1970s due to specific economic factors; prior to then, it was the obsession of fringe movements and think tanks. And now, in the economic malaise that has struck segments of society since the financial crisis, we have seen Brexit in the UK and Donald Trump in the USA marrying elements of both Libertarian and Fascist thought into an idiosyncratic melange.
Like with traditional conservatism and Libertarianism, the natural links between the latter and Fascism seem tenuous. More seems to contradict them that unite them. But the same could have been said of traditional conservatives in the 1920s in Italy, and those in the 1930s in Germany: they both united behind Fascists due to their mutual self-interest.
Looking at the Fascist thinking of Julius Evola in particular (especially as he has allegedly been a subject of fascination to Steve Bannon), in spite of their many differences, there are still a number shared aspects of thought between the Libertarianism of Ayn Rand and the Fascism of Julius Evola. These include:

• A hierarchical, Social Darwinian, view of society. Julius Evola's Fascism was one that human society progressed through the strong over the weak, where the poor were seen as the lowest "caste" of society. In this light, democracy was the immoral antithesis to this "natural" order of things, as it gave power to the weak (i.e. the uneducated masses) over the strong (the educated elite). Libertarians are likewise "social Darwinists" at heart, and oppose altruism and government involvement in society; they believe that humans can only progress through self-advancement, and that the poor are therefore to blame for their own circumstances. Rand seemed to have a similarly skeptical - even hostile - view of modern "social democracies", seeing them as being a vehicle of altruistic indulgence, and thus against the rights of the individual and morality of society as a whole. While Rand was a critic of dictatorship as a rule, it is also implied in Libertarian thought that if government exists only to defend the property rights of the rich against the poor, it is also in favour of the elite against the masses. Thus, by definition, Rand was an elitist like Evola, albeit in a different manner. The manner of the method they were advocating may have been different, but the result is essentially the same.
• Ardent anti-Communism. Although Rand was an atheist and an arch Capitalist, and Evola was a neo-pagan and against "materialistic" ideologies like Capitalism and Communism, they both saw Communism as the worst threat to society. Would Rand ever have worked with a Fascist to destroy Communism? Probably not directly, but many of her later acolytes certainly did, especially in places like South and Central America (e.g. Pinochet in Chile, the Contras in Nicaragua). The Cold War saw Libertarians and repressive "neo-Fascist" dictatorships work together to prevent what they saw as "Communism", regardless of what that meant for ethics or the rule of law. And these days, this fear of "Communism" has evolved to an unspoken understanding that seems to operate between these two groups in their battle against "Socialism" in all its forms, regardless of how moderate, from the welfare state to equal rights. In the modern USA, many Republicans acquiesce to the unstable behaviour of Donald Trump out of fear of losing control of Capitol Hill, while in Britain, moderate Conservatives are silenced by extreme Brexiteers, out of fear of the "Socialist" agenda of Jeremy Corbyn.
•  Use of violence and oppression to achieve their aims. While Rand saw war as against humanity's self-interest, and Evola was a strong advocate of violence as a means to an end (as well as a natural result of Social Darwinism), both ideologies would be unattainable without violence and oppression being some part of the equation. Both these extreme ideologies can only be achieved in times of social and economic upheaval. Whereas Fascism sees violence as a necessary means to achieve its objective, and Libertarians do not, a Libertarian society (like a Communist society) would only be possible after the previous social structure collapsed, or became discredited. Like with the advocates of "Hard Brexit" in the UK, by implication their objective could only be reached after the previous order had disintegrated completely. Thus, for a Libertarian to achieve his goal, he must be indifferent to the necessary social disorder and chaos as a "means to an end", which puts him in the same moral plane as a Fascist. It is only a question of the means of the chaos. Lastly, a Libertarian's love of "freedom" only extends as far as his ideology is unchallenged; when challenged, a Libertarian will abuse their position of power like any tyrant, twisting the law and corruptly using the state apparatus to achieve their goal, while dishonestly claiming that their opponents threaten "stability" in the same manner.

Put in this light, Libertarians and Fascists could be argued to operate in much the same moral plane, as well as much the same ideological universe; the only difference is how they seek to get there.