Brexit Britain: a rogue state, hostile power, and government of lies

Britain’s government is establishing itself as one that no foreign power in their right mind should trust.

The conditions to Britain leaving the EU with the “withdrawal agreement” (a legal document) included Britain having specific obligations, in particular about Northern Ireland. It has since come to light that, not entirely surprisingly, the government – under Boris Johnson’s tutelage – has been looking at finding ways to “get around” the obligations on Northern Ireland they agreed to with the EU - to ignore them while pretending they haven't. The minutiae of those obligations don’t matter so much here as much as the message that Britain is clearly sending to the EU: “You trust us to do what we agreed to? More fool you”

A "rogue state"

The message this sends to the EU, and to the rest of the world watching, is that post-EU Britain is happy to act as a “rogue state” in terms of its legal obligations. If you sign a treaty with Britain, its government is saying, don’t expect us to honour it; we have no honour.

Britain’s imperial past has many examples of how it has abandoned its obligations, legal or moral. Ireland knows all about that,when the British government allowed a million Irish people to starve to death. But Britain has been masterful over the years in creating a myth of Britain always siding with the “good guy”; of being a beacon for democracy and human rights. It was always much more cynically pragmatic than that in reality, only surrendering its colonies when they no longer became economically viable or worth the military effort to hold on to; it has also been a friend to many loathsome regimes at one time or another.

The British government today seems to believe its own historic myths, which may be one reason why the government is acting in such bad faith with the EU. In falling for its own myth of Britain as an “exceptional” nation, it follows that its politicians think international rules don’t apply to them. The fact that Britain (through its numerous tax havens) is the leading instigator of global tax evasion tells you enough. The EU tolerated this kind of behavior when Britain was a member state (and Luxembourg is likewise culpable in that regard, if on a much smaller scale); but now Britain is outside the EU and is self-evidently set on a strategic path that opposes (or is actively hostile to) the EU’s interests, Britain can only be regarded as a threat. The fact that the British government is happy for it to be known that its promises amount to nothing tells the EU that it is dealing with a hostile power.

The fact that the British government disseminates lies can hardly be surprising either. Even the Prime Minister in his earlier career as a journalist became infamous for creating “fake news”, long before the term was widely-used. Nothing that comes from the government’s mouth should be taken at face value; its signature on a legal document is apparently meaningless as well. It only chooses to abide by agreements when it suits them.

This, then, is the meaning of a “rogue state” when applied to Britain’s government: one that has a selective application of the rule of law. While Britain’s legal system has long been respected around the world, its twisted application of law means that London is the litigation capital of the world. “Brexit Britain” is a country where judges are seen by parts of the media as “enemies of the people”, while the government – and the infamous Home Office in particular – are habitual exploiters of the legal system to overturn judgments that go against them. The fact that these attempts are often expensive failures is just a sign of how the government happily misuses public funds simply on a savage point of principle.

This doesn’t even mention how the government is routinely denying the legal rights of citizens on a daily basis: people like the “Windrush generation”, some of whom have been denied their rights, lost their jobs and deported (or exiled) for just having the wrong skin colour. The same is expected to happen to many Europeans too, given time. 

Then there are the tens of thousands of homeless whose plight is often due to a collapse of the social care system. Britain as a “rogue state” is one where many of the mentally ill and disabled are abandoned by the state to fend for themselves on the street, with a system designed to torment them yet further. Britain today is a country that allows some of its mentally ill and disabled to literally starve to death. It isn’t the government’s active policy; it simply doesn’t care what happens to them.

The “rogue state” that Britain is becoming is an inevitable consequence of the “Brexit Agenda”: not caring about rules; not caring about the consequences of its actions. It is, at its heart, an amoral creed. 

Brexit Britain is a project ran by and headed by shysters and charlatans, crooks and ne’er-do-wells. Its agenda can only appeal to the worst elements of human nature: cranks who see it as an opportunity to pursue their own fringe obsessions; vultures who see Britain as a way to make their fortune at other people’s expense; careerists who see it as the easiest way to advance themselves, no matter how.

This has been true in many other countries as well, of course. Britain is just rediscovering its corrupt heart, with all the other corrupt countries in the world looking on at Britain as another member of their rogue’s gallery.

The irony of Britain’s “rogue status” in the eyes of the rest of the world is that it is a self-defeating cause. Going back to the issue of Northern Ireland, making things more difficult for the Republic of Ireland only makes things harder on relations with the USA as well as the EU; for the US Congress is a huge supporter of Ireland, and no trade deal can be endorsed without its support. So the British government’s “FU” attitude to the EU is also a two fingers to the USA as well. This leaves Britain without the support of both its closest trading bloc and the most powerful country in the world.

Maybe this is why Britain’s government post-EU is cosying up to China and the Gulf States: one-party states and autocratic monarchies might be where Britain’s government sees its future: as "dodgy" banker,  private tutor, luxury goods maker and tech provider to the world’s least democratic states.  

Brexit ideology: the dangerous realm of cranks, crooks and control freaks

Brexit's detractors have never had to look far for evidence that "Brexit" was an idea that consumed the imagination of cranks. Linked to this is the tendency for many of Brexit's most vocal advocates being ideologues whose interests were in a more "flexible" interpretation of the law; such as using loopholes for the purposes of aggressive tax avoidance, and a more general desire to remove state power from the interests of an unregulated private sector wherever possible: "Britannia Unchained".


Cranks

This author has written before about the dangerous attraction that Brexit has to a myriad of ideological extremists and fantastical fanatics. These are people who have their own agenda to pursue through Brexit, and typically fall in to the camp of being either libertarian ideologues, racial nationalists or far left socialists.

We only have to look at the people occupying the most significant offices of the state, and the people whose advice they rely on. Most of the key positions in the British government are occupied by ideological Libertarians (of "Britannia Unchained" fame), or are advised by them.
The main with the most significant (and unchecked) real power is Dominic Cummings (more on him later). His clarion call to attract "weirdos" into the corridors of power tells us everything about what kind of "project" Brexit Britain has become: a vehicle for radical ideological and structural change of the country, of its priorities, and its place in the world.

In a sense this "change" might all sound exciting (and the Prime Minister is a skilled purveyor of the cult of charismatic enthusiasm). A look at the kind of "weirdos" Cummings is attracting to the highest levels of government tells us something much different, however: some of these are people who don't so much think "out of the box" as think the morally unthinkable, and are happy to say it in public as well. In other words, Brexit is an idea that attracts the morally unscrupulous (more on that below), as well as giving fuel to innate prejudices, dark paranoia and loopy fantasies.
Build a bridge across a three-hundred-metre-deep, bomb-strewn stretch of ocean? Sure! Engineering flights of fancy; dreams of Britain as a eugenically-purified nation of super-intelligent go-getters (thanks to a rigorous immigration programme of only the very best and brightest while also breeding out the native degenerates). In this kind of alternative dimension of being, Britain rules the waves, not as an imperial power of old, but as an island race of technologically-advanced geniuses. These cranks have truly become drunk on their own absurd propaganda.
All that has stopped Britain from ruling the waves, apparently, has been its own lack of self-belief. Britain outside the EU can literally reach for the stars.


Crooks

Then there is the attraction that Brexit poses to another plethora of "outside actors"; foreign interests that see Brexit as a corrupt opportunity to peddle their influence at the expense of Britain's own moral standing. Given the ridiculous levels of delusion present in the highest levels of government, it's no surprise that some outside the EU are looking at post-EU Britain as a turkey ready for carving.

Outside of the EU, Britain is already in talks with China and actors in the Middle East, for example. The farrago over Huawei is only a taster of the kind of things to come, as Britain faces a world that sees Britain outside the EU as a pygmy on stilts. Britain has no serious clout to defend its own interests; in this new plane of existence, it only has the power of its own lack of self-awareness, unaware that everyone else sees itself as an emperor with no clothes.

The things that Britain has to offer the global economy are its financial industry, the related  "fintech" industry, and the high regard of its education system. It is also good at making things that kill people, and is one of the world's centres for enabling tax evasion. Based on this, it is easy to see how post-EU Britain will become an ever-more nefarious magnet for providing high-end services to the globe's rogue states and criminally-minded mega-rich.

What else, after all, can Britain offer? It has nothing else that the world really wants. Think of it as Switzerland with a coastline, but one that can't even properly feed and house its own native population.


Control freaks

Presiding over this state of affairs are Boris Johnson and his key adviser, Dominic Cummings.

The "bloodbath" of ministerial restructuring that heralded Johnson's ascent to the premiership (and the more recent one that took place the day before Valentine's Day) demonstrated his ruthless application of power. While Johnson can be charismatic, he is also a control freak; the latter trait he also shares with the chief adviser he brought in with him to Downing Street, Dominic Cummings. Johnson's idea of government is far more absolutist in its internal application than any previous Prime Minister in living memory; a populist tendency he shares with Donald Trump.

The difference to the egoism mania of Trump is that Johnson and Cummings seem to have agreed some kind of mutually-beneficial "pact", where Johnson delegates certain areas of policy and strategic control to Cummings. There had been rumours (such as over the decision over HS2) that Cummings' influence had been on the wane since the election in December, but those must have been well and truly squashed by the manner of forcing the chancellor Sajid Javid's resignation after being barely seven months in the job.
Cummings' malign influence had been responsible for getting Javid's own advisers removed the previous autumn, and it is now clear that both Johnson and Cummings see the Treasury, as well as some other departments, as simply vehicles of the prime minister's own strategy: there to tell him how something can be done, not if it should be done. Ministers that disagree cannot expect to be tolerated for very long. Cummings was already seen to be behind the extraordinary expulsion of more than twenty Conservative MPs from the party whip back in September (at a time when the government was already in a precarious position in parliament).
With Johnson at the helm and Cummings at his side, theirs was a partnership of convenience, with the adviser seemingly happy to play the role of sinister villain sidekick and Johnson as the "lovable rogue". Together, they achieved a lot and ripped up as many precedents in a few short months.
In this way, Johnson has made his premiership much more about a "cult of the charismatic leader" than has been known before in British politics. Theresa May's own attempts at "control freakery" were almost comically-inept by comparison. Johnson, with Cummings' at his side, has destroyed his political adversaries in short order, leaving him as a popular leader, with near-autocratic political inclinations.

Johnson's childhood fascination with ancient Greece, you wonder, might have a large part to play in this, with its chain of famed dictators, philosophers, lunatics and tyrants. Johnson's unstable upbringing and his near-constant necessity for praise and attention, leaves him with an ego that craves a desire for approval, as well as a desire to make his mark on history; to be a "man ahead of his time". This is something that he shares with Cummings, whose own sense of grand sweep of history allows him to indulge his own grandiose view of his own intelligence.
These two men are the ones in control of Britain's immediate future. They have used their skills to seize it, in a way that would have seemed unimaginable only a year ago. There is still an open question about what they will do with their near-unstoppable power, given their low regard for those that get in their way, and what they have done with it so far.
We may soon see.

Brexit psychology: the victory of delusion

"Brexit" is an idea based on delusions, both paranoid and fantastical.

The crowd that gathered in Parliament Square to celebrate "Brexit" at eleven o'clock on the 31st January were celebrating the victory of their own delusions. They were "free". They were free from European oppression.
What "victory" had they won? As summarized brilliantly by Tom Peck in the linked article above "what makes Britain’s independence day different from most, though not all, that have gone before it is that its prize is a freedom nobody else wants". Britain has become "the first country to throw off the yoke of an oppressor whom nobody else considers themselves oppressed by. We have won our freedom from our own imagined nightmares. We have liberated ourselves from the terrors of the monster under the bed that was never there. We are the children that never grew up"

Brexiteers have won freedom from their own imagined nightmares. Britain has freed itself from the invisible monster. St George has slayed the dragon that never existed. England is a country at war with its own shadow, a dog chasing its own tail.
You get the picture.

In Britain leaving the EU, the EU has also lost a valuable member. As Ian Dunt says "Britain joined late, but when it did it brought something unique: a caution which is needed in any grand project. That detachment is now portrayed as a sign that Britain never fitted in. It's nonsense. Any number of European states, except for perhaps Germany, could have succumbed to jingoistic populism. We were just the only ones stupid enough to hold a referendum on it. Britain's careful approach to Europe suited it and provided something valuable to the manner in which the project evolved"

One of the EU's missed opportunities was that Britain's involvement could have been used to rein in the political urge to continually crave for more and more "more Europe", with political decisions based on pragmatisn rather than ideology. Instead, we have had the UK as a EU member whose perspective was too often under-utilized, by itself as well as other member-states. Now Britain has left, its internal politics intoxicated by its own delusions, and the rest of the EU faces a populist insurgency slowly eating itself from the inside out.


Paranoid delusions

Those Brexiteer delusions mentioned earlier have been there for decades. There is a recurring sense that these are people who could only be happy if they have an enemy, even if it is one that is entirely illusory. George Orwell said a thing or two about that in Nineteen Eighty-Four, and it's a psychological trick that politicians have used down the ages. Technological advances have allowed them to refine their techniques, and the rise of populist rhetoric has seen the resurgence of that old chestnut, "the other". It can be any "other", as long as it can be used to take the blame.

What makes it different today is the use of "plausible deniability" by the populist leaders whenever their acolytes use that rhetoric to project harm. There's always the "nod and a wink" about populist rhetoric, from Boris Johnson, Donald Trump and all the others. If far-right violence and hate crimes are increasing, it's because of provocations from the other side, never from theirs ("there was blame on both sides" etc.). They are always "isolated incidents", except when highlighted to show how liberal society is failing. You can never argue against their rationalizing of violence, because they don't use rational arguments. 
The rhetoric of division serves a purpose - to provide an "other" to aim their frusatrations at, whether it be foreign plots (the EU's "agenda") or fear of loss of culture (immigration). With Brexit, the emotive argument used has been that Britain has been "humiliated" countless times over the decades by Europe, and more generally "held back" from fulfilling its greatness. 
While it's true that joining the EEC was originally a decicion based on the changing global strategic situation, the kind of "deal" that Britain has got out of it over the decades has been one that has involved various "opt outs" compared to other member-states (on Schengen, the social chapter, the rebate, the Euro etc.); in fact either proving Britain's more advantageous "exceptional" status with the bloc, or the ability of Britain to get more than should deserve. Either way, to other European countries, Britain's complaint of "bullying" by the EU looks like the complaints of a country with a dire lack of self-awareness.

The British print media have much to blame for this sense of eternal paranoia, or "Europhobia". The culture of pychologically equating "Europe" with the Second World War - also thanks to films and TV series - has led to Britain, and England in particular, with a sense of greivance against "Europe" totally out kilter with reality. The sense of the EU being a co-operative project is lost to them, with "Europe" used by David Cameron when it was necessary to prove his Eurosceptic credentials to the hardliners in his own party. The EU became the "whipping boy" of the British psyche, which ended with Cameron being eaten by the monster he couldn't stop feeding.
By the time of the referendum, the EU was being blamed for almost everything possible: from illegal immigration from the Middle East and Africa, to the closing down of factories in the North-east of England. Nothing was the fault of Britain's own government, if it could be conveniently blamed on the EU. 


Fantastical delusions

Similarly, Brexit supporters often sound like they ought to be sci-fi/fantasy aficionados. The vision they have of Britain outside the EU is one where Britain is able to transcend global rules and norms. 

In the same way that they fantastically blame the EU for holding Britain back for decades, they claim that "Britannia Unchained" can become a 21st century buccaneer: using language more commonly found in sci-fi fandom, they claim that Britain can be a pioneer in the tech industry (as though no other country has thought of it before), or can become a "supercharged" leader in space technology, for example. Why not build a Britain space fleet to colonize other planets, for that matter? Money is no object to them. No ambition seems too fantastical to hold.

Likewise, Brexiteers live in a world of 21st century make-believe; a fantasy realm where borders are frictionless even though there are no agreements in place to allow it. The Britain they imagine is one where the geographical reality of the country's berth right next to Europe is forgotten; instead of it being mere practical, financial and logistical sense to do the bulk of our trade with our neighbours, Britain should be imagined as a country where it is as logistically simple to trade with Australia as it is with Austria. 
Britain, in their eyes, is not tethered to Europe by geography at all, but is in effect a giant floating island, like "Laputa" in Gulliver's Travels, able to move around the world and trade with whom it wishes at will.  

All this is imagined because of emotional ties to the past. If these fantastical delusions are not permitted to happen, then it is the fault of Europe, or a conspiracy to "do down" Britain from within. Then the paranoid delusions take over to cloak the fantastical nature of their imaginations. These people are, emotionally-speaking, mere children in adult bodies. 

Brexit Britain is a country fuelled by the infantile instincts of a nation that has yet to grow up. Boris Johnson is, in this sense, the leader to a cult of age-regression.

Boris Johnson: the personality cult and "national saviour" narrative

After Boris Johnson’s first appearance at the House of Commons as Prime Minister, his general approach was dismissed by the opposition as “incoherent optimism”. This is as accurate a description of Johnson’s “free jazz” approach to dialogue as you may get, but at the same time, it exemplifies the problem that conventional parties have to tackling Populism as a whole. They cannot counter appeals to emotion with references to facts; it is an approach doomed to failure, for it misses the point. They do not understand the nature of what they are up against.

Johnson’s appeals to emotion are typical to Populism, with the important distinction that Johnson became London mayor eleven years ago using the same charismatic,maverick approach several years before Populism became a wider force in the world. It should also be mentioned that Johnson’s predecessor at the mayoralty, Ken Livingstone, used his own charismatic (left-wing) style to great success for eight years.

Love versus fear

Johnson has been compared to Trump many times before for obvious reasons, but there are also important personality differences worth mentioning too, and these affect their political style in important ways. The two men may well be Populists, but they are Populists of their own mould. Both men are narcissistic and charismatic,reckless and unprincipled. Both men have used their force of will to attain personal success by breaking conventions and engaging in amoral behaviour. And yet, although their careers have both fluctuated over the decades, they were always in an ultimately upward trajectory, until they reached the absolute pinnacle of power.

What is different about Johnson and Trump is what motivates them beyond the self-evident narcissism. Trump’s motivation stems from the instincts of a businessman. He is a swindler with the approach to ethics as straight-laced as a mafia don, and although he clearly loves attention, he doesn’t seem to mind what kind of attention it is; bad publicity is still publicity, after all. This indicates a very high (and very skewed) sense of omnipotence.

In this sense, Trump is the kind of narcissist that doesn’t care if few people love him or like him, as long as people respect him. He may be a difficult person to love, but a much easier person to respect; and he seems to have earned a kind of grudging respect even from enemies that hate him. If you can’t be loved, then at least be feared: this seems to be his “mafia don” mentality that he applied first to business, and now to politics.

Johnson’s narcissism, on the other hand, seems to stem from an innate need to be loved. Playing the buffoon and the clown simply for people’s laughs (and therefore affection) has been his singular style since becoming involved in politics.While he is by nature academically-bright and sharp-witted, his public persona has been to play the jester. 

This also explains why Johnson’s rhetorical style is subtly different from Trump’s. To borrow the phrase used at the start, compared to Johnson, Trump’s rhetorical style is more “angry incoherence” compared to Boris’ “incoherent optimism”. Boris wants to make people feel good, so that they will feel good about him. His use of high-flown rhetoric and pseudo-Churchillian prose are a strategic act and a psychological ploy. It is also clear that he is at his most comfortable when in this role, such as when inspiring Londoners during the Olympics or extolling Britain’s future prospects during the referendum campaign. With the oncoming event of Brexit, he is in the role of national leader continuing in the same motivational manner, exhorting others to combine with him in a collective spirit, and scolding the opposition for sowing doubt and disharmony.

The cult of Boris

Of course, by embracing such a faith-based belief system, the reality of Brexit hardly seems to matter to him. Boris has turned Britain into the archetypal personality cult, with him as its charismatic leader. This is where Nigel Farage and Johnson share the same instincts: they are both “Pied Pipers”, and along with Donald Trump, are an Anglo-Saxon Triumvirate of Populism.

In this way, Boris’ message is both dangerously seductive and terrifyingly simplistic. He has turned Brexit from an ideological “death cult” to an esoteric “sex cult”: his persona provides a motivational “force of nature” that infatuates the nation, making them love him for making them love themselves and love their country. The negative energy, and the anger and depression that Theresa May’s ghoulish tenure generated has been transformed by Boris into a kind of orgiastic national hero-worship.

It may still be Brexit “do or die”, but Boris’ rhetoric ability is to make it seductive regardless, and to make people love him for it in the process. To any right-thinking person, Brexit may well be a disaster, but to Boris’ supporters, it will still be a glorious disaster. Boris’ ability to channel all the stereotypical national myths into an evocative “Brexit” narrative is the spell that his supporters don’t want to end. Such a narrative would be even difficult for agnostic parts of the electorate to ignore. After all, it worked three years ago, so why not now, at its most pivotal moment?

The signs are that the anger that Farage channeled through his “Brexit Party” is now being dissipated by Boris’ singular rhetoric; his purple prose transforming the “betrayal” narrative into a narrative of national salvation. Boris’ emotive and bombastic talk in the House of Commons on his first full day in power left the opposition not only confounded but also dejected. As said earlier, they simply lack the political tools to know how to deal with it. The only answer is for them to find their own emotive narrative to fight back against Boris with, but they are too divided and lacking in a clear direction to know where this would come from.

This is why there is a temptation to go along with the “national destiny” narrative: that Boris, from a young age, was destined for greatness, regardless of his reckless and unconventional nature. The Churchill parallels are well-known, as well as knowingly well-versed by Johnson himself. Clearly, he has long been fascinated by the wartime leader, seeing the man’s ups and downs and long-winded career (and unstable upbringing) reflected in his own. Churchill was a deeply-complex (and often maddening) character, and his long career before 1940 was largely famed for its infamy, in spite of its longevity. Like Boris, the people that most liked Churchill didn’t know him; they only loved the myth. While charismatic, he could as easily be horrendous company. It was only the Second World War that rectified his reputation; so now, the man on the British five pound note is only remembered for his exploits during a five year period of war. The charlatan and drunk he was known as before has been forgotten.

Doubtless, Boris has similar hopes of national “immortality”. If he can get his government through Brexit, then his hope is that he stays in power for long enough that people will remember him for being the charismatic blonde-mopped icon in power at a time of adversity and national change and will have forgotten about any of the trauma and hardships (he created) that went with it.

Given his luck, he may well pull it off.

Boris Johnson’s government – the Brexit “coup” and the Libertarian agenda

Many people were worried that Boris Johnson was someone who didn’t have any idea what he was doing. From the way he has assembled his new cabinet, it’s very clear that he does know what he is doing – and that is what terrifies everyone but the Libertarian right. 

Boris, the man mocked as a “clown”, is clearly having the last laugh: like the “Joker” in the Batman universe, he has long given the impression being a chaotic anarchist without any kind of plan; but in reality, he very clearly does have a plan; a plan that terrifies his opponents. The blundering Boris “persona” was always an act to those who knew him well, and the manner of his assembling of government is the crystal-clear evidence of that.

He has assembled a government of ideologues, whose other key attribute is loyalty to Boris. This is not a “compromise” government, it is a government assembled for a mission:to leave the EU at the end of October, and embark on a “WTO Brexit” if necessary. In order to do, Boris has displayed not only his tendency for the theatrical, but also for powerful ideological statements. Boris has ruthlessly purged almost all the “old guard” from government – Theresa May’s natural instinct for preferring old, unimaginative white men, for instance – and replaced them with a cabinet of eclectic personalities that looks around ten years younger.

Those “eclectic”personalities are, put another way, a sign of how Johnson’s government (like himself) is one marked by mavericks and “outliers” (although there are also blunter ways to describe it, which may come later). This is the most obvious sign that Brexit is a Libertarian project, led by people from unusual backgrounds. Boris himself was born in New York, and lived most of his formative years in a nomadic existence abroad with his siblings following his father’s career around different parts of the world. His family’s background and make-up is already easily rich enough to merit a dramatic saga, without even looking into Boris’ own career.

The core positions have been given to people who, like Boris, come from eclectic backgrounds, with a common cause in being long supporters of the Libertarian agenda. The new chancellor, Sajid Javid, is the son of Pakistani immigrants (whose father, like Labour’s London mayor Sadiq Khan, was also a bus driver); the new foreign secretary (and also first secretary of state), Dominic Raab, is the son of a Jewish Czech refugee who fled the Nazis as a child; the new Home Secretary, Priti Patel, is the daughter of Hindu immigrants who fled Idi Amin’s brutal regime in Uganda. Then there is Michael Gove who, under the title of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (CDL) will be responsible for domestic preparations for a potential “WTO Brexit”, is the adopted son of a Scottish family.

The Libertarian agenda bleeds into almost every position of strategic significance, with arch-ideologue Liz Truss in the International Trade brief, and Andrea Leadsome in the Business department. Theresa Villiers, another Libertarian, takes over Gove’s position at the Department for the Environment. The “icing on the cake” of all this, though,  is seeing Jacob Rees-Mogg, leader of the ERG Libertarian faction in the party, becoming Leader of the House of Commons (and thus being a near-successor in this position to Leadsome). Meanwhile, the agenda to diversify the appearance of government likewise continues with men of Asian background being promoted to the Department for International Development and in the role of Chief Secretary to the Treasury (supporting Javid). The new party chairman, meanwhile, is black.

There are token positions given here and there to moderates (or Boris-supporting “Remainers”), but the overall complexion of the government (no pun intended) is one that is radical in ideology and diverse in its heritage. In this sense, it mirrors much of the make-up of the ERG faction itself, whose character is also eclectic, if not often downright odd.

But this is the point: Brexit, and the “hard” form that the Libertarian faction support, was always, by definition, a marginal cause, supported by people who never represented the values of British society at large. This was why the allegation that Brexit was effectively a Libertarian “coup” against British society stands even more valid now, looking at the people running the key levers of government. These are people whose agenda is one mainly supported by “cranks”.

Perhaps the most significant personality involved that backs this interpretation in all this is not someone in a government department, but who is said to become a key government advisor: Dominic Cummings. This is the clearest sign that Johnson’s aim is to bring the “Vote Leave” referendum campaign into government, complete with Cummings’ ideological pyromania – the “British Steve Bannon”, if you will.Things may well become “interesting” very quickly.

Apart from Cummings, it is clear that Johnson does not shy away from controversial characters (who’d have thought that?); this is further self-evident from promoting Gavin Williamson so quickly after being fired under a cloud of national security scandal, while similarly promoting Priti Patel after her controversial dealings with Israel. The message given out here is that Johnson values ideological loyalty and patronage first, and is not that bothered by (or maybe even secretly admires) unethical or destructive behavior. Given his many own examples over his career, this is hardly surprising. The same indifference to chaos is a characteristic that seems to run through the personalities of many in key positions in government.

So the Johnson administration is an assemblage of personalities designed for a purpose: to make Britain leave the EU at the end of October, regardless of the consequences. This is the government that Libertarians would have dreamed of having three years ago, had Gove not knifed Johnson at the critical moment in the leadership campaign. As it is now, it has been called the “Ferrero Rocher” Brexit government: Johnson spoiling the ERG by effectively creating their “fantasy cabinet” for them.

This all makes it clear the Boris is dead-set on destroying the “Brexit Party” and reclaiming as many of their supporters as possible, while seemingly indifferent to any flight in the other direction from moderates in his party to the Lib Dems. Johnson has set his stall with his choice of personalities. Perhaps he sees the strategic long game in how the Brexit may well eventually see the resurgent and ideologically-motivated Lib Dems replace a directionless and insular-looking Labour Party, and sees little point in fighting against the political tide; he simply wishes to forestall what he sees as the coming realignment by making his own ideological preparations. It would certainly be ironic if, a few years from now we have the Conservatives and the Lib Dems as the two main parties, given how they were in government together only five years ago.

Boris has cultivated the clownish image for so long that people have forgotten (or never knew) about the intellectually-gifted man underneath. His strategic method behind his agenda is clear from how he has chosen his government. His supporters, and the Libertarians, will say he is bold and ruthless; his detractors will say (justifiably) he is destructive and reckless. He can be both those things, of course. His strategy, if he is looking at the likelihood of an early election, may well be to – in the short-term – to deal with Brexit and the (divided) Labour Party as soon as practically possible. The chances of Johnson winning a majority in parliament in an early election may be higher than many people assume, given the stark difference in style and appearance his government will portray to the public. By contrast, Corbyn’s Labour Party is more likely to divide the opposition against Johnson with the Lib Dems and others.

The effect of this may well be not dissimilar to the election of 1983. It’s possible that Johnson has seen this as a possible (fortuitous) scenario as well, leaving him comfortably able to plan for the strategic long-term afterwards. Of course, any early election could also be a complete mess as well (the Prime Minister himself, as well as other ministers, could lose their seats); it could all go completely wrong and the Lib Dems could be the big winner out it it. But this is the risk that Johnson takes; and we know he likes taking risks from time to time.   

Whatever happens, it won’t be dull.

Inequality, injustice, social divisions and Brexit: an expression of Nihilistic rage?

Perhaps one of the cruelest forms of psychological torture is to be educated but poor, living within an unequal and unjust society. Trapped inside a body that instinctively craves for more, requiring intellectual and creative advancement, but is held back by the invisible walls of society, such a person can easily become a burning mass of resentment. Black people know all about this in America, and the historical source of their resentment is well-known.

In England, the historical source of resentment is the injustices carved into the class system. The pride in the British (and in particular, the English) flag that some of the white working class there have feels especially ironic, given that the flag represents the same system of injustice that has existed there for a thousand years. The education system is designed to entrench social divisions within society, with the only way to get an education that is worthy of the name meaning you have to pay for it.

Born into the wrong background, and your intellect is simply wasted; this is the most basic meaning of “injustice”: to have something useful to offer society, but to have your productivity and intellect deliberately repressed by the barriers of the social system. Meanwhile, those whose intellect is objectively inferior and whose nature is less productive, are indulged by a system that rewards the fate of their wealthier parentage; this is the most basic meaning of social immorality and corruption, where the poverty of the poor is exploited by those who fear losing the injustices that keep them in their place. 

“Know Your Place”

Libertarians argue that such injustices would, over time, equal out under a free market; that intellect would naturally balance against any inequalities in the system. But this can only be true in a system where there is equal opportunity; where the rich have an equal opportunity to fail as the poor have to succeed. There is no such system in place in America, let alone in England.

In England, the social system is designed to instill a sense of “knowing your place”; a Westernized and more genteel version of India’s caste system. The historical injustices and prejudices within society were one reason people settled in America in the first place, it should be remembered, and the “American dream” still exists there in people’s hearts regardless of the harsher reality. In England, no-one really pretends that such a “dream” ever existed; only the myths that were projected by its ruling elite, with Churchill being among its most famous polemicists. Even during the days of Empire, the best way for people born there to thrive was to leave Britain itself and seek out a life in one of the overseas “colonies”.

This explains why some people still have nostalgia for the Empire, and see Brexit through the same revisionist lens. The “Empire” was seen as a success because people had somewhere else than Britain where they could make a stab at being successful. This explains why the Scots were among the most resourceful of pioneers and colonists; given the dearth of opportunity (and the ingrained prejudice) at home, they sought a more just chance at success overseas.

So when the empire began to fall apart after the Second World War, and the “homeland” itself became a destination for the “colonials”, the irony (and sense of injustice) was not long in being felt by the “natives”. That same sense of bitter injustice was the root of the racism that greeted those who came from overseas to settle in Britain; not a country with streets paved in gold, but a country with inhabitants that brooded in quiet resentment. Wind the clock on several decades, and that same brooding resentment is felt in many parts of the country; the source of it is the historical injustices mentioned at the very start that were never put right.

Deaths of Despair  

     

Industrialisation led to parts of Britain that had never known prosperity and productivity becoming more prosperous and productive than some towns closer to the capital itself. Added on with the effect of empire and a captive (and advantageous) overseas market, in spite of the still-entrenched inequality, the whole of the country seemed to be thriving.

After the Second World War, the trend that had led to some parts of the country losing their primary purpose of existence began to accelerate. Still trapped in the embrace of a fundamentally unjust social system, post-industrial Britain lacked the dynamism to find a sustainable economic model. Instead, the ruling elite turned to Libertarian morality.

The British economy is, in fact, slowly dying. Britain lacks a sustainable economic model for the 21st century. Creating an economic structure that relies almost entirely on collating power and wealth within the capital, it allows the rest of the country to atrophy; returning Britain to the same structural inequalities that existed prior to Industrialisation. Due to the corrupt injustices of its social structure, those in power lack the intellect to deal with the issues rationally, instead only seeing the issue through the lens of protecting their own interests. They would rather ignore the rest of the country’s suffering and resentment – thus not dealing with the issue rationally – and deal with the consequences of that resentment as and when necessary. This is the archetype of reactionary thinking.

The result of that reactionary thinking has seen towns and cities across the country to slip into a kind of slow-motion social breakdown. These are the “deaths of despair” – of suicide or through the self-abuse of poor diet, over-drinking or drugs – that have seen a growth over the last few decades, and a surge in recent years. These are places that literally have no future; their economy has ceased to have an identifiable function, and the government doesn’t care enough (or lacks the intellect) to do anything about it.

In this sense, the future of post-industrial Britain may well follow the (nihilistic) prediction that the Conservative government made forty years ago: there are places in the country that will simply be allowed to wither and die. Such a sociopathic level of indifference is a damning indictment of Britain’s social structure, and there is a valid question to ask whether this structure’s own future is finite as well. How long will it be before the corruption at the top becomes so entrenched and so reactionary that it either eventually over-reaches or runs out of steam entirely?

Nihilistic Rage

There is a narrative (which has some merits) that the Brexit vote was the result of years of accumulated social frustration at the inequalities that had been allowed to fester within Britain, and England in particular. This is an over-simplification, as the vote would not have been possible without an at least equal sense of spoiled entitlement from the Middle classes of England’s rural heart also choosing to believe in a form of nostalgic revivalism, where a mythical cultural homogeneity could be restored. A more accurate representation would be to see the Brexit vote as reflecting both of these contradictory and opposing ideas;such contradictions only being possible in such an unequal society at Britain.

This social inequality explains the attraction of Brexit to those who feel they have no future. As they were told migration and the EU were responsible for their sense of resentment and despair, they turn to the politics of anger as the only way left that explains how they feel, regardless of who is peddling the message and what agenda might lie behind it. In this way, the "politics of anger" is also a manifestation of the nihilistic sense of having no future. If you have no future, you can easily become indifferent to what happens to everyone else now; as far as those people are concerned, they might well be happy to metaphorically let it all go to hell, if it would allow them at least a moment of grim satisfaction at seeing everyone else brought down to their level. These people seem to have become so nihilistic, they don't even care about their own future well-being: they simply want to have a single moment of feeling in control, even if all they want to do is press the self-destruct button.

This explains why the surge towards Nigel Farage's "Brexit Party" is at its most sudden and most incomprehensible in the parts of the country that would be the worst hit by the kind of "no deal" Brexit he advocates: the deprived post-industrial areas of Britain where there is already little in the way of a sustainable local economy. These areas are simply past caring; when you've already hit what feels like rock-bottom, outsiders telling you things will be terrible just sound as though they lack any ability to see things from your point of view. 

It is this psychological separation that is another manifestation of Britain's social divisions; parts of the country that economically and socially feels as though they are on a different plane of existence, as though "the centre" simply doesn't even know they exist.

This is how Britain has become such an object of morbid fascination to outsiders; hypnotized by the spectacle of self-destructive madness that is taking control of events: the all-consuming "black hole" that everyone seems to be dragged into.

Populism and esoteric thought: reactionary tribalism and historic parallels

There is an argument that can be made that the rise in Populism is a clear reaction against globalisation, social and technological changes and the effects of the financial crisis of 2008. Similarly, a concurrent trend has emerged in popular culture of a growing fascination with esoteric symbolism and fantastical escapism.
It's not only children who want to believe in "unicorns" these days, but some of our politicians, too.

We've been here before.
It seems to be an instinctive human reaction against social and economic change. The sudden growth of industrialisation led to various cultural movements in Europe; most notably the change towards stricter moral values in Victorian Britain and a spurt in romantic historical literature, which occurred as Britain was rapidly changing from an agrarian society to an urban one. Artistic movements like the Pre-Raphaelites can be seen as part of the same narrative. Britain's social change was rapid when seen in its historical context, especially when we consider how, in the 18th century, London's population of half a million was ten times that of Britain's second biggest city (Bristol); in other words, England before industrialisation was essentially a country with a bloated capital and an assortment of modest market towns. Put into this context, the social schizophrenia felt by those living in the middle of such sudden changes is unsurprising.
Meanwhile, in places like Germany (even before the nation itself existed), there was the concurrent romantic movement that had a large effect on art and literature (which, more darkly, saw themes such as underlying Anti-Semitism emerge in folk tales). This can also be seen as a wider expression of identity confusion, resulting in a need to hark to the (imagined) past as a form of social therapy.

The same esoteric themes were self-evident in the rise of the original Populist movement in the USA at the end of the nineteenth century, with the themes of tradition versus technology being played out in varying forms across the most rapidly-transforming places like Germany and Britain, and (to a lesser extent) Russia.
Of these three, both Germany and Russia had their own form of social collapse as a result of their involvement in the First World War. In Russia's case, it led to a complete embrace of technology in its use as enabling the aims of Bolshevism, though Russian nationalism was still strategically exploited later on by Stalin. In Germany, it ultimately led to the opposite, and the rise of the Nazis and Hitler, whose values were both highly nationalistic and ultra-traditional, yet also were in favour of strategically-exploiting technology (e.g. the modern media) when it suited them.
Of course, it was Italy that "broke the mould" in exploiting traditional values in the chaotic aftermath of the First World War. In this sense, that global continental conflict can see seen as the ultimate expression of chaotic modern values - technology leading to the destruction of human society in its most primal form. Put in this light, it is no wonder that some traditionalists led a counter-reaction against their experiences and led a political campaign - like the artistic movement a century earlier - to reconnect people with their "humanity".
The irony here, of course, is the reversion to "traditional values" led to even greater inhumanity in the Second World War.


Different versions of reality

In this greater context, then, the rise of Populism is as unsurprising as it was predictable.
The rise in "traditional values" can have many manifestations. Britain has now become a modern "nursery" for Populist strategy, with the rest of Europe and the world looking on in morbid fascination at how a country once looked to as an exemplar of democratic moderation has become transformed into a cauldron of irrationality and "magical thinking". Politicians there have been acting as though "Game Of Thrones" were a practical manual in applied strategy rather than a piece of small-screen fantasy escapism: life imitating art, and all that. They see dragons, and start to imagine that "unicorns" might well exist too.
The tendency to believe that the impossible is possible, and that reality itself can be doubted (or is only a matter of opinion), is a form of esoteric thought that its historic roots in pagan values. This fascination with "natural law" first came to into the popular imagination in the 19th century, with Victorian writers and thinkers in Britain, and romantic writers and musicians in Germany in particular; think of Wagner, for instance. This then leads, in a different interpretation, to the skepticism of Nietzsche. This thinking was later ruthlessly exploited by the Nazis.

Brought to the present-day, skepticism in reality - climate change skeptics, Holocaust deniers, the "flat earth" movement etc. - seems to have grown with how technology has been manipulated in the media for partisan effect. In other words, when the news more and more resembles "propaganda" by people with an agenda, people doubt the truth of what they see and read. This media partisanship has then been exploited by the Populist movement (such as Farage in the UK) to promote its own agenda and to disseminate a narrative that the press are lying about immigration (i.e. under-reporting its negative effects on society). This then gives an excuse for those Populist-leaning media outlets to feed their readers with stories to fuel their own prejudice even further.
The very concept of the "lying press" goes all the way back to the use of the by the Nazis to promote skepticism in mainstream opinion. In this way, by sowing doubt in the "reality" people are seeing on the media, it encourages people to believe in their own "version" of reality. This gives further contextualization of how, when presented with a world that makes no sense, feels constantly unpredictable, and reality itself seems contradictory, people turn to fantasy and science fiction as a form of escapist therapy. This also explains the growth in the far-right and its use of esoteric symbolism to promote its agenda - the whole "red pill" meme, for example. Symbolism that harks back to ancient values - such as a "chivalric" version of the St George's cross used by the EDL - has been increasingly used to provide both memorable imagery and to provoke an emotional impact. The signs are they have not been entirely unsuccessful.

In this sense, the growth in fantasy imagery in the media and the use of reality-skepticism in Populist rhetoric, are inherently linked. When reality itself becomes questionable and simply a matter of opinion, ideas that were once seen as absurd are now taken seriously; when the mainstream media disregard Populist ideas as either fantastical or paranoid, this simply feeds into the Populist narrative. In the Populist narrative, mainstream thought (i.e. that which is promoted by "the elite") is simply an agenda to make people supine and unthinking, accepting of their fate. In the Populist narrative, no conspiracy is too extreme an explanation.
Chaos and unpredictability are two tools used by Populist movements to create a reality-skeptical public and generate popular support for their rhetoric. These are themes that have been used in the past, but technology and the ability to manipulate perception are at a level where it becomes ever easier. This skepticism that becomes ever more prevalent in the public, leads to people becoming both paranoid and more prone to irrational thought.


Welcome to Fantasy-Land

This explains the British movement that has led around a third of its electorate to lend their support to Nigel Farage's "WTO Brexit" and his "Brexit Party".
By all rational analysis, Britain trading with the world on WTO terms alone (i.e. a "no deal Brexit") would be economically-disastrous. But people's sense of reality has become so skewed that the most popular party in the country is one that supports this very scenario. In their "reality", any negative consequences would be the fault of the EU and other co-conspirators within the UK, while any negative consequences would be both "not that bad" and "worth it in the long-run".
In this sense, the supporters of this scenario are able to believe two contradictory ideas at the same time - they believe that their future would be worse but also better. This is why appealing to reason is pointless, and missing the point. What they believe is more important to them than what they experience. Their sense of reality is not what they perceive with their senses, but what they believe exists in their own mind. It is, in a cognitive sense, a separation of the senses from their consciousness.
Without going too deeply into this, what this tells us more generally is that followers of this movement are acting like members of cult: they are brainwashed into believing what they have been told supersedes what they experience with their own senses: their "reality" is literally different from someone outside their group. The obvious danger of this psychology is that it can lead to potentially dangerous behaviour, such as "mob rule" fueled by hysterical rhetoric.

Britain is currently experiencing a form of collective nervous breakdown, where reality itself seems to be under question by its politicians. Goaded by the poisonous rhetoric of "betrayal", the mass of the electorate accumulating around Farage's "personality cult" are leading the country towards a reactionary and self-destructive path. The tribalism of the past has been turned on its head by Brexit, leading to a new form of "primal" tribalism: the tribe of the fantasy-believers.