Brexit Britain: a moral and political crisis. How Brexit is destroying Britain from within

The sequence of events following the EU referendum has revealed the callous amorality that lurks at the dark heart of British politics.

Brexit has shown itself to be a ravenous beast of an idea.
Part of the destructive power of Brexit is its ability to be both an idea that is a chameleon (that it means different things to different people), and also has a seemingly-unique ability to bring out the innate divisions in British society, from top to bottom. It is a poison and a cancer on the body politic and society overall, its only ability to corrupt and destroy.
In this sense, Brexit is a political creature of chaos, as seductive and divisive as any ideology from the fork-tongued mouth of "the serpent".

Biblical hyperbole aside, the singular crisis that Britain finds itself in is a result of a series of decisions. It could be argued that some of these decisions were ones that could have been predicted long ago, if a solid analysis had been done of the nature of British politics. In other words, the singular crisis that the body politic finds itself in was entirely predictable before the referendum, once the terms of the referendum itself were decided.

One of the decisions that made a difference was the nature of the referendum question that was originally posed. The battle over the wording of the question itself was explained in great detail in one chapter of Tim Shipman's book "All Out War".
In the end, having the question about the issue with one option or another ("remain" or "leave") effectively gave the "leave" side a sort of  ideological"free pass". While Cameron thought the referendum would be simple to win from an establishment point of view, the very chameleon-like nature of the "leave" option was the problem that the "remain" side could never tackle.

With "leave" being an essentially emotive vote, it meant almost whatever the "leave" voter wanted it to mean. From a philosophical and even semantic point of view, the referendum question was meaningless in any practical sense.
The referendum question really was a choice of "stay as we are" or "do something else". But what "else" were the 17 million people voting for? In this sense, "leave" could only ever be a negative vote i.e. "not remain", because there were a plethora of reasons and paths that voters may have all voted "leave" for. For the referendum vote to "leave" to make any rational sense (and for the government to know what on earth its legitimate course of action should be), a follow-up vote to choose from the most likely "leave" options would have been the only rational and democratic path to take. It was not taken (because David Cameron never thought he would "lose"), and the result of that is the chaos Britain finds itself in.
It thus gave fertile ground for opportunistic ideologues to take advantage of the chaos.

With there being three different major campaigns for "leave", and all having their own distinct agendas, how was it even philosophically possible to explain that 17 million people voted for the exact same idea when they voted to "do something else"? How can anyone know what "else" they all wanted? It is impossible.
How many of those 17 million voted for a WTO  option, or an EFTA option, or any one of dozens of possible alternatives? No-one knows, and no-one can know. Because not one of those options were ever clearly shown as the "people's will", the end result was always going to be a semantic nonsense without a further democratic clarification.
This explains how, once "leave" won and the Article 50 process was triggered, the chaotic situation that parliament finds itself it was almost inevitable. With no one option having a majority in parliament, the resulting stalemate (arguing while Britain slides ever closer to the abyss) only means that Britain is doomed to leave without a deal.

This is how we got into a situation where Brexit became the ultimate death of British democracy in Westminster, and the beginning of a reign of Whitehall autocracy in Theresa May.

Theresa May's strategy has been to act as a virtual dictator on the terms of Brexit, somehow seeing herself as the extraordinary arbiter of the (still unclear) "people's will".
Brexit itself seems to have poisonous effects on anyone that wields its unusual power, giving Theresa May a hard-faced sense of mission, dismiss any advice that contradicts her own perception, while also confusing her enemies and sowing discord at the same time.
Meanwhile, Brexit seems to have taken a very obvious physical and mental toll on the Prime Minister, making her appear even more gaunt and preoccupied; a troubled soul that is immovable and yet feeble, her empathy seemingly leeched away by the poison of Brexit; sustaining her political survival but at the cost of her humanity and judgement.

Apart from May herself, Brexit's power seems only to create and exacerbate division. Her party are split down the middle, seemingly more united in their dislike of her "deal" than in their own vision of the alternative. It is a party that seems to be waiting for Brexit to finally tear it asunder when the time comes.
Meanwhile, the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn seems to be using Brexit for its own self-centred reasons, some hoping secretly that a "no deal" Brexit might lead to a kind of new "socialist revolution".
The DUP see Brexit as an opportunity to have control of the government by their own form of political extortion.

As the chaos in parliament continues, the country hurtles headlong towards the cliff because no-one in charge can decide in which other direction to go. The house is burning down, but those in charge can't decide which exit to use.
If this isn't an absolute indictment of the rotten state of Britain's body politic, then what else is?

Theresa May: the survival instinct and the "talisman" of Brexit

If Theresa May has one overlying quality, it is an indomitable survival instinct.

While her personality flaws are legion (and have been commented on by this author), she seems to have a strange knack for outwitting her enemies. What is so odd about this is that she seems otherwise so incompetent, with an unnerving ability to antagonize her existing enemies and create yet new ones. And yet, when it comes to the crucial moment, she seems to possess an almost supernatural ability to survive politically.
She can be wounded, but as yet possesses an inability to accept her own demise. When necessary, she manages to find a way to expose the weaknesses of her opponents and at the same time muster enough loyalists around her to see them off.

It is that, or that she is just plain "lucky" in her choice of enemies.

In a sense David Cameron was "lucky" to have got as far as he did before he needed to resign. In his time as Prime Minister, he rolled the dice one too many times, thinking that his run of good fortune was almost endless; his over-confidence was eventually exposed.
With Theresa May, however, we are dealing with a different form of political animal; a political creature that, with an almost ghoulish quality to its character, seems almost indestructible to normal, mortal means.

To use a more symbolic analogy, she has sent her troops needlessly into a near-defeat in battle, but was not overthrown by them; has removed or forced out countless of her courtiers; has ruled over her land as an impenetrable, immovable and incompetent autocrat; and now has survived an attempt at her overthrow from within.
All this she has achieved by making repeated, insincere claims to heed her followers' advice at the critical moment, which mollify her critics, but then are seemingly "forgotten" by her a short time later.
It's hard to judge if she is knowingly, repeatedly deceitful or just completely lacking in self-awareness of her actions. But the fact that she repeats the same behaviour again and again suggests it can only be the former, which makes her followers either appallingly gullible or just held in hock to her rule from fear alone. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that it is "fear" (of the alternative) that is the key to May's unusual power (more on this is a moment).

Is is possible for a person so inept and yet wield such powers of fortitude and survival? Perhaps "Brexit" can explain a lot of it.


The "talisman" of Brexit

Many have spoke about how Brexit has utterly changed the political landscape of Britain.

Something else that it has also done is change the nature of political leadership. For whoever is Prime Minister during the "Brexit process" can also claim, through the extraordinary circumstances of the referendum, to be the sole arbiter of the nation's will.
In this way, parliament has become an irrelevance since the referendum, as the Prime Minister can claim (and has) that parliament would be subverting the vote of the referendum if it opposes her. This was the very claim she made when she called the snap election last year, and this claim has been repeated whenever it criticized whatever actions on Brexit she unilaterally decided. As far as Theresa May was concerned, she seemed to see her rule as a "higher duty" to the nation, regardless of what parliament, or even many in her own party, wanted.

So "Brexit" has become something almost esoteric or "supernatural" in its power: a simple word with a meaning that somehow bestows extraordinary power on its wielder. "Brexit" means whatever its wielder wants it to mean. This is why the meaningless phrase "Brexit means Brexit" is in fact as meaningful in its meaninglessness as Theresa May requires. It means nothing, or it means everything.

"Brexit" in itself is simply an instrument - or talisman, if you like - of power. To stretch the esoteric meaning even further, this is why Andy Serkis' take on "Brexit" was, for all its satirical meaning, still so unnervingly close to the bone.

As well as being a symbolic instrument of power, it is also a poison. Brexit has undeniably poisoned the social fabric of the country, perhaps for ever.

But in the meantime, it has given Theresa May an unusual power and a strange aura of political invincibility. The symbolic "talisman" of Brexit protects Theresa May from all enemies, confounding them at the crucial moment by creating an aura of fear.
She can be wounded by her opponents, but as the wielder of the Brexit "talisman", it also has the power of exposing the fear that others have of the alternative. Theresa May's plan might be awful, but she can still exploit the remainers' fear of "Hard Brexit" and the Brexiteers' fear of "No Brexit" without being overthrown by either (or both) in the process. In the middle of this are those on the government "payroll", whose combined loyalty and fear of any other leader than May are enough to see off her opponents. This is the symbolic power that "Brexit" has over those who oppose its wielder; it exploits their fear.

Equally, the counter-intuitive maxim that my enemies' strength is their weakness; my weakness is my strength rings true here. The Brexit "talisman" even serves May as her ultimate protection regardless of her apparent weakness, for as long as she wields the ultimate power over Brexit, she cannot be safely removed.
In this way, the "talisman" of Brexit defends May's position by playing up her apparent frailty, and exploiting fear in another way. May also uses her own frailty as an instrument of power, appealing to her enemies' sense of pity. In this way, Brexit can make its wielder even seem as a victim or a hostage to her enemies' mercy - portraying May as a creature of pity that allows her to continue with her power, tricking her enemies into granting her clemency for as long as the Brexit "talisman" requires.

May can only be removed from power once the "power" of Brexit itself has passed; in other words, she is politically immovable before "Brexit Day". But by that point of course, Brexit's potential for destructive power will have reached its peak, because if parliament do not agree to May's autocratic "deal", we are instantly into "no deal" and the nightmare scenario.
To continue the talisman analogy, a "no deal" Brexit will have destroyed not only its "wielder" (Theresa May), but the whole land as well. "Mordor" consumes "Middle-Earth". Perhaps the Brexit "talisman" wants to destroy Britain.

This was why David Cameron opened Pandora's Box when he allowed the issue of Europe to dictate his tenure. Brexit is a poison that cannot be satisfied; it is an "instrument of power" that is as seductive as is it dangerous.

Once it is wielded, its only purpose can be to destroy.

Narcissism and politics: Theresa May (Part 2)

A few months ago there was a dark rumour in political circles that some figures in the government were secretly orchestrating a "no deal" Brexit that would cause as much chaos as possible; both causing chaos within Britain and also across the EU.

The theory followed a hypothetical series of events where the government (i.e. Theresa May) would cynically lead the EU towards the impression of agreeing to a deal, only to sabotage it at the last minute, leaving the EU with as little time to prepare for the chaos as possible, and leaving Britain dependent on American logistical support until the period of "no deal" chaos passed. Such a scenario would turn Britain into a de facto American "client state" where what remained of government infrastructure and assets would be sold off in a "fire-sale", with the British economy as a kind of Libertarian dystopia. This would also leave the EU in a state of economic turmoil as an added "bonus".

The scenario that Britain currently finds itself in is due to the actions of its Prime Minister, Theresa May. Thanks to her actions:

• The British government spent nearly two years negotiating with itself - due to May's own perpetual stalling tactics. The government's position to start serious negotiations with the EU was then only agreed after Mrs May forced her own position on to her government (i.e."Chequers").
• Due to her "red lines", this position was then rejected by the EU. This resulted in May unilaterally deciding on her government's new position without consulting her own government or parliament. The consequent "deal" she unilaterally agreed with the EU was thus a result of May's "red lines", which forced the EU to demand terms that May must surely have known the British parliament would find unacceptable. 
• When May tried to convince parliament to ratify her "deal", she dealt with them in the same way as her own government: to cajole and disseminate to make them accept the unacceptable, or face "no deal". When it was clear that parliament would not agree to the deal, her tactic was to delay the vote to the last possible moment - and subvert democracy in the most cynical way - or allow the country to descend into chaos (see hypothetical scenario above).

Put in this light, May's actions resemble those of an unashamed autocrat working to blatantly undermine the democratic system. She has little moral regard for the idea of the democratic process, and ultimately sees herself as the sole arbiter of the land. 

Worse than that, she seems to have lost any rational sense of perspective, seeming not to care about the political damage she is doing to her party, her government and parliament, and seems to care little about the wider damage she is doing to the economy and to people's lives in general.

How to lose friends and alienate people

This author has written before about Theresa May's personality, and how there seems to something "off" about her behaviour and her judgement. All the evidence points to her being someone who seems to want to go out of her way to annoy friends and enemies alike, inadvertently or otherwise. 

This singular ability to alienate herself from those she engages with is truly exceptional in the annals of political leadership; even Nixon had better judgement and charisma. It seems the only ones she can retain the loyalty of are those that have entirely self-serving and amoral ambitions, or are too cowardly to want to give up their own ministerial status. The combined result of this is governmental positions that are filled by incompetents; the natural consequence of being ruled by a narcissist is some kind amoral personality cult where rationalism and intelligence are the main enemy.

In pursuing her "deal" outside of democratic consent or transparency, she has alienated both wings of her party against her by her own terrible judgement, as well as losing what little respect the grassroots of the party had left for her. As she never wanted to engage with the opposition, she lost any chance of gaining their support long ago, and has managed to also lose the confidence of the DUP, so she now is ruling a government with no functional majority, even on paper. 

And now that she no longer has the backing of parliament, she seeks "rule by extortion" instead: threatening the chaos of "no deal" if it doesn't support her deal - a deal that is only so awful to contemplate because May's stubbornness made it so.  

The events of the last few weeks have shown that Theresa May is someone who cannot be reasoned with. She does not listen, is incapable of admitting she is wrong, and cannot be trusted.

Her stubbornness is now legendary, but then this is compounded by the fact that even when she has changed her mind on something (such as calling for an early election), she makes it even worse by refusing to admit the obvious. Such "crazy-making" behaviour is an indication of pathological narcissism.

One of the other indicators of narcissism is a lack of "emotional intelligence": the ability to see things from another's point of view, and use human empathy and persuasion to explain your point of view.
It is clear that Theresa May lacks "emotional intelligence" in spades: she seems incapable of understanding how her government's policies might harm other people's lives, from her stance on EU migration to the "hostile environment" and the government's pursuit of austerity and welfare reform. Instead, she only focuses on the job she has tasked herself with doing, with no real regard to the effects of its wider, human impact. The countless stories of lives destroyed by her government's policies seem to have no effect on her. This is evident in her obsession with reducing migration, which she pursues relentlessly long after her colleagues have given up on it as a fool's errand. To have such a blinkered perspective is a sign a dysfunctional personality.

Then there is other evidence such as how she reacts spontaneously in the face of a human crisis (e.g. the Grenfell fire), where she demonstrated a chronic inability to do what any normal person would do (which Jeremy Corbyn then demonstrated) - to emotionally engage with the victims.
Equally, this lack of emotional intelligence is evident from the many anecdotes of those who have had to endure conversations with her. European politicians have been invited to a meeting with her, only to discover she had nothing to say; likewise, the many stories of her frosty (or sphinx-like) demeanor in meetings with her colleagues make the phrase "Ice Queen" that has been thrown around to describe her seem apt. And let's not forget her famous "death stare".

It is a common perception that politicians are wont to lie and disseminate rather than admit an uncomfortable truth, but May manages to do this is in such a cringe-worthy and blatantly dishonest way (e.g. demonstrated by facial contortions), that you wonder why she bothers. Politicians are wont to avoid answering uncomfortable questions, but May manages to do this in such a cringe-worthy and leaden way that it makes conversation with her almost physically-painful to endure.


A reign of fear

The natural result of this lack of "emotional intelligence" is that when narcissists are in a position of power, what they fall back on to maintain their hold is fear: fear of the alternative or fear of the unknown. In this manner, the atmosphere of rule under the narcissist is akin to a "reign of terror".
This was evident when Downing Street was ruled under the guidance of Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill.
Since the 2017 election, May has fell back on her other advisors and her her whips to hold the party together. "Fear" was used by May herself to justify calling the snap election; in that case it was "fear of Jeremy Corbyn" that was the main threat she used. It worked (just about), but the result was a ruling government that was held together not by shared respect for Theresa May but by fear she stoked of the alternative: a reign of fear created by May herself.

It is this "reign of fear" that then allows May to dictate and control events beyond any measure of accountability, as we have seen with her dictatorial management of Brexit.

The Gothic mood music and almost ghoulish quality to aspects of her character make it feel as if hers is a government of the undead. Ever since the election of eighteen months ago, her "zombie government" has been losing ministers at a rate of attrition unprecedented in British political history. As government presides over a state of institutional stasis, the country is slowly falling apart, society slowly disintegrating thanks to her government's amoral social policies, and the economy outside of London is barely functional.
It is a government that literally has no purpose but power for the sake of power, with Theresa showing every sign of narcissistic delusion about the necessity of her own position. As far as she is concerned, she seems to feel it is her moral obligation to rule. 

Theresa May's personality - and the innate strain of narcissism that seems to run through it - is the primary cause of the chaos that Britain faces. Two and half years ago, the future of Britain after the referendum was unclear; but it was not certain that it would be chaotic. It is only Theresa May's dysfunctional personality that has made it so.  

It is hard to imagine how the Brexit process, after the referendum, could have been handled any worse. 

May's most recent actions in delaying parliament's vote on her "deal" as long as possible only serve to extend the wider chaos in the country even further to the brink, as the value of the economy collapses further, businesses are unable to plan, and people are left in a state of paralyzing trauma. It is as though Theresa May has declared a kind of psychological warfare on her own population, regardless of her actual intentions. 

Seen in this objective light, Theresa May's behaviour can be seen as nothing more than selfish and self-defeating: the actions of an irrational narcissist. 

Tumblr's adult content ban: the decline of liberalism and the subversion of free-will

The news that the website "Tumblr" is to introduce a ban on adult imagery is the latest indication that we are currently experiencing a historic swing away from liberal values towards conservative values.

The revealing thing about this news is that the linked article mentions how the decision was provoked by an Apple technical glitch, resulting in inappropriate (and illegal) imagery being sent to the website. So it appears it was Apple's error, resulting in the "Tumblr" app being removed from Apple's software, that was the cause of the problem.

As the article describes, this leaves a whole segment of adult society who used Tumblr for a variety of personal reasons, without a place to share and communicate with other like-minded souls. As the article says, the website served as a "safe space" for some of the more unorthodox people in society to express their sexuality.
Without a place like Tumblr, the only other known online venues for such activity would in the realm of pornographic websites, which bring with it a whole different type of behaviour and interaction: the type of "behaviour" that Tumblr was there to avoid.

In this way, the inherent assumption by those behind the decision is a lazy labeling of diverse and unorthodox subcultures and communities into the broader label of "porn". In other words, it makes no real attempt to distinguish one form of sexual expression from another, which is as intellectually-lazy as assessing all people that have mental health issues as being "crazy".

Thus, it feels as though we are regressing back decades into a socially-conservative world were everything must be labelled and neatly boxed, where sexuality cannot be something ambiguous or imaginative, and everything is either blanketed as "porn" or "not porn".
Likewise, for those communities and subcultures that have been able to feel safe and at ease in their own identity by using facilities like Tumblr, it leaves them feeling as social outcasts. By just assessing their content as "pornographic" - and thus with the same label as the most "hardcore" content online - it implicitly defines them as being somehow freaks, perverts and amoral exhibitionists.


Subverting free-will

The reason it came to this is due to a steady subversion of liberal values by the "new right".

One of the evident trends in recent years, and exacerbated by social media at times, is how free speech and the issue of "causing offense" has become conflated. This has then been exploited by the "alt-right", resulting in a wave of moral outrages and a backlash against what is seen by conservatives as moral degradation.

The root of this stems from the time of the financial crisis, when the "alt-right" saw its birth on the back of perceived indulgence of both "liberal" establishment values and the campaign for greater equality of rights by the LGBT community.
At the same time as the TEA Party was growing in strength in its desire to redefine "liberal" values, the "alt-right" was conducting an undercover culture war against what it saw as an indulgent and morally abject society.

The "alt-right" was able to label itself as a "victim" of free speech at a time when "political correctness" made their views unpalatable or offensive. In reality, the views expressed by many in the "alt-right" were racist, misogynistic, homophobic and hateful; their views were deemed offensive because they spread hate. They were being deliberately provocative in many cases - a classic technique of Fascist movements - in order to be offensive and gain notoriety and attention. They succeeded.

But by twisting the same "liberal" values against the establishment itself, the "alt-right" were able to argue that their "community" was thus as "oppressed" as those marginal and unorthodox communities had been in the past (and in some cases, still were). Thus their ringleaders argued that the white community was now being "oppressed", that men were being "oppressed", and that the establishment was being led by the interests of "minorities" at the expense of the majority.

It is in this climate that pressure builds on the media and social media to "reflect reality". This explains how Trump's outrageous lies and exaggerations were never seriously challenged by the media, but were allowed to be disseminated freely, as long as the "opposing view" was given as well. In Britain, the same was true with the lies that were used by the "Brexit" campaign, and the wider culture wars that now consume Anglo-Saxon culture on both sides of the Atlantic.

So now the pendulum seems to be swinging in the favour of the conservatives and the reactionaries. Culture wars across social media have resulted in "echo chambers" on both sides, with the result that anything that someone might find disagreeable is termed "offensive content".
The only winners out of this are ultimately those who wish to restrict self-expression: the reactionaries and social conservatives.

The concept of free-will has been turned on its head, and used as a weapon by those, such as the alt-right, who seek to remove it.
Social media has thus become risk-averse as a means of financial self-preservation. At a time when news, comment and artistic content has become monetized, the result is an erosion of free-will. Whereas at one time, it was thought that technology would result in greater freedom, the reality has proven to be somewhat different.

The actions of "Tumblr" thus fit into this wider trend. The trend now is towards a wider consideration of social morality; the realm of the social conservative.
Whereas at one time people were encouraged to think about the effects of their actions on the environment, that same mindset has infected the social mores of the online world: now people are policed by social content and the nature of their posts, and asked to consider what effect their internet activity might have on wider society. This means the internet is no longer about free-will, but about social morality; the precise opposite to its original meaning.

It is this climate that leaves very little space for those who have unconventional or alternative lifestyles, as those who use "Tumblr" are now finding out.