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.

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.  

Nigel Farage and "The Brexit Party": feeding off the Westminster political chaos (and the carcass)

The signs are all there that Britain's political elite are running out of road, Theresa May in particular.

The whole issue of "Brexit" became Farage's own vehicle for his career advancement, going back to the first "breakthrough" that Farage had with UKIP in the 1999 European elections. The financial crisis was the real turning point, however, which saw the Conservatives come to power through supporting a policy that surrendered the narrative to Farage: by Cameron committing to the impossible of reducing migration into Britain to the tens of thousands in 2010, it soon became open season within Cameron's own party on the whole issue of "migration" and the EU.

We know where that led; by surrendering to those forces within his party, with Farage and UKIP threatening, Cameron quickly became a hostage to events, forever responding to the narrative that Farage had established. In this sense, Cameron was barely a leader in a real sense of the word - it was Farage who was the main personality behind the whole agenda to get Britain out of the EU. Farage and UKIP, it can reasonably be claimed, effected the downfall of one Prime Minister (Cameron), and in his new "Brexit Party", Farage seems likely to able to claim the destruction of his successor (May).

It is now twenty years since UKIP and Farage's first encounter with the European Parliament. What is now clear is that UKIP was used by Farage as a vehicle for his own brand of personality politics; in his various spells as leader, he ran the party almost like a personality cult, allowing little time for other individuals to challenge his domination of the party.
After winning the EU referendum, he stepped back from the leadership. It could be argued his reasoning was as highly-strategic as personal; in his mind, perhaps Farage would have liked to think of himself as "retiring" from the public sphere to see how events panned out (and rightly predicting the high likelihood of Brexit being mishandled by the political elite). In this way, while he stepped back to allow Westminster to slowly destroy itself over Brexit, it would provide him with the right kind of reason to step back into the spotlight at the right time; in the manner of a "Shakespearean hero", able to maintain his own sense of honour, returning to save the day, victorious and all-conquering.


The smartest man in the room, or just the last man standing?

The narrative above sounds absurd, or at best a silly flight of fancy, but the current status of events in Westminster gives an astonishing amount of legitimacy to the narrative described.

As said above, Farage seems to have been able to predict the mess that would gradually transpire in parliament. With Theresa May having her own self-destructive and anti-social brand of "leadership", she has succeeded in making herself both poisonous to her party and her party's image poisonous to much of the public (and even to its own members).
Meanwhile, Labour has lost all sense of direction, and the groups that are clearly pro-Remain are as divided as they are lacking in proper leadership of their own. While the Liberal Democrats have recently had a strong recovery in support when in comes to local government, when it comes to Brexit, the pro-European votes are split between them, the Greens and "Change UK". A 1980s-style "alliance" of some sort might make more sense electorally between these groups, but the clash of egos and the narcissism of small differences seems to get in the way.

In the meantime, there is Farage's new political bandwagon: "The Brexit Party". As said earlier, when he was in charge of UKIP, he led the party almost like a personality cult; given that this new "party" doesn't even technically have any members (it has "supporters" that financially contribute), it is an unashamed personality cult in all but name - the "Farage Party".
Farage timed its launch to perfection, seeing the way that Brexit had been so dismally handled. After stepping back from front-line politics, he allowed UKIP to be taken over by the "culture war" narrative that has led to Tommy Robinson's involvement - allowing them to say overtly what Farage had always implied covertly. In this way, Farage would be able to claim that the party had been taken over by extremists and giving him a reason to create a newly-honed identity for the Farage brand.
However, UKIP without Farage would still serve a useful function for the wider agenda, in extending the earlier "culture war" narrative that Farage had initially exploited. In the new form that UKIP took, a more raucous and dangerous form of Populism would be harnessed, while this would allow Farage - free of UKIP's awkward mantle - to exploit the political ground vacated by the self-destructive Tory Party. He could claim to be "above the fray", while still being able to exploit it for his own advantage.

The Farage "brand" (2019) could therefore be seen as a highly-strategic (and highly opportunistic) form of personality politics more usually seen in authoritarian cultures.
This is the divisive "betrayal" narrative that has been gaining traction. Given that Trump's appeal is fueled by the narrative of a "conspiracy" against his supporters, Farage and Trump are politically peas from the same pod. This explains Farage's links to Bannon and Trump, and the selfsame wider global agenda that they share.

With the self-destruction of the Conservative Party now seemingly just a matter of time, and with Labour seeming almost as clueless, Brexit's esoteric power seems to be to destroy the old order that has ruled Westminster. A party that didn't exist three months ago and is led as a charismatic personality cult is almost certain to win the most seats in the Britain's European elections, and is currently even second on opinion polls for Westminster elections.

Apart from the timing of the launch of Farage's new "project" early this year so that it gains attention just as things are falling apart in Westminster (and with the original leave date being imminent), the simple imagery and the principles behind it, are what seem so attractive to the layman.
With a name like "The Brexit Party", there can be no doubt to the onlooker what it represents. Apart from the simple clarity of the message (like the famous "Take Back Control" of the leave campaign), is also the implicit message that this party represents "the will of the people" (i.e. those that voted to leave) and that others, like the Conservatives, have shown themselves to be insincere at best and Machiavellian at worst.
Another smaller issue, but one worth mentioning, is the imagery of Farage's party itself: a rightward-pointing arrow on a pale blue background (itself formed out of the space between the "E" and "X" in "Brexit"): this seems to suggest a borrowing of the colours of the Conservatives (but in a more soothing tone); meanwhile the arrow can have both an overt meaning ("Forward"?), and a covert meaning (pointing to the right, implying the real political agenda). In this sense, the real Libertarian agenda of Farage and his financial supporters is hiding in plain sight.

Few people will look that deeply into things, of course. Farage's new vehicle for self-promotion is still perfectly timed to take advantage of the meltdown of leadership in Westminster; the "betrayal" narrative has taken little nudging to gain traction given the abject failure of the political elite to deal with the Brexit negotiations with any intelligence or rationalism.

All it takes is an extraordinary set of events and the right kind of person able to exploit them, and you have the makings of a political earthquake. Farage possesses all the necessary political tools and the right set of circumstances to make it happen. All the indications are that Britain is but a few missteps away from a fundamental collapse of the political order.
Events are ideally poised for Farage to take absolute advantage; to what end, no one is quite sure.

The UK "Porn Block": ineffective, counter-productive, intrusive…and a microcosm of Theresa May's psychology?

The author some time ago wrote about how Theresa May’s psychology seemed like a microcosm of Britain’s collective neuroses. As a person, her inner thinking is defined by her background. The manner of how she ruled the both the Home Office as Home Secretary and has run the country as Prime Minister can be explained by the self-evident moral rigidity of her upbringing: the only child of a priest, growing up in the whiter-than-white heart of traditional “Middle England”.

There is more than a whiff of poisonously-regressive, moralistic sanctimony to the manner of both May’s idea of society and the social agenda that her government has pursued. It is as though under her watch, she wants to actively encourage the authoritarian moralizing that typified the Victorian era, but implemented with 21st century technology.

Under May’s watch, Britain loses its identity as a progressive Western society, and slides into the authoritarian realm, where people’s private actions are policed, even when what they are doing is entirely legal. These are not even people suspected of being criminals or conspiring in criminal behavior; they are simply doing something that is entirely natural as human beings. This is done in the name of “protecting children”; as all authoritarian actions are done in someone else’s name.

In this way, she is taking the idea of “nudging”public behaviour that was introduced under Cameron’s administration, and applying her own deeply unsubtle, authoritarian methodology: from coaxing people’s inclinations to hammering them into their head.  

The “Porn Block” is merely the logical conclusion to May’s pursuit of a regressive moral agenda that both stigmatizes the private realities of modern life, and removes the right to privacy for those interested in most online sexual content. The consumption of pornography becomes an implicit “thoughtcrime”: while it is “legal”, those who consume it are made to feel stigmatized, with all their online private inclinations stored and recorded. How convenient. The infamous phrase that “people who have done nothing wrong have nothing to fear” is the exact opposite of the intention of this policy: they have everything to fear.

Of course, the real intention is as “red meat” to the Conservative Party’s geriatric grassroots. Of those people, few of them see the internet as anything else than a corrupting and dangerous influence. Of course, it can be this, but that is the same any form of media.

Then there are the practicalities behind it, which explain how the “Porn Block” is such an utterly stupid idea at various levels. Apart from all the security dangers it poses to users at recording vast quantities of personal data and sexual interests, it is easy to circumvent the age barriers using VPN software in any case, making it largely ineffective to any savvy (underage) internet user. And to those who can’t get around the age block, then the “dark web” will be another unregulated avenue for them to explore. In the same way that banning soft drugs simply means that it sends users to the same dealers of illegal harder drugs (and thus being a counter-productive government act), the “Porn Block” will simply entice more teenagers to the “dark web”, where the most extreme content possible can also be found. So how about that for protecting children from porn?

The fact that this policy is so ineffective, counter-productive and authoritarian and that is also has occurred under the watch of Theresa May cannot be mere coincidence. Apart from being a national leader who is so utterly useless at almost everything she deals with, she then has to distract her ineptitude with authoritarian policies that can only appeal to her party base. Even if the policy is disastrous on so many levels, the fact that her party base would probably love it supersedes all other concerns. This was true of the “hostile environment”, welfare reform, and “austerity”, and is also true of the “Porn Block”.

Another social consequence of the “Porn Block” is that is amplifies the moral gulf between the rulers and the ruled. 21^st century Britain is a "liberal" country, but this is a policy that does not belong in a liberal country. It is a policy that doesn’t even belong in the West at all. But Britain’s ruling elite are a class apart from those below them whose taxes pay for the moralizing of their rulers. The rulers don’t care about the “Porn Block” in practical terms, because they know how to circumvent it already. Many of them already do this in how they “manage” their tax affairs. In this way, the “Porn Block” is simply more evidence of the contempt that the rulers have for the private lives of the ruled. As far as the rulers are concerned, the ruled don’t deserve one; the “Porn Block” is simply confirmation of this.

 

No sex (education), please – we’re British

The “Porn Block”, as the government seems proud to point out, makes Britain a pioneer in online security. As mentioned already before, the “security” aspect is both dangerous and pathetically-easy to circumvent. So all this proves, in the same manner as Brexit, is how hopelessly how out-of-depth and painfully lacking in self-awareness Britain’s government looks to the rest of the world. If the “Porn Block” makes Britain’s government a pioneer, it is only a pioneer in embarrassing ineptitude, under the guise of moral authoritarianism. It makes Britain’s government look like a slapstick version of the “morality police”.

In any case, these actions only underline how abysmal Britain’s sexual education is compared to most other developed nations, and how the government’s first instinct is to prevent people from finding things out or (heaven forbid) enjoying themselves in a way that their rulers find somehow offensive or socially dangerous. British sex education is almost an oxymoron, as governments (especially Conservative ones) are so constrained by their own sexual insecurities they are horrified at the idea of people having an “education” in sex. They simply cannot countenance seriously talking about it.

The alternative to sex education is the situation Britain has had for decades: among the highest rates for teenage pregnancy in the Western world. Government policy that engenders sexual ignorance in society does not reduce the desire for sex; indeed, decades of evidence have shown it produces the exact opposite effect.

One glaringly obvious reason that teenagers watch porn is that – apart from entirely natural hormonal reasons – because they know so little about sex from their schooling or their parents, online pornography becomes the only “resource” they can access to discover more about it. Therefore the most obvious reason that teenagers have such questionable morality about sex is because, lacking any proper guidance from responsible adults, they get their “sex education” from porn. The end result of “porn” being their primary sexual resource, are (male) teenagers with highly questionable ideas of consent, among many other issues of sexual realism.

And now the government wants to prevent teenagers from having any practical knowledge of sex at all until they come of age, in a true moralizing throwback to Victorian prudishness. It is true that before the internet age, pornography was very much limited in its circulation to the general population. 

But is that really a regression that Britain should be making in the 21^st century – back to a time decades ago when pornography was a realm that only “perverts” inhabited? It is telling how pervasive that outdated thinking still seems to be in the socially-regressive mind of Theresa May.

In this way, Britain under Theresa May has become, in regards to sex, one step closer to the moral universe of puritanical absolutism with modern technology: a moral plane that is much closer to the contemporary Muslim regimes of the Middle East and Asia, for example; or to use a fictitious parallel, the logical conclusion of this path is the descent some kind of twisted British version of Gilead.

Not so much “Under His Eye”, but “Under Theresa’s Eye”.

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.