It has been blatantly-apparent since the EU referendum that Brexit has opened a "Pandora's Box" of social issues in Britain, that has been exploited by opportunists on both the far left and far right. Furthermore, it has even been promoted by movements outside of Britain to promote a wider, destructive agenda: Brexit Britain has thus become a kind of exemplar, a standard-bearer for other like-minded movements to follow. We'll explore the deeper symbolism of this a little later.
One of the most striking aspects of the EU referendum and how it was won was the use of emotive arguments over factual analysis. It was a case of the heart winning over the head; the power of belief over the power of argument. That has remained the same ever since, with those still determined to leave the EU basing this solely on the force of their beliefs. While the "remain" side used facts to demonstrate the basis of their beliefs, for the "leave" side the most important thing was the power of the beliefs themselves to win others over.
In this very concrete sense, the "remain" side lost the case because they didn't know who or what they were arguing against. In the same way that an atheist can never use rational argument to convince a religious fanatic of the irrationality of their beliefs, the same was true of the EU referendum. You cannot use rational argument against an irrational belief.
The power of belief versus evidence-based analysis is historically the story of how mankind advanced its understanding of science. It is also the main thing that separates traditional, theocratic ideology and concrete materialist thinking.
Put in this deeper perspective, Brexit and the "belief system" that goes along with it follows a trend of conflating globalization, materialism and liberalism with a wider rejection of cultural identity. We could also argue that the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) was the real turning-point in this trend: both the Brexit movement gained traction in the UK (particularly non-metropolitan England) in the years that followed, while Donald Trump's rapid rise was really following-on and exploiting the rise of the TEA Party movement that was instigated by the Koch brothers in the same time-frame.
Modern far-right movements across Europe, and more widely "Populist" movements in various high-profile countries today, all share the same skepticism of "global" values. It seems to more a collective rejection of the values that led to the GFC, which they have conflated with the materialist and heterogeneous values of social liberalism.
The problem is that we've been here before, following a earlier financial crisis: the Great Depression. Unlike in the 1930s, we don't have strongmen with private armies; with technological advances, we instead have online armies of "trolls" to intimidate virtually (with their anonymity arguably making them just as effective a force of dissuasion). Their ability to guide the direction of discourse and subvert the democratic process is similar to the tactics used by authoritarians in the 1930s; the only difference is how technology has changed their capabilities. While there are gangs of thugs to intimidate people as well (while claiming the right to free speech that their despised liberals so value), much of their real influence and "nudging" is done online, by exploiting the weak controls of social media.
In this way, the rise of Populism and the far-right since the GFC mirrors much the same trajectory of the 1930s, albeit over longer time-frame. If the banks hadn't been bailed out in 2008, the GFC would almost certainly have been a "Second Great Depression", rather than the drawn-out downturn and stagnant economies that have transpired in reality. A "Second Great Depression" would doubtlessly have led to a sudden surge in extremist politics in a very short time; what we have had instead is a "slow-burn" effect of far-right values slowly seeping in to mainstream discourse as people get more and more wearied of the seemingly-endless slog towards an ever-receding sun-lit horizon.
Brexit as an "Aryan Resurgence" fantasy
Relying on the power of beliefs, culture and spirituality is the classic reaction against materialist liberalism. In the eyes of Fascist theorist Julius Evola, this was part of a historical trend where scientific rationalism and materialism had led to a collapse in the moral values of hierarchy and a deeper spiritualism. He saw Fascism as a justifiable reaction against society's moral decay.
We can see many of today's authoritarian leaders using the same kind of rhetoric to justify their actions. In the Anglo-sphere, both Brexit and Trump supporters talk about the morality of their cause, seeing in their movements a deeper meaning: where the potential for chaos is seen as justifiable, and the threat of violence is never far from the surface. To borrow a phrase, Brexit and Trump are both a "Triumph Of The Will", to be enforced through mob rule if necessary.
In the eyes of Evola, Fascist ideology is in a battle for the restoration of ancient civilization i.e. the morality of the warrior. Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany were, in his eyes, attempts to restore the "natural" racial hierarchy that he believed existed before the rise of Christianity in Europe. Pagan "Warrior races" like the Germans and the Romans had proved their superiority in battle in the ancient battles they had fought to dominate Europe. Bringing this rationale to the 20th century, Evola then used this to justify Germany and Italy's carving up of Europe, with the ultimate expunging of liberal thought and the subjugation of inferior races. When the Nazis applied this to its "logical" conclusion, it was about the elimination of the Jews entirely.
As a matter of record, Hitler wanted an "understanding" with Britain, as he saw Anglo-Saxon culture as a fellow Aryan tribe. Hitler's fantasy was the German domination of the European continent from the Atlantic to the Urals, while leaving the British Empire intact. As we know, Churchill was having none of it, Nazi Germany over-reached with its invasion of the Soviet Union and was defeated.
The following post-war period was one of radical strategic realignment. To Fascist die-hards that lived through the post-war period, the advance of Communist influence across half of Europe, with Germany itself divided, materialist America triumphant and the slow disintegration of the British Empire, meant they had only their fantasies to believe in. The emergence of the EU as a political institution, with its zenith reached with the accession of former Communist Eastern Europe countries might have been seen as the real nadir for the fortunes of the far-right. But things were soon to change.
The GFC was the turning-point for the far-right, as they saw in the economic chaos an opportunity that had eluded them.
The cultural symbolism of English identity was based to an extent on "otherness". Being apart from the continent through their island geography, they felt emotionally detached from European culture, even when they were engaged in it politically. This sentiment was picked up on by Europe itself (most famously by Charles De Gaulle, when he rejected Britain's initial attempts to join the EEC). This meant that when Britain did join the EEC, they spent most of the time complaining about it, even when they had got the best "deal" of all.
In this sense, the more esoteric argument is that the instinctive scepticism that English culture had towards European integration and culture was an inadvertent echo of the same hostility found in historical Fascist circles. By this reasoning, England's "true" cultural identity is not materialist or liberal in the European sense, but more naturally traditional and authoritarian. Following this narrative, England's desire for Brexit was the subconscious desire to "carry the torch" of far-right ideology, first by breaking away from the materialist EU culture and then to encourage other like-minded nations in Europe to do the same. The "Aryan resurgence" fantasy is thus realized by England recognizing its destiny as the liberator of a materialist, liberal Europe, with a grateful Germany finally free from the guilt of the Second World War, and Brexit Britain as the instigator and leader of this supra-national neo-Fascist movement. In this nightmarish fantasy, it is England, using the "dark power" of Brexit, that brings about the collapse of the EU and the eventual "restoration" of Fascist rule across Europe. This would be achieved not through the military might of old, but through economic warfare and social destabilization: using the modern weapons of the 21st century to turn back the clock. The signs are already there this is the path the far-right would like to take.
The primal symbolism of the St George's cross mirrors the ancient heraldry of the black cross of the Teutonic knights that colonized Eastern Europe. "Brexit" is exploited by the Fascist far-right as an opportunity to reconnect people with their "roots", and to identify materialist "Europe" (i.e. the EU) as the enemy of their culture.
But this strategy has already been used to great effect in Russia. It is no wonder that the Kremlin should be a supporter of Brexit: they would see it as another example of exporting "hybrid warfare" even more effectively (and surreptitiously) than has already been used in Ukraine.
No comments:
Post a Comment