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.