By Robert John

Preface

The inspiration to write this essay came from an article I read by Rutger Bregman called The Real Lord of the Flies[1]. When he dismissed the society portrayed in Lord of the Flies, the novel authored by William Golding about public (private)[2] schoolboys stranded on a deserted tropical Pacific island during The Cold War, as unrepresentative of human nature, through his anthropological review of some Fijian boys who in 1966 escaped their miserable lives at home, to live on an island similar to the one described by Golding in his novel. The Fijian boys lived a life of peaceful coexistence on this island, the island did not descend into wanton barbaric malicious violence ruled by a crazed megalomaniac despot becoming a burnt out ruin, as it does in the conclusion of Lord of the Flies. He used this as a basis to argue there is not as Golding explored in Lord of the Flies: something inherently dark, barbaric, destructive and savage in the nature or attitudes of humans towards each other and the Earth.

The reason I took exception to this is that firstly, those boys from Fiji went willingly to that island with the determination to get away, they are not exactly the first or particularly the most successful group of young people to run away from somewhere leaving their troubles behind, but nonetheless it is a very remarkable story. Whereas the boys on the island in Lord of the Flies were thrown together by chance, were more immature but more significantly, Lord of the Flies is a work of fiction not a real runaway tale, so this is a case of gross false equivalence.

It is a work of fiction which portrays something very important about how political power manifests itself in human societies, the very dangerous political attitudes which exist within societies and that is why it is a timeless novel, with some crucial things to reflect on about the vicious forces seeking to dominate affairs. Golding did ,also, express something about particular kinds of people and their dangerous megalomania, but not that all of humanity are like that, he did portray other more reasoned, intelligent, thoughtful, cooperative, hopeful and just sides to humanity in the novel too. This is something Bregman either forgot or was disingenuous about, neither of which are great starting positions for your argument.

I was really annoyed by this article and Bregman at the time for this, so bought Utopia for Realists as then I felt guilty, as he was probably just using Lord of the Flies as a device to try to make points about different aspects of human societies and politics (which is exactly what I am about to do) and having watched a TED talk with him, I think we would agree on more than we disagree on but for reasons that are not entirely rational, I have decided nonetheless to not read his book until this essay was finished.

Lord of the Flies is not the greatest novel ever written and Golding may not have been a good person as Bregman mentions in the article regarding beating his children. Although, I would argue there was a centuries old culture of puritanically, religious bred or justified violence and abuse towards children in Britain and elsewhere[3], which only really ended in the 1980s and Golding died in 1993, so he spent most of his life living in that culture albeit in its demise, not that this excuses or forgives what he did but could maybe explain it. I was brought up at the very tail end of this culture, I remember what it was like, violence towards and between children was considered normal by many, even healthy or educational for them, corporal punishment in state schools only ended in 1986, independent fee paying schools 1999[4].

What Golding did create for his novel is arguably some of and definitely one of the most important characters as allegories of political forces in literature ever: Jack Merridew. A character who at the beginning of the novel proudly and righteously proclaims  ‘After all, we‘re not savages, we‘re English and the English are best at everything’, which is not exactly a secure, unquestionable, unproblematic or unironic position to take, and one which is not beyond dissent, awkward historical realities or criticism.

Why Jack Merridew is so important as a character in relation to our current political leadership and the implications of that character for not only national but world politics and the long term survival of human civilisation is what this essay will be about, but we cannot evaluate Jack without contrasting him to the other political forces allegorised in the novel, through the characters of Ralph, Piggy and Simon. In order to do this there has to be an explanation of the novel, which may frustrate those familiar with the book for being somewhat narrative in places but may serve as a reminder to those who read it a long time ago and it is at times necessary for clarity.

Ideally to understand this essay best the reader will have read the book but I have tried to write it in a way that someone who has not read it can understand it, hopefully successfully, although it will not take long to read the novel. Aldous Huxley warned that the society to be feared was not the one where books and literature were banned or burned (at least they are being written and read by some) but one where they were not read, widely ignored or are not valued at all and there was a widespread disdain for them, learning and education too. Is that what our society is becoming or has become?

Putting the rebuke aside, either way if you have not read the book or do not wish to, this will not protect you and your family, your society or country from the lethal political forces portrayed in the novel, especially Jack Merridew, which if given free reign will destroy human civilisation outright and I wish that were hyperbole.  

—

There are a number of at times lengthy footnotes (endnotes now as WordPress doesn’t like footnotes) with articles to support arguments and to make further arguments too which are very important and supplement the meaning and understanding of the main arguments, so they will need to be read too. If you read all the articles attached with the footnotes you will be reading for a good while, just to warn people, as some are lengthy.  

Why does everyone need to worry about Jack Merridew?

There are few more fitting characters from the works of literature to describe our current political and economic[5] world leadership than Jack Merridew from Lord of the Flies. Although, set in The Cold War era, it has important lessons about those who seek and obtain power for tyrannical purposes. Golding explores something horribly accurate, relevant and prescient about our current world situation and the whole post Second World War era. Jack Merridew is the most fitting allegorical embodiment of the relationship of the predominant current world leadership to power in our societies, their sensibilities, their attitudes to the planet, our political and societal institutions, the way those leaders view other humans, the resources of the world, sustainability and the planet itself.

The struggling political forces portrayed on the imaginary island in the novel are very much apparent in our world right now, the competing forces or ideas are within present day national and global politics, societies too. It is easily one of the best portrayals of how political organisation and power struggles manifest themselves in human societies and most disturbingly our current human society on the planet, with the tendencies to attack or to be intolerant towards protective democratic, societal, legal or political institutions, responsible governance, attitudes of sustainability or a duty of care, security and peace: and to instead drag the human race towards factionalism, irresponsible and unaccountable leadership or citizenry, usurpation of just authority or laws, tyranny, barbarism, war and environmental destruction[EJ1] , even to outright obliteration of the human species.

The forces within the society of the island, the damaging attitudes, actions, the manipulative rhetoric, the ultimately dangerous answers to the problems and challenges facing human societies which are expressed in the book, we are encountering them and they are present today. The character or rather characters of Jack Merridew are mostly in charge or are assuming more and more control, they are a very real and lethal threat to every human, the very existence of humanity and a habitable thriving planet. The only planet humans definitely know has intelligent life.

The story is set during the nuclear arms race in The Cold War. Jack Merridew and the other boys on the island portray the political forces, the megalomaniac attitudes and qualities of the people who are willing to press the button on Mutually Assured Destruction[6]. Those who are willing to kill off all humans to prove some demented ideological point or to ‘win’ a psychopathic misanthropic grudge because they think they matter, their nation, their empire or their ideology matters more than anything else in human existence, the ultimate narcissism. It is a timeless portrayal of a totally devastating corruption of unthinking megalomaniac power, towards the ultimate species suicidal destruction of human civilisation for reasons of crazed vanity, demented unilateralism, psychopathic sadism and vicious malice.

The novel is set on an island subtly portrayed as the whole world, he describes the island when viewed from its mountain, as looking like a ship on the ocean but one that is going ‘astern’ (backwards), a comment on not just the society on the island but our human civilisation. By illustrative comparison, we are as a world about two thirds, maybe three quarters of the way through the novel and frankly people should be far more worried than they are and perhaps reassess the threats which currently face us all: the attitudes, characters and forces which are driving events and where they can go.

There have been plenty of Jack Merridew types in political positions of power throughout history and there are now, but the stakes are currently far higher than they have ever been before[7]. We ,also, do not live in a world of fiction and there is no rescue party or plan, unless we design one ourselves but the forces Jack Merridew represents and harnesses are very much in charge in the real world right now. Jack Merridew does not care if your entire country or continent and everything in it is incinerated. In fact he might just do it to prove that he can and that he is king, even if it is for a moment of deranged sadistic self-satisfaction, gaining a perverse narcissistic pleasure out of it.

Though the story is set amongst a group of schoolboys (a subtle criticism of the patriarchy), it is a portrayal of how power and politics manifests itself in adult societies (an ironic comment on  political maturity, that there are no authentic adults acting with a proper duty of care in power just spoiled, corrupt, malicious, self-serving, irresponsible, unaccountable and vicious children; irony is employed as a literary device throughout the book), with some very sombre warnings about those who seek power for nefarious reasons. It expresses all sorts of things about attitudes to the planet, relationships within society, how society could or should operate and the difficulties and dangers within the operation of political power, especially, when rules, laws and the institutions or attitudes which protect it are ignored or placed under attack by those hostile to it or who want to subvert or corrupt it to serve them. Those who instead, want to centralise power in their or a few hands and have society serve them over any other consideration[8], up to and including the outright destruction of the human species and biosphere.  

This was the intention of Golding, who wanted the reader to reflect on what happens when society or the world breaks down into lawlessness or dangerous disagreement over how to solve common problems leading to the destruction of the institutions protecting society[9]. What happens when those who seek and obtain power for the wrong, reckless, selfish or vain reasons dominate and then use that power corruptly to coerce and serve narrow interests towards ultimately very destructive, unthinking and self-defeating for society ends. When the wrong and dangerous individuals with the worst human characteristics, who have the most unwholesome designs and desires to govern for totally amoral, vicious and crazy purposes prevail. Whilst those with more just intelligence, wisdom and who are acting with a duty of care to society are ignored, side-lined, attacked, abused, far worse than that, they are outright murdered, as are the ideas, attitudes and qualities they represent or serve are[10].

So, what are the characteristics and qualities of Jack Merridew which are so dangerous and how do they compare to current world leadership? To do that we need to review the book, the society portrayed and the characters within it.

What is portrayed about the society in a novel, poem or play in literature is really important, as the society the characters inhabit expresses all sorts of meaning and ideas too. The works of Literature and a disturbing tragedy like Lord of the Flies are in an Aristotelian sense an exploration of moralities, ideas, action, attitudes and characters for the reader or audience to reflect on, as it explores or has relevance and meaning for our own societies or lives. Literature is after all, a portrayal of human struggles of all kinds and scales.

The leadership power struggle on the island (the world) are between some of the other characters and Jack, who is portrayed as a snobbish, bullying, arrogant, spoiled, rich, privately educated elite, oligarchical, aristocratic type, with egomaniacal and megalomaniac tendencies, who has the attitude that everyone and everything on the island should serve him, his sycophants, faction or cronies above all other concerns, noticed any of them or that around in positions of power?

He views the island and every resource on it as his or that it should be his, owned privately not public ownership, that he should dictate what happens and that he would rather the world be destroyed for humanity and every other species, so that he can rule, rather than relinquish control, indulge others, reach a consensus or accept other more rational, just or reasonable inclusive sustainable solutions, ideas, politics or alternatives.

He desires a subjugation, subversion, domination and eventually removal of any kind of democratic institution, agreement or rule making system which he does not control and that his control is backed up by violence if considered necessary and he is fully prepared to create a tyranny or totalitarianism by any means to make this a reality, even if that means the ultimate destruction of everything. If people cannot see that force in operation amongst the political and economic leadership of this world, then it is suggestible that more attention and appreciation that it very much is, should be made. Ignorance of these kinds of threats is something else expressed in the novel and how that ignorance, reluctant acceptance, denial it is happening or total endorsement and support of the power of Jack Merridews will not protect you from the forces, characteristics, qualities or attitudes at play either. As Jack Merridew is contemptuous of all people and all things.  

Jack is contrasted to the other leadership characters: Ralph, Piggy and Simon. Ralph, Piggy and Simon represent and symbolise other qualities or attitudes in human societies who are competing with the rise to tyranny and totalitarianism through the manipulation, demagoguery, the destructive megalomania and violence of Jack and his followers. They demonstrate qualities and principles many people would believe in or identify with, as those which should govern our societies, they as characters are allegorical of these and are portrayed by Golding as juxtaposed to the forces Jack represents.

Ralph is the first leader of chief on the island, he is initially portrayed as unsuitable as a leader through his bullying of Piggy and although elected leader in a laughably preposterous, ironic moment of democracy. Where the real values, qualities or principles of what it is required to lead a society or what that leadership or democracy is intended to objectively achieve in terms of desirable outcomes for a stable society, are not properly established or discussed at all: sound familiar? Instead the election is won as a sort of negligent immature popularity contest with this new ‘toy of voting’ where few consider properly just what that authority is for and what it should be exercised towards in the long term for the betterment of a sustainable, wholesome and nourishing society. This is another subtle portrayal of a lot of the immature nonsense or debate surrounding representative democracy and just what is trying to be achieved objectively or clearly through elections or voting.  

Despite the farce of the election (one where Jack Merridew arrogantly insisted beforehand in a moment of foreshadowing, he should be chief before the vote even took place, simply because he thinks he deserves it, as is the historical want of rich, arrogant, aristocratic, oligarchical private power types) Ralph does prove to have leadership qualities. Ralph tries to establish a set of rules, disciplines and procedures in order for the boys on the island to survive with a decent amount of protection, safety, security, health and to escape being deserted. He tries to create a rules based system based on sound reasoning and rationalism, to establish an order and laws for the security, sustainability, wellbeing and stability of all on the island (world) including the junior members of the society, who do not do much thinking for themselves and rely on the actions, thoughts or leadership, bad or good, of others, these are called the little uns.

The little uns are playing into this motif of political maturity and how many in society do not even slightly consider what is right, proper or are engaged with the establishment of a sound stable society but will be led easily, even though they similarly are plagued by doubts and fears but all too often wish for others to take responsibility or are happy to accept the manipulations and demagoguery of others with dangerous solutions or the better leadership if it is around, as long as they do not have to do too much critical thinking for themselves, take responsibility, seriously think or act about things. There is a double meaning of maturity too, in that the little uns are portrayed as the powerless in society in the world, who have to be managed or convinced of outcomes which serve certain interests. How they or those lacking maturity or responsibility can be manipulated, bullied, coerced, managed and influenced into a dangerous political force too, at times in ways they are unaware of, especially when their immediate and short term interests are being served.

Ralph is though in a way, symbolic of a more ancient form of democracy, in that democracy existed a long time before Ancient Greece and Athenian democracy, who did not invent democracy, no one culture did. It has existed in cultures all over the world and real democracy is the ability to work as a community through debate, proposition and agreement of how best to resolve common problems, to air grievances, provide accommodations and reach consensus, not through voting as that is problematic, as Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Thucydides and many other intellectuals of The Ancient World and since argued, that voting can create instabilities and ultimately the destruction of society because of the fault lines of representative democracy or the voting model.  [11]

The representative democracy models and weaknesses of it are something else which is portrayed in the novel: factionalism, demagoguery, charlatanism, an ignorant or disengaged electorate, too much decision making power, exclusivity or responsibility in too few hands or a cult of the leader developing, the vulnerability to dangerous manipulative types and how wisdom, intelligence or intellectualism can be removed from the decision making process. [12]That rich elites, oligarchical figures, charmers, the beguiling, the demagogues and the manipulative can corrupt its operations and render ineffective or emasculate its operation, authority and power to resolve societal problems, issues or to act in a responsible way. All the reasons most of the intellectuals of The Ancient World rejected this type of representative or voting model as dangerously unstable, corruptible and open to forces which would replace it with tyranny of one kind or another from ochlocracy, aristocracy, dictatorship, oligarchy, to more subtle or amorphous forms of tyranny if not properly designed.

Ralph is portrayed as someone who tries to practice this more authentic democratic model which is far more suitable for peaceful coexistence, as no one can be marginalised and it is inclusive rather than it being vulnerable to the forces of exclusivity. He makes accommodation for Jack who is crestfallen at not being made leader, as Jack has a large hunting knife, he allows him to be a leader of hunters to find food. Ralph allows others to speak and does with the help of others put in place solutions which in some very important instances would have worked if people, namely Jack, but other boys too, had stuck to what were sensible agreements and consensus about thoughtful and proper solutions to commonly held problems, the most important one being rescue. The best example being Jack through negligence letting the signal fire go out “you let the fire out” early on in the stay on the island, one which would have been seen by a ship which passed close by to the island and would have resulted in their rescue.

Rescue is a key motif in the book. As human civilisation constantly has to be rescued from the forces Jack is allegorical of and again arguing they do not exist, which they do, or that people being seduced by the demagoguery, coercion and beguiling nature of Jack type figures use to manipulate are not a problem, does not mean you, your family, children or nation are vulnerable to being victims of the operation of this lethal political force. The attitudes, thinking or actions carried out in service of those darker fascistic forces Jack is allegorical of and worse still, the diminution of the forces which could counter this and provide genuinely more sustainable, safe and stable solutions for our societies.[13]

Ralph does get frustrated with the other boys and begins to demand obedience rather than build cooperation or collaboration, has leadership struggles, which again shows the dangers of entrusting too much power or responsibility in one person or too few people, who even if they make what are sensible decisions, their power and authority can be undermined and even though Ralph tries to fight for what is authentically just and acting with a duty of care in his leadership role. He or they can be overcome or overwhelmed by those who can manipulate others against them, consciously using dishonest or selfish tactics, appealing to the worst instincts and qualities in others to diminish or outright destroy the operations of thoughtful, wise and caring power with designs on stability, peace, security and sustainability.

Ralph is eventually removed from power by the demagogic, aristocratic, reckless, arrogant and fascistic forces Jack is allegorised as representing. The more noble and just forces Ralph represents are always vulnerable to them but the implications of this for the real world are far more serious than most people appreciate for human societies right now, as people who are attracted to the beguiling power of Jack Merridew figures believe they are served or protected by them, when this is an extremely grave mistake, with potentially human species ending consequences. The corrupt private aristocratic like power Jack represents are driving events towards the cataclysm portrayed in the final chapters of the book, where the biosphere of the island is destroyed by fire and all is lost due to the narcistic sadistic megalomania of Jack Merridew.

Piggy is symbolic of intelligence or the intelligentsia. He is physically weak, overweight and awkward but is able quickly to see the dangers to the survival of the boys on the island and the dangerous characters or forces who threaten him or them, the society on the island (Jack Merridew) or the weaknesses or shortcomings in other leaders (Ralph). He is a victim of bullying before arriving on the island, he has a heart-breaking backstory but he tries to advise Ralph to do the right things and everything he can to make sure that rules, principles and laws are followed on the island, that consensus and a mature attitude prevail. This is because he is acutely aware more than most and is intelligent enough to appreciate that when standards of decent behaviour, laws and rules are destroyed, when the proper forces are not governing society, he and the vulnerable are the ones who are most likely to be the first victims of the barbarism which ensues.

People bind together into society and respect laws to prevent wanton arbitrary violence and bullying, he knows this, his intelligence and ability to see the risks is cleverly symbolically represented through his spectacles, which see the truth or the situation on the island (world). Piggy in his suspicions is proven horribly correct and he is murdered, his brains smashed out on the rocks, a fitting portrayal of how just intelligence, science, experts and academia are viewed now, with the rejection of enlightenment thinking, science or, clever, thoughtful, intelligent but achievable sustainable alternatives, policies or solutions to the environmental destruction and slow building of military confrontations[14] that are happening right now[15]. It may only be happening in a metaphorical sense regarding having brains bashed out but the effect is the same if not more subtly insidious, in that just, thoughtful, adult and caring intelligence is having its brains bashed out by bullying corrupt  oligarchical private and governmental power to serve narrow short term interests.  

How intelligent dissent, evidence based solutions, thought through alternatives for human societies or proposals are not even properly considered, are endlessly under attack or do not even enter the public debate [16]or are accused of being woke or other deliberately manipulative and demagogic rhetoric or other culture war nonsense which is superficially playful but is actually really dangerously dismissive of the genuine threats humanity faces. Piggy represents this as he warns, he represents the warnings against the darker fascistic, irresponsible or dangerous forces, these genuine warnings about the destructive forces are in the novel proven to be true but ironically his intelligence or the symbol of it saves them all from the terrors of the island. When his glasses (through which he sees what is really going on) are stolen and used to start a fire through concentrating the rays of the sun, a fire lit to smoke out Ralph so Jack and the others can murder, decapitate and mutilate him but they stupidly and irresponsibly set the whole island on fire.

The smoke of this out of control fire which destroys everything needed for their survival on the island, inadvertently draws a British naval ship to the island to rescue them or rather ironically again it does not save them. It just emancipates them from this representation of lethal human power struggles, only to deliver them into a much larger power struggle, where the same violent, corrupt and dangerous political forces are at play in the whole world at a far more organised, sophisticated and perilously advanced level.

Piggy is allegorical of how rational caring intelligence and wisdom can be subdued and destroyed by the brute force of ignorance, violence or those who would use their intelligence or gumption to obliterate this use of intelligence as a threat to their power and influence. Again, this is something in operation right now, we may not see the consequences of it play out in full in the short term but these forces are in play now and the intelligence Piggy represents are having their brains bashed out and the island (world) will catch fire unless it is stopped, it has already caught fire[17], and there will be no rescue party for us unlike the boys on the island, unless one is designed and the Jack Merridews and their followers are brought under restraint by everyone else.

Simon is a minor but very significant leadership character who is the only character to meet Lord of the Flies. Simon is symbolic of rationalism and reason but ,also, a sort of  benign communitarian, animist, anarchist, socialist[18] or authentically inclusively democratic human spirit. He has a genuine spirit of charity, a selfless caring love for the island, he sees the oneness between himself and nature. Simon is someone who is able to see the majesty and beauty of the island (world), the worthiness of existence, life and others, whilst selflessly helping in all sorts of ways pragmatically: emotionally, through trying to reach a better understanding, but also practically, acting with a responsible duty of care, building shelters, providing food, looking after juniors and so forth. He is portrayed as the most authentically adult and mature person on the island, in that he has the correct attitudes or human spirit to others and the relationship to the island.

Their situation is far from perfect but Simon is aware there is enough food and water on the island and if people work together, shelter can be provided, the best use of the resources on the island can be determined, protected, sustained and if the rules are followed he is certain they will be rescued and in a sense he is completely right, he even says so, although again in a darkly ironic way, in what turns out to be a horrible moment of foreshadowing about his own plight and denouement in the narrative.

He represents the kinds of attitudes, how more through collaboration, imagination, cooperation and considered thoughtful action, all can be saved, thrive, live, flourish and enjoy life on the island (world). His attitude to the resources on the island are to be selfless with them, support each other, protect, look after each other, stay calm, think things through to resolutions and consensus, properly consider, challenge thinking or attitudes to provide authentically serving solutions.

Golding deliberately portrays him as quirky, an eccentric and an epileptic, to express something about how those who might be considered awkward, different or weird can be characterised as crazy, even though they may carry within them understanding that will benefit us all. Simon is in possession of profound meaningful truths like Piggy but he is deliberately allegorised as awkward, lacking in the rhetorical skills, physicality or bombast of others, notably Jack. This is to express notions of how society and people often react or treat those who are in possession of far more sensible, thoughtful or authentically rational, reflective or reasoned ideas, who are more selfless, who ask awkward questions, who challenge, who appreciate nuance, have reasonable doubts, seek to act with a duty of care to others or who aspire to more authentically noble principles or morals, but, who tragically lack the confidence, hubris, forcefulness, somatotonia, [19]narcissism, vanity and selfishness of aristocratic Jack type characters.

How fragile these attitudes or policies are which could be employed, which are represented by Simon, policies which should govern as they will sustain and nourish or they should at least have far more prominence, as they offer authentic evidence based solutions on all sorts of levels including a benign spiritual level: against the brute, destructive and darker forces represented by Jack, who offer a beguiling but essentially crazy and deranged certainty on all matters. Jack types always wish to mock, attack and breed contempt for the Simon figures of this world[20], have them dismissed by others as crazy because they see their ideas, attitudes and how they cannot be brought to heel as a threat or something to be derided as impossible as they damage their ability to control, manipulate and subdue others. This dichotomy of attitudes is portrayed between the boys throughout the novel and is present in modern politics.

The fragility of the forces Ralph, Piggy and Simon represent is symbolically expressed in the conch, a seashell found by Piggy who explains how it can be blown like a trumpet, to create the first and later meetings of the boys on the island. This symbolises the fragility of the just ideas, principles, rules or institutions governing society or human civilisation, to the forces represented by Jack who would happily smash it all ‘into a thousand pieces’ leading to the destruction of human civilisation in an inferno they would oversee or rather are overseeing, as long as they are in charge, even if it is, especially when compared to the ages and time, only fleetingly.

Golding uses religious imagery to suggest Simon is a Christ type figure and Lord of the Flies is the devil, Beelzebub is another name for Satan, it means Lord of the Flies. Though Simon in debates with the other boys suggests that the devil or the different imagined beasts which the boys become terrified of and use to justify extreme actions, are really internal human ones “what I mean is…maybe it’s only us”, that the devil or beasts we need to confront are the ones within us.

The boys who become terrified by what is unbeknownst to them a dead military pilot sat in an ejector seat, who parachutes onto the mountain of island in the middle of the night. The pilot has had his face smashed in, is quite dead and the parachute of the ejector seat is blown around making it appear that he is moving, convincing the other boys, who see it at night-time under the stars, it is a beast. The boys since they got on the island were terrified of beasts crawling out of the jungle or sea, which are more than likely really understandable nightmares about their situation but there was no real evidence for real ‘beasts’ expressed ironically by Golding, the most dangerous beasts Golding is portraying are the human ones or certain human attitudes.

Simon, after conversing with Lord of the Flies, or rather Lord of the Flies a hunted and slaughtered by Jack pigs head, left as a sacrifice for the beast, talks at him, talking about how “ they are going to have fun on this island” a foreshadowing of something menacing which is the very opposite of fun, investigates to find the truth even after the Lord of the Flies warns him to “not try it on” or “we shall do you”, a warning that you are going to have to come with something  strong and sophisticated to beat The Devil in humanity, so give it up “or else”[21]. He finds that the thing they think is a beast on the mountain, is a dead pilot and not a beast, disconnecting the parachute to give the pilot an amount of dignity in death. He then sets off optimistically in knowledge of the truth to tell the other boys as a huge tropical storm starts, that there are no beasts (the beasts are allegorical or metaphorical of irrational fears and ignorance, weak and base human qualities which will consume humanity), he goes to tell them the truth, the only beasts or devils which need confronting are the human ones within us, the destructive spirits, attitudes or thinking: which are ultimately completely self-defeating in the long run for humanity and ones which will only deliver us all into hell.

The boys, who have in the meantime worked themselves up into a frenzy of fear and irrationality about the imagined beast, the dead pilot, in the pathetic fallacy of the storm, as Simon emerges from the jungle telling them the truth that beasts are not real,  they murder him, beating him to death, thinking or mistaking him for the beast in a moment of collective fear, madness and irrationality. Even Ralph and Piggy are involved, this is another dark irony and portrayal of how even the intelligent, ‘democratic’ and rules based people can be carried along on a wave of irrationalities to do terrible things if they do not follow the correct human spirits, thinking or attitudes. If they do not think things through, agree after deliberation what is right, or just and seeing the evidence which is in front of them, acting in a reasoned, reflective, thoughtful caring way, considering all possibilities and more than anything: listening, thinking, trying to understand and accept more through learning ways to be genuinely better and responsible. To have the authentically right spirits or attitude, consider properly reactions and actions towards events and with a genuine consideration or duty of care for the future and others.

In this climax of madness: reason, rationalism, evidence, science (he found out the truth about the pilot and beasts through experiment) and the communitarian spirit are killed off, Golding demonstrating how these notions or ideals can be mercilessly slaughtered by crazed mass ignorance, irrationality and violent or vicious tendencies, other poor human qualities or weaknesses. How irrational fear or how belligerent confidence and crazed certainty of conviction or purpose can batter doubt, nuance, self-reflection or reflective thought in service of just or higher principles of flourishing survival, to death. This is why what is portrayed in Lord of the Flies is timeless and this is what is happening now, as the forces or ideas of how to build a future are being silenced and murdered by extremism driven by Jack Merridew type leaders. [22]

If Simon, who is portrayed as knowing Jack from old at home in England, had been listened to, and allowed more of a leadership role, things would have been just fine for all on the island. The boys on the island could not do this and were unable to confront the qualities within themselves which caused the destruction of or the breakdown of society: the irrationalities, the violence, anger, ignorance, the greed, malice, intolerance, the misunderstandings, the misinterpretations and numerous other vicious or essentially weak qualities.

This again is something humans cannot seemingly do in the wider world, portrayed at the end of the novel in the Naval officer rescuing the boys from the island who is symbolic or reflecting of the wider world tribalism, imperialism, conflict, organised violence, warlike attitudes and wanton unthinking destruction. How we have built ships, navies, air forces and armies which are just like the power games of the society of boys on the island but on a far larger, more sophisticated and dangerous scale, with the same countervailing forces murdered and silenced on the path to the destruction of human civilisation. Golding was portraying something about those who would choose nuclear destruction for ideological reasons but these same forces represented in Jack Merridew apply to the political and corporate forces driving events today, they are now even worse, as there is still the nuclear threat but now the ecological and environmental threat to civilisation caused by pollution and unrestrained capitalism are just as, if not more insidiously and seductively dangerous[23].  

Jack is portrayed as returning into a little boy, a little un, at the sight of the Naval Officer who rescues the boys at the end of the novel with the impressive ship moored off the coast, the officer who is the implied underling of a far more organised, dangerous and impressive Jack Merridew figure or figures, who are overseeing the entire world on the descent into the end of civilisation and setting the whole world on fire, like what happened on the island with the boys. These Jack Merridew figures being the likely fathers of Jack Merridew on the island in the novel, the elite oligarchical bullying figures who are the vicious grown spoiled children running or should that be rather, destroying the world for humanity. This is where Jack Merridew got his sensibilities, entitlement, qualities and attitudes from. The Jack Merridews are the violent bullies, aristocrats and oligarchs who have overseen slavery, genocide, oppression, colonialism, imperialism, the corruption of politics to serve their interests, mass murder, torture, imprisonment, violence, subjugation and environmental destruction through the centuries and their vicious qualities and ways are reaching a species ending climax for us all, just like in the moments before rescue in the novel. Unlike the novel, however, currently there will be no rescue.

So, in the light of this it is important to ask more deeply, how and why is Jack Merridew so dangerous in what he does in the novel?

He did not kill Simon alone, nor did he kill Piggy, that was another character, the psychopath who was just waiting for the moment to have his violent desires and malice indulged, Roger. Roger is allegorical of those who would rather just use violence, coercion and intimidation to get their way or who are happy to be employed to do this by Jack type figures. Jack at a moment near the end identifies him as a threat but quickly bullies him with orders and demands. Jack still has a knife (the knife symbolic of those who will ultimately use coercion and violent force to get their way over sound arguments, rationales and reason, towards agreeable just consensus) but more than anything the absolute sheer will and desire to have outright power, pressing home his advantages of popular support, violence and resources he has in his favour in that moment.

It is amazing how few question orders or demands when they are given in a convincing voice[24], from those who assume power and how easily people will defer to someone claiming they are king, leader or that they have authority or falsely claim to have what is responsible, valuable or right on their side. Even if they hide all sorts of terrible vicious things in their rhetoric and euphemisms. How behind their words, the action of doing away with people who ask awkward questions is happening, all hidden behind the manipulative and deceptive language of fun, freedom [25]or protection.  

It is what Jack represents allegorically, the attitudes and thinking he exploits in others and at the moment civilisation collapses in the non-fictional world, it will have been caused by a Jack Merridew type. They will be there at the end as our world is on fire, killing wantonly, directing mindless destruction, torture, mutilation and killing, because they would rather everyone and everything dies or suffers rather than them not have control of society, arguably this is already happening, is well under way. Jack is a dangerously manipulative, selfish megalomaniac who is willing to use demagoguery, violence, any means necessary to obtain power for nefarious and destructive purposes.

Our world is run by these people and the empires both political and corporate they create, that is mostly our current leadership in the highest positions of power in both the economic and political realms pretty much all over the world, especially in the most dominant nations. As what is that power being used for? Sustainability, the community of people on the planet, building a future for all? Or, is it competing powers, undermining of democracy,  the more real kind, the consensual solving of shared problems, the manipulation of political ideas or ideologies to serve narrow interests, about destruction, setting things on fire, picking a needless fight, domination both domestically and abroad, serving short term interests over wider considerations or future generations in a reckless way? There is more evidence for reckless unthinking destruction, domination, bullying, viciousness, malice and the bullies like Jack and Roger who implement it, than there is for the considered planning for sustainability, harmony with the natural world and accommodation for all, other species or future generations too allegorised by Simon, Piggy and Ralph.  [26]

So, it is probably better to look at the qualities of Jack more closely, why he is so dangerous, to reflect on how he applies to the leadership on our island, our island globe in the sea of space.  Firstly, Jack just assumes he should be entitled to be a leader because he is arrogant, wealthy, bullying, domineering, contemptuous and spoiled. Now people can pretend that our political and economic realms are not mostly ruled or full of these types of elite figures or characters, where most leaders are more akin to aristocrats, are actual aristocrats, oligarchs[27] or there are not still things like hereditary monarchies and heads of state or there are authoritarians, corrupt economic or political elites[28], but that would not fit with the evidence of reality.

It is clear Jack is a controlling bully too, with a malicious, sadistic and vicious nature revealed in the reactions of the other characters who know him from school at the start of the novel, where he is clearly from a culture of vicious bullying. He does not want to follow the rules or laws, unless they are made by him, he is irresponsible and does not want to be held to account and encourages that recklessness in others, he is obsessed with what it is important to him or how he can get enough support to impose his will or that of a select few and he is endlessly plotting, planning and manipulating others and the institutions or rules governing society in order to get complete power[29].

As he just views and assumes the island, that the place, everyone and everything in it should be his, to serve him, do his bidding and be there to do what he sees fit with, he desires to subjugate, that everything should be done his way, enclosed off for him and that he would rather everyone on the island dies as an act of petty revenge or a personal whim, than have society survive and not be about serving him but how does Jack win and then maintain power in this society?

Firstly, by endlessly demanding he is in control no matter what, even though he makes dangerously negligent, irresponsible mistakes or decisions and even when he has plans which are completely destructive and irrational. Although, his more powerful ways of maintaining, protecting, achieving and securing power is through manipulation, demagoguery, directing malice and violence, especially violence. Violence against nature, violence against others, getting others to commit acts of violence on his behalf or for him, revelling in, encouraging and enjoying violence, coercion or intimidation in service of his extreme vanity and megalomania. Violence and deliberately creating and promoting a generalised fear and insecurity in society to manipulate power to him, using divide and conquer, hate figures and phantom threats to keep people loyal. Creating insecurities in the other characters, then using cronyism, sycophants, bullies and through creating a hierarchy which is in service of his arbitrary, violent and destructive power: then silencing criticism and dismissing just intelligence, reason or rationalism as a political threat.

Creating a further misplaced loyalty towards him through a mixture of undermining the authority of others, not obeying commonly held rules, laws or principles; then later intimidation, fear, distraction, misdirection, scapegoats, blame figures, promoting resentments, exclusion and inclusion to both material and societal benefits, a complete suppression of the idea there are better, more sustainable and less corrosive or damaging alternatives.

An indulgence of the worst aspects of human behaviour: malice, greed, selfishness, perversion, violence, ridicule, torture, viciousness, anger, humiliation and unthinking recklessness or irresponsibility. He wishes all to gorge on the resources of the island in an unthinking orgy, without a second thought for the sustainability of those resources for the future or how rescue or sustainability can be realised. Then use the loyalty this creates to impose control and to kill off or subdue anything he has identified as his enemy, mainly the things allegorised by Simon, Piggy and Ralph.   

As the way Jack sees the resources of the island is very different to those of Simon, Piggy and Ralph. The latter see it as something they can all use to support each other to survive, to be sustainable, through consensus and reciprocity with those resources they can despite any differences live side by side, keep each other alive, secure and be rescued, enjoy the island in the right spirit of oneness with nature[30]. They have no issues with supporting others for food, shelter and water of which there is enough and it is revealed that ships do travel near to the island so a lit signal fire will see them eventually be rescued. They all get frustrated by the lack of responsibility, forethought, consideration and negligence towards shared goals and benefits demonstrated by the other boys. Jack propagandises against their plans to impose what are conspicuously sensible rules with obvious rationales, virtues and benefits by insisting they are against ‘fun’ and freedom.

Jack did not follow the rules or could be trusted to be responsible enough to keep the signal fire lit, something which was his responsibility, as he was out hunting pigs. When Ralph made him a hunter it was on the understanding that anything they caught would be used for the benefit and support of all. He eventually catches and kills a pig, which changes the power balance on the island. As the boys who have been mostly eating fruit desire meat. They cook the pig and have a feast but it is the attitude of Jack to this resource which is significant, rather than the other leaders who saw the resources of the island as for everyone, Jack saw these resources as his or rather something he could control and manipulate people with, give out as treats but demanding loyalty, dominion, influence, dependence and subservience in return. He wished to use resources to control matters to serve his interests, even though he was happy to benefit from other resources given to him freely and supportively by others, he saw this resource as his to exploit it and to use to usurp power on the island, the other resources too. [31]

This played into his use of demagoguery, as he could play on the desires, emotions or fears of people to manipulate them, after all who does not want a little something of what they desire or some comfort or luxury, however, what people might not always bargain with is through doing that with characters like Jack you have to relinquish power, a say, your rights, as the Jack Merridews of this world wish to act in an arbitrary way, they want to use the power of resources to dominate and control, where decisions on resources are made privately not publicly. He wanted to enclose off this resource for the purposes of manipulation and through enclosing this off, begin to enclose off the entire island, the land, the sea, the air and even the future if it suits him.[32]

The problem being like Jack in the book, those who desire to do this in our world in positions of power are also irresponsible, negligent, opportunistic, malicious, narcissistic, unnecessarily cruel, sadistic and dangerously without any measure of circumspection for the consequences of their actions. Everything is a short term game for them, where they wish to have everything serve narrow interests to maintain a society and politics at their service [33]. And like Jack did, many of those resources and much of that control were obtained, established and are maintained through violence or the threat of it, coercions and oppression, now and historically; or exclusion, manipulation and other bullying behaviour or the use of the resources of the world in the way portrayed with the pig, a means of control and subjugation not ones of emancipation and liberation. Worse than that they wish for the populations of the world to forfeit any decision making power, pay for and embroil people in this destruction for reasons of convenient blame, then through this control and subjugation erode freedoms or have the illusion of freedom or rhetoric of freedom used as a way to manipulate people towards this destructive megalomaniacal force, allegorised in Jack Merridew and notions like ‘we are going to have fun’ on the island. 

Which means the attitudes or qualities which Ralph, Simon and Piggy allegorise, they have to be dismantled, diminished, usurped by degrees and if necessary outright revolt, destruction and crushed to impose tyranny. To use the control of resources in this way, to subvert public power or public consensual decision making, to impose a totalitarianism by manipulating desires, selfishness or emotions in an underhand way if that is the only means, then if democracy or duty of care standards or protecting rule of law stand in the way: corrupt and subvert that or outright remove, deny or destroy it if necessary. [34]   

The pig allows him to do this, as it is how the pig as a resource is used which is so crucial, it creates an exclusivity but one people wish to be included in, where they are willing to ignore things as long as they get their share, the pig is offered up as a treat and its power is beguiling, it is symbolic of temptation, of the indulgence of desires and how those desires can be manipulated to the power of megalomaniacs who will then use it to rule in arbitrary and reckless ways. As violence is one way to rule but treats and indulgences for getting your own way are just as powerful and insidious, if not more so. Tyranny and totalitarianism is far more agreeable and sustainable with treats or luxuries, than by being hit with a big stick, but the recklessness of treating resources in this unsustainable and unthinking way has severe consequences, portrayed in the book, but this is reflected in the modern world too.   [35]

The pigs are full of such meaning about resources, firstly, they are portrayed as a finite resource unless you treat them in a sustainable way, like any other resource or the natural world in totality. Jack kills the main sow, which means that unless they leave the sounder alone, before too long they will be wiped out, no more pigs. Which demonstrates that if you do not treat the resources and biosphere the right way, with reciprocity and with care, it will no longer provide for you, brutally Darwinist (Darwin someone we will return to later) but undeniably true. This ,also, applies fully to the attitude of the dominant political and economic powers in the world now[36], in the way they view the planet and its resources, also, how many in the population are happy to take the indulgences and treats on offer but are either in denial, ignorance, compliance, fear, they have no choice or are just caught in the vortex of a society run by the Jack Merridews on the current trajectory to destruction. Even those who do not care and support the Merridews because they like the domination, coercion and violence or indulgences so follow him, as is expressed in the book, can or rather will become victims too, their family or descendants. People are underestimating the threat these figures or attitudes represent.  

The malevolent, malicious and reckless leadership of Jack and Jack type figures who encourage or manipulate viciousness in others is made even more pronounced in the novel by the insanity in the desire to hunt, torture, kill and mutilate Ralph at the end of the novel. Jack does this for the main reason he hates him for not allowing him to be chief immediately simply because he is arrogant, vain, narcissistic and spoiled. He psychopathically sees everything as some sort of crazy game he just has to win, whilst stacking the odds heavily in his own favour after bullying or subduing the other participants, breaking the rules too, like a horribly spoiled child openly cheating whilst playing some lethal twisted board game of Monopoly.

Jack sets the whole jungle, which has everything, including the pigs, fruit, all the resources they depend on entirely on fire to flush Ralph out to murder him, the Jack Merridews of this world would rather that happen than relinquish any control over the resources of this island (world)[37], I know I have repeated this point many times but it needs to be pointed out more than once and consistently. Look at the reactions to the environmental threats or the threat of nuclear war, for which Lord of the Flies and the final fire on the island are an allegory for. The reactions are not to deal with these situations meaningfully towards resolutions but in many cases, they are to escalate them[38] and deliberately light the fire, worse than the boys on the island, they are entirely conscious of what their actions mean now, how can they not be? Yet they pursue these same actions, policies and corruptions anyway. The fire in the novel has already been started in reality.  

So, for the purposes of reemphasis, Lord of the Flies is an allegory of those leaders who for petty vanity, egotism, megalomania, greed, other damaging attitudes, qualities and characteristics are willing to destroy human civilisation and who will somewhat sadistically enjoy doing it. As long as they get to dominate, bully and subdue others, smash some people up and have won some deranged one upmanship competition, and those who will let this happen, struggle to stop it or who will go crazily along with them. As people wrongly and naively think something is in it for them, which there might be in the short term but not for a sustainable future or for all, not for a lasting human civilisation. These are only temporary benefits and that really what you are embroiled in is a cult of personality, vanity, greed, malice, needless war, aggression, destruction, worse than this, it is a ruthless death cult! This is why Jack Merridew is such an important fictional character as our world is run by Jack Merridews and why Lord of the Flies is one of the most poignant and fitting portrayals of how the lethal political power currently directing affairs in the world works and the kind of people in charge and the kind of people or ideas who are destroyed in order for that power to rule.

People will ,also, go along with things if offered protection, which Jack does too, but it is not really protection or if it is, it is in a dangerous unthinking short term way. Many people or not enough will challenge the authority or the safety or security offered in societies now, even if in reality that safety is not safety at all for the safety for our species, many other species too, like on the island in the novel. People being intimidated, subdued and frightened of Jack type figures or hopelessly unaware or ignorant, or those happy vicious sycophants of Jack who are happy to go along with the bullying and unthinking recklessness. These are further forces giving strength to Jack types and are forces that are currently a struggle to overcome, adequately or to coherently be challenged by the principles or forces of the more authentically democratic, which Ralph, Piggy and Simon are allegories of.

The ghosts of Piggy and Simon are haunting us all in the real world. The ideas, solutions or policies which could provide sustainability are available, affordable, possible and it could lead to authentically better lives and societies for all, these proposals or voices are denied, these issues or problems are ignored or rarely enter the public debate by those who seek power to serve them or narrow interests, who use resources obtained by violence and corruption to dominate, subdue, bully, intimidate and deny a proper hearing of the alternatives. In the same way Jack Merridew bullies, humiliates, attacks, ridicules, diminishes, defenestrates and then kills or tries to kill Simon, Piggy, Ralph and what they represent in the novel.    

Furthermore, what happens on the island in the novel in some ways portrays the misrepresentation of ideas of superiority and inferiority appropriated or misappropriated to Charles Darwin or Herbert Spencer of survival of the fittest and natural selection, an exploration of those false notions and ideological manipulations of their ideas. Those who consider themselves natural leaders, those who assume they should have power and the resources of the world as theirs and that private oligarchical arbitrary power rules, clearly see themselves of worthy or deserving of that power, decision making ability and control, many dominant nations too,  because it has been achieved as they are ‘stronger’. Even though their actions are demonstrably irresponsible, reckless and unaccountable in terms of the rest of the population, world and future generations, it is a ‘survival of the fittest’ situation and the supposedly strongest and most able have assumed power and resources accordingly.

Many would see this as natural selection, the strong winning out, the weaker go to the wall, ruthless competition and just a representation of what happens. Jack was the strongest figure on the island, the Jack Merridews of the world in corporations, governments, high society and in positions of power in governments are there because of their gumption, strength, somatotonia, qualities and ability to have or create dominion over others. This has been argued, wrongly, with lots of convenient self-justification, as the natural way of things and has been argued by oligarchical, reactionary and conservative types as Darwinism in action[39].

Social Darwinism was discredited as a position due to it underpinning some very disturbing actions and political movements, it was an ideological misrepresentation by vicious bullies to justify reprehensible policies and actions, extreme inequalities, social injustice, rule by oligarchs, racism, imperialism and genocide too, like what has happened with Adam Smith and capitalism. These false notions and misappropriation of ideas has clearly not been discarded entirely, is still supported as a conceit amongst oligarchs. As the intelligence used to discern the problems with human economic and military activity from science or academia to political or societal movements suggesting alternative proposals, pointing out problems and asking difficult questions like Simon, Ralph and Piggy have been somewhat steamrollered, using these kinds of arguments and positions of strength or ideas of deserving power, by the ‘stronger’ arbitrary, reckless and destructive brute force of rhetoric, propaganda, corruption and violence harnessed by Jack Merridew type figures, like in the novel, to impose a tyranny best described by the English philosopher John Locke[40].

“Tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which nobody can have a right to. And that is making use of the power anyone has in his hands, not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own private advantage. When the governor, however entitled, makes not the law but his will, the rule, and his commands are not directed to the preservation of the properties of his people, but the satisfaction of his own ambition, revenge, covetousness, or any other irregular passion.”

Simon, Ralph and Piggy the ideas they represent have been ignored, ridiculed, silenced, murdered and pushed into the background and a tyranny has been imposed like the one described above by Locke. As no government of any kind or those who seek to influence or control it has a right to destroy the biosphere for humans, impose avoidable misery and suffering on future generations or now, cause a preventable ecological and environmental catastrophe, start a nuclear war to wipe out human civilisation as it suits their private ambitions or advantage, revenge, covetousness or deeply irregular passions or perversions. This is the tyranny which exists now, it makes no difference if those states overseeing it are acting together or not, or are democratic, as they are open to these corruptions too by oligarchical power or demagoguery or other forces which can subdue or control democracies and especially when the operation of that power in those states is recklessly irresponsible, unaccountable or serves short termed unilateral interests over the preservation of its people and future generations in the longer term.

Like Jack in the novel, the Jack Merridews of this world, however, have shown a certain kind of strength, to be strong in terms of physical force, a kind of intelligence and political power but it is a crazed megalomania that is ultimately destructive and what it really is and this is the reason for this diversion into Locke, Spencer and Darwin and is a key point, is that it is now a profound human weakness.

The Jack Merridew figures, these elite, aristocratic and emperor types, attitudes or power structures and our indulgences of and deference to them are a profound human species weakness. Their actions, attitudes, their will to have power over others, their treatment of the resources of the Earth, their unreasonable aggression to and treatment of other humans. Those who are drawn into the orbit of their power but who insufficiently challenge it for a variety of reasons are a weakness too, so basically at the moment, everyone. Those who seek protection or a share of resources within the empire or power but seek not to challenge its operation, those who simply do not care and share the reckless abandon of Jack and are driven by selfish vices, those who have little choice but are embroiled into the cage which is created by these forces a little like Sam and Eric in the novel, those who are beguiled by the power, frightened or enchanted by the promulgated myths or questionable belief systems, those who do not wish to challenge things and who just want a certainty however crazy, those caught in despair, those offered no meaningful alternatives who seek to enjoy their time on the planet and the beauty the world offers; those who are frustrated, trapped, compromised, bullied, ignorant, arrogant, confused, craven, callow or cowed.

Either way the people who consider themselves the strongest and very deserving of their power, economic wealth, arbitrary decision making power and militaristic might are now the biggest Darwinist weakness to the human species with their reckless irresponsible attitudes, even if some Jack Merridew figures may consider themselves as Darwin in action.

Darwin, and this is a main argument of his which is underappreciated or seldom mentioned, Spencer made a similar argument too, after all did argue as part of natural selection or survival of the fittest that the species who cannot adapt to the physical environment or adapt to live healthily in the world, will go extinct and the biggest threat to the extinction of the human race, many other species too, is the arbitrary, bullying, aristocratic, reckless, irresponsible and crazy destructive decisions of elite oligarchical aristocratic Jack Merridew types, as they threaten or are preventing our ability to adapt. Some quotations by way of illustration.

“Whatever fosters militarism makes for barbarism; whatever fosters peace makes for civilization.”― Herbert Spencer. There is little to no fostering of peace if anything militarism and military stand offs are intensifying, militaries being huge polluters too, along with the other things threatening peace, so against civilisation.

“If an organism is to survive and prosper, it must adapt to its external environment. This ability to adapt is what Spencer means by fitness. If an organism is unfit in this sense—if, in other words, it fails to adapt to its environment—then it will live in a diseased or unhealthy condition and perhaps even die. In short, to be fit is to be able to adapt to the conditions necessary to its survival, whatever those requirements may be.” A succinct summary of the ideas of Spencer and the paramount importance of adaption.

Spencer on this at length “Every animate creature stands in a specific relation to the external world in which it lives. From the meanest zoophyte, up to the most highly organised of the vertebrata, one and all have certain fixed principles of existence. Each has its varied bodily wants to be satisfied—food to be provided for its proper nourishment—a habitation to be constructed for shelter from the cold, or for defence against enemies—now arrangements to be made for bringing up a brood of young, nests to be built, little ones to be fed and fostered—then a store of provisions to be laid in against winter, and so on, with a variety of other natural desires to be gratified. For the performance of all these operations, every creature has its appropriate organs and instincts—external apparatus and internal faculties; and the health and happiness of each being, are bound up with the perfection and activity of these powers. They, in their turn, are dependent upon the position in which the creature is placed. Surround it with circumstances which preclude the necessity for any one of its faculties, and that faculty will become gradually impaired. Nature provides nothing in vain. Instincts and organs are only preserved so long as they are required. Place a tribe of animals in a situation where one of their attributes is unnecessary—take away its natural exercise—diminish its activity, and you will gradually destroy its power. Successive generations will see the faculty, or instinct, or whatever it may be, become gradually weaker, and an ultimate degeneracy of the race will inevitably ensue.”, in terms which make in some ways for uncomfortable reading, although this section is worth repeating “external apparatus and internal faculties; and the health and happiness of each being, are bound up with the perfection and activity of these powers. They, in their turn, are dependent upon the position in which the creature is placed.”, this includes humans and we are bound up in the same network of internal and external factors which make our existence a reality. This is something we cannot just take for granted and not meaningfully plan for or protect against.

“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent; it is the one most adaptable to change.” Charles Darwin. So, intelligence alone is not a means of survival unless that is used to serve the purpose of being adaptable to change. This is conspicuously not happening on the scale required.

Humans are currently meaningfully not adapting to the environment, even despite all our ingenious inventions, developments, intelligences, gumption and culture, we are not adapting or have rather maladapted our environment and are instead creating the circumstances for our own destruction through allowing a spirit of dangerous domination, a domination directed in the service of the few irresponsible and deranged  Jack Merridews to the expense of all and future generations. Jack Merridews who are preventing through their corruptions, bullying, violence and coercion a transition to adapt to a more sustainable lasting set of societies.

People generally want a world ran by Piggy, Ralph and Simon type figures, the biggest threat to us all though, are the vicious bullies like Jack. Our inability to appreciate this threat is a weakness but it is not as dangerous as the aggressive, spoiled, arrogant, selfish and vicious sensibilities driving the human race into the sea because the Merridews are megalomaniacs, for any charm or virtues they may have this is the reality. They can be restrained but choosing not to especially now is the biggest problem facing our species.

It is important to remember that frighteningly large number of people will enjoy people dying, are quite happy with the juggernaut of cataclysm, war or suffering that will happen like Roger, others too in the novel, even better if they get to humiliate, dish out violence, malice and show their domination over the Ralph, Piggy and Simon figures and their supporters too. The weaknesses of apathy, indifference, the assumption that the Earth can be taken for granted for humans are a problem, as well as the malice and other vicious behaviours driving matters but again it is the Jack Merridew type attitudes and our indulgences of them which are predominantly to blame and like in the book they foster, manipulate, coerce, intimidate and use the resources of the world to create this hierarchy and reality through their corruptions.

Like Simon desperately tried to get people to do, we need to confront the human weaknesses and faults within us, to grow and reach the next more profound level of human civilisation and confront our biggest weakness of all, our inability to deal with the beguiling, insidious, malicious, vain, demanding, spoiled, aristocratic and demented Jack Merridew figures before it is too late and stop the murder of the ideas, principles, human characteristics, institutions or ideals Simon, Piggy or Ralph represent which offer genuine protection and sustainability. We need to stop killing off our saviours whilst championing their murderers and keep in mind the island of our world is on fire now, until we do something the inferno will spread. There will be no naval officer to save us. There will only be the violence, mutilation, torture, suffering, probable cannibalism and then starvation before extinction which would have happened if the navy had not arrived at the end of the novel in Lord of the Flies.

Bregman is wrong about dismissing Lord of the Flies as unrepresentative of humanity or human nature, I like millions of others want him to be right and that genuine reform can happen, the prospects are currently not good. There are as portrayed in the novel no authentic adults in charge, there is no maturity, crazed megalomaniac grown spoiled children are driving events, the spirits of Simon, the oneness with the planet are being murdered, the intelligence of Piggy are having their brains bashed out, the benign democracy of Ralph is being corrupted and undermined, subverted with plans to kill it if necessary. The Jacks of this world we cannot even engage with or talk to them, they are largely in the background: distant manipulators, corrupters, bullies and aggressors but they have no right to act and demand things in the way that they do.

We have to confront the vicious qualities within us like Simon suggested and see our oneness with each other and the world, appreciate we are not separate from it, we are part of nature too, there is a oneness, the separation is an illusion [41]. To not fall into the trap of our own hubris we are kings, sovereign or that the hubristic aristocratic oligarchical forces driving things are not destroyed by a nemesis we all become victims of because we have not appreciated or worst still have acknowledged but failed to act to deal with these threats and weaknesses.  

That our world that for all its faults has beauty, wonder and that the sheer force of vitality of life and its opportunities and possibilities is not rendered a smoking ruin by the Jack Merridews but instead we enhance its majesty through a better relationship with the Earth and each other, all achievable, all possible, with the right human spirits and attitudes but firstly we need to stop Jack Merridew. He can be stopped.

Like all darker forces they can be challenged, confronted and stopped and a far more balanced, sophisticated and nourishing set of human civilisations can be achieved. What has been described as the ‘insoluble’ problem of power can be best solved by not allowing a huge concentration of power in the hands a few narcissistic megalomaniac sadistic misanthropes like Jack, who struggle to see the beauty of this world and our spiritual connection with it and each other. Who instead see coercion, violence, control and destruction as of paramount importance above all other considerations, ideas, proposals or sensibilities.

Like in the novel, Jack has no right to do what he does and he does not deserve the deference of anyone, the Merridews are our biggest human species weakness, they must be stopped and restrained. Authentic nourishing justice made real, better, authentically stable, secure and sustainable societies built and a new age begun. An age which has rejected the bullying and vicious Jack Merridew.

---

[1] The real Lord of the Flies: what happened when six boys were shipwrecked for 15 months | Society books | The Guardian

[2] Private schools in Britain were traditionally and are still called at times Public schools in the UK. Public schools are fee paying schools so tend to be open to mostly the wealthy and the elites, many British Prime Ministers went to the same one: Eton. Public schools are open to the public in the same way as the law, just like The Ritz Hotel, is open to everyone.  These are schools which have left a significant number of people traumatised and there is an emerging sort of ‘me too’ movement for the victims of the abuse and bullying which was commonplace in these schools, some of whom have suffered life long mental health problems. NEIL MACKAY’S BIG READ: ‘It was like Lord of the Flies’ – Horrific accounts of abuse could be boarding schools’ ‘MeToo’ moment | HeraldScotland

[3] Anthropology teaches us that many human cultures have very different attitudes towards children and women, where violence and oppression were or are considered unacceptable. Whereas there is plenty of evidence for misogyny and different or poor treatment of women and children in major religions. Radical Religious Belief and Child Abuse, “Spare the Rod and Spoil the Child” – Abuse (mentalhelp.net)

[4] Golding was dead for six years before the institutions the boys in Lord of the Flies came from banned corporal punishment and these are the boys which were the inspiration for Lord of the Flies, from his experiences of teaching in public schools.  When did schools ban corporal punishment? (schoolsweek.co.uk)

[5] Economic too, as Oligarchs are some of the most threatening, coercive and damaging people not just because of pollution but also because of their corruption of politics around the world, public debate, propaganda networks, lobbying and the denial of measures which would afford long term human survival, a good example being Charles Koch and his attempts to buy, corrupt and manage politics and the public debate, not only in the US but in other nations too, though they are hardly the only Jack Merridew type in positions of corporate or oligarchical power.  Inside the Koch Brothers’ Toxic Empire – Rolling Stone

[6] MAD portrayed in many films from War Games to Dr Strangelove is the ultimate set of mass human suicide machines, nuclear weapons and full thermo nuclear war (not a threat which has disappeared and the risk of it happening has increased not diminished) , weapons which are regularly presented as ‘protection’ for peace or stability, a weapon built or rather commissioned by deranged psychopaths, who would rather we all die than come to consensus on vital things or problem solving for long term human civilisation and sustainability, accept alternative political views or operations of power, and who wish rather to fight tribal games, disputes of imperialism, domination and power, as portrayed in the novel.  What Is Mutually Assured Destruction? (thoughtco.com)

[7] Current Time – 2021 – Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (thebulletin.org) The Doomsday Clock (the end of the human species and civilisation) is closer to midnight than ever because of the threats of manmade climate change, pollution, corruption of major governments and multinational corporations set against the weakness of international agreements or institutions such as the bullied, corrupted and cowed United Nations (mainly by the US, UK and other security council members or powerful nations) to prevent these threats; the threats of nuclear war, growing militaristic tensions, abuses of military power and now deadly disease caused through manmade environmental destruction; the damaging destruction of biodiversity too.

[8] Interview with James Boyce – Oligarchy Is Destroying Our Society and the Planet | Global Policy Journal Oligarchical power and capitalism are destroying our societies through marginalisation, disenfranchisement, disempowerment and other forces but more crucially the habitable planet, there are severe droughts and floods happening now, devastating wild fires too, ecocide is in full swing and the beginnings of what will be even more devastating consequences for humans and other species.

[9] OHCHR | Human rights under increasing attack worldwide The United Nations pointing out that civil liberties, human rights and protections are under attack all over the world, everywhere, as are the institutions, laws or agreements protecting people, the political and societal institutions which serve societies too.

[10] The global attack on academia | LSE Higher Education critics, dissent and academia are under attack globally as they are seen as a threat to the influence of oligarchical and capitalist power who propagandise and lobby to have their influence undermined, diminished, controlled, subdued and be able to be dismissed should anyone point out anything awkward about the operation of that corrupted, bought political or corporate power which is ruling pretty much everywhere, especially regarding pollution and manmade climate change The Attack on Climate Justice Movements | National Lawyers Guild (nlg.org) but other societal and political matters too, where dissenters and dissidents are silenced, ridiculed or persecuted and even like an increasing number of environmental activists murdered ( like Piggy or Simon in the novel). Murders of environment and land defenders hit record high | Climate crisis | The Guardian

This attack on dissent is happening in the so called civilised western nations too but it is not just academia, any dissenting or questioning group or individual are placed under sustained attack in the press or online, in the case of journalists exposing political corruption or militaristic wrongdoing, imprisoned indefinitely like Julian Assange but there are journalists who have been killed for exposing corruption or questioning political power or exiled like Edward Snowden as he revealed how governments, the most powerful government and democracy in the world are spying on their own citizens, citizens in other nations too to identify any group or persons who threatens establishment power. This is in order to protect the interests of the US Empire and Western Powers, the US Empire who are the most environmentally damaging empire on the planet, consuming the most finite resources, corrupting politics in other nations, overseeing or supporting subjugation, torture, violence, war and slavery around the world with things like the long standing ‘Open Door’ policy, with the biggest military might and collection of nuclear weapons. Yet, people challenging or pointing this out are labelled ‘extremists’ and in some cases jailed, exiled or outright murdered, not just recently but historically too. Global North Is Responsible for 92% of Excess Emissions – Eos. Explore CPJ’s database of attacks on the press

[11] There Never Was a West | The Anarchist Library Here the anthropologist David Graeber explores the problematic idea of ‘The West’ and ideas surrounding just what democracy is. Elsewhere and here he has argued  that what most people consider democracies are more like republics lead by a kind of aristocracy, pointing out the awkward reality the US ‘democracy’ was based on the Roman Republic, with the design that the country should be led by an aristocratic class of ‘betters’ with most politicians no more powerful or influential than a Tribune of Ancient Rome i.e. not very. This representative model, one copied or approximated throughout the world and those who influence it through lobbying or corruption for elite, wealthy or private power, being this aristocratic and oligarchical class, alongside the actual aristocrats and royals, they certainly act in a way that is aloof or arbitrary where meaningful consent is rarely asked for. This is a modern day, far more dangerous and sophisticated aristocratic Divine Right of Kings, the beliefs and ideologies behind the operation of that power, far more lethal than the original.

This brilliant essay ,also, has some troubling implications for the idea of ‘the will of the people’. As elections which are often a manipulative or preposterous farce of ad hominin attacks, false arguments and demagoguery as Howard Zinn notes “dwelling on personalities, gossip, trivialities” to legitimise this illegitimate ‘democratic’ system, which is really a justification of the rule of an oligarchical and aristocratic class, so decisions or choices can be claimed as ‘the will of the people’ because if our democratic and other political institutions contained the ‘will of the people’; then the will of the people are for the obliteration of the human race by nuclear weapons or ecocide through pollution. I struggle to believe or accept this is ‘the will of the people’ but if we are to insist the operations of our democratic institutions represent or are full of ‘the will of the people’ then through their actions, nuclear weapons and ecocide are that will, aka mass suicide.   

[12] The issues the Ancient Greek Philosophers had with democracy are explored more here. Especially, the problem of how the representative voting model is open to the forces of demagoguery, charlatanism, the incapable and can become very quickly detached from wisdom, learning, education and justice, higher virtues or principle too. Why Socrates Hated Democracy -The School of Life Articles | Formerly The Book of Life

[13] Understanding Modern Fascism, in Theory | by Thomas Marrs | Dialogue & Discourse | Medium “A system in which the state undertakes capitalist activities, exercising a certain degree of control through regulation, yet still encouraging the private sector as a means of acquiring financial relationships that are mutually beneficial — however the masses themselves exercise no control or influence due to the lack of an electoral or democratic process. In short, political oppression with free market-ish capitalism.”

An interesting quote from this article is this description of how fascism operates, as this description can be used to describe many so called modern democracies, as many if not all of the societal institutions: schools, public services, telecommunications, medicine, transport, all sorts of things although many were previously state owned or governed and these institutions still access public money, but they are now largely in the hands of private companies where the masses exercise no control and there is no or little transparency regarding the awarding of money, contracts or ownership. To the point where every societal institution is in private hands from food provision through the supermarkets, to energy, water, all things which are vital for people; then there are businesses and corporations which operate like cartels or monopolies, decisions increasingly lie with oligarchs,  private unelected individuals with little to no democratic accountability, responsibility or representation by the public. Most ‘democracies’ are more fascistic than authentically democratic, with the blurring of the state with the private sector especially regarding decision making or policy.

[14] This may appear that I am giving the US Empire some hard criticism and trying to attack their veneer as the protectors of ‘freedom’ but how can they claim to be democratic when through their actions they cause multiple  threats to the world but do not wish to be held democratically or in any other way accountable for their actions for that destruction or the threat to the rest of the world? Or, that they wish to exclude the rest of the world from their operation of unilateralist power and through their exceptionalism: we live here on Earth too. I do not mean many of the population, who I am sure question or oppose these corruptions too, are decent people, but the aristocratic and oligarchical class described earlier who are making the decisions on policy, are very much a huge Jack Merridew like threat to us all, as other operations of this power in other Empires or nations around the world are too.  A new poll says these nations are the top 4 threats to world peace. Guess who’s number one. | The World from PRX (pri.org)

[15]China is similarly a threat when it comes to military aggression, expansion and environmental damage and are similarly more akin to an aristocratic, authoritarian, oligarchical led capitalist state or empire than an authentically communist or socialist one, even with its commendable efforts on raising millions out of poverty. With its current leader now claiming his thought is the will of the party and effectively China with its clear mostly capitalist style economics and power structures, surely this is an aristocratic or Divine Right of King operation of power as well?    China, Its Military Might Expanding, Accuses NATO of Hypocrisy – The New York Times (nytimes.com)

[16] This article from 2016 reviews how oligarchs control the worlds media, prevent dissenting voices and those who may challenge established power in every major nation in the world and now with digital surveillance as identified by Snowden and social media, this becomes more profound, oppressive and intrusive in ways which could lead to oppressive systems such as the social credit system in China. It ends on a great observation by the French anthropologist Alfred Sauvy ‘ A well informed people are citizens, badly informed, they become subjects’, regarding issues, problems or proposals not presented or discussed in the public debate then Aldous Huxley is brought to mind here ‘The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something, but by refraining from doing. Great is the truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view is silence about the truth’ if problems or different proposals or solutions are not even mentioned, then they can be defeated in this way, a public debate owned or coerced by Oligarchs allows this. In the same way those asking awkward questions or challenging things in the novel are silenced: Piggy, Simon and Ralph. 2016-rsf-report-media-oligarchs-gpo-shopping.pdf

[17] It is unconventional to use a Twitter account as reference but Ben See has an archive of climate articles and comment which exposes the very worst scenarios of manmade environmental disaster flood, fire, drought, food systems collapse, pollution problems, ecological and manmade climate or other manmade threats, risks and damage. I hope he does not mind me using his account, will remove this and replace if he objects. Ben See (@ClimateBen) / Twitter

[18] I use this word with a heavy heart as this may be readily interpreted as this essay is an argument for socialism, leaving any arguments open to a predictable set of criticisms or arguments that this essay is about or arguing for socialism so can be dismissed, when it is not, it also does not remove the threats of the operation of the economic and political power identified here but this is more about a more ancient argument over who decides or determines what the resources of the world are used for and to what ends, we all belong to society and the biosphere. Should it be an elite, oligarchical, aristocratic few implementing destructive for the whole of society and humanity policies and actions or should that operation of power be brought under restraint so all can thrive, survive, flourish, be healthy and secure? For society to be sustained and developed thoughtfully with a duty of care for the long term, so all can flourish?

Which, surprisingly, are some of the main arguments or proposals of the often cited or used as the theoretical justification of unrestrained capitalism Adam Smith, who although it is commonly presented otherwise, was against the operation of oligarchical power, he was against the concentrations of wealth into few hands and the corruption of political institutions by oligarchs and capitalists, the exact opposite of what has happened in so called capitalist states. Contrary to popular and academic belief, Adam Smith did not accept inequality as a necessary trade-off for a more prosperous economy | British Politics and Policy at LSE

[19] A personality type characterised by assertiveness and energy, physical strength and an obsession with power, shamelessly lifted from the massive mind of Aldous Huxley in his description in The Perennial Philosophy of how this mindset or spiritual disposition is tied to damaging corrosive nationalism and fascistic sensibilities now promoted everywhere, is prominent in politics and society, he is worth quoting at length on this “ Like technological progress, with which it so closely associated in so many ways, modern war is at once a cause and a result of the somatotonic revolution. Nazi education which was specifically education for war, had two principal aims: to encourage the manifestation of somatotonia in those richly endowed with that component or personality, and to make the rest of the population feel ashamed of its relaxed amiability or its inward-looking sensitiveness and tendency towards self-restraint and tender-mindedness. During the war the enemies of Nazism have been compelled, of course, to borrow from the Nazis’ educational philosophy. All over the world millions of young men and even young women are being systematically educated to be ‘tough’ and to value ‘toughness’ beyond every other moral quality. With this system of somatotonic ethics is associated the idolatrous and polytheistic theology of nationalism- a pseudo religion far stronger at the present time for evil and division than is Christianity or any other monotheistic religion, for unification and good.  In the past most societies tried systematically to discourage somatotonia. This was a measure of self-defence; they did not want to be physically destroyed by the power loving aggressiveness of their most active minority, and they do not want to be spiritually blinded by an excess of extraversion. During the last few years all this has been changed. What, we may apprehensively wonder, will be the result of the current world-wide reversal of an immemorial social policy? Time alone will show.”, the manmade climate change, pollution, biodiversity, nuclear war, other military threats like robotic warfare and threats of antagonistic nationalism are conclusions which can now answer this pertinent question.

[20] Although this article rather ignores that  in most major democracies there are few to no proper avenues or forums for proper dissent against the government of other economic or societal institutions of power, or acknowledges the excesses of US imperialism or foreign policy, it does identify the hostility to dissent from nationalist movements and a lack of global leadership to responsibly engage with the threats facing humanity globally. Freedom in the World 2020: A Leaderless Struggle for Democracy (freedomhouse.org)    

[21] The state and our ‘elected leaders’ are the only institutions who can sanction violence and legal coercion. David Graeber explores here and elsewhere how violence is linked to many of the bureaucracies or institutions governing our lives. The state can use violence where no other actors or institutions in society can and they can use it or sanction it arbitrarily, whether it is against the natural world, citizens or citizens of other nations, future generations and the most extreme acts of violence imaginable such as nuclear war. This is carried out mostly without proper or full consent or without there being a consistent public dissent, critique or criticism which has meaningful impact or power over that coercion or institutionalised violence, which is backed up by the legislature, police, the courts and the military, in order to establish a robust framework of rights for citizens, agreed moral and just action towards responsible and sustainable goals for human civilisation, a set of proper obligations, regulations and duties. Dead zones of the imagination: On violence, bureaucracy, and interpretive labor: The Malinowski Memorial Lecture, 2006 (uchicago.edu)  

[22] Here Oxfam outline how the G7 nations are exacerbating problems from economic inequality worldwide to failing to engage or creating more problems for the world through inaction on climate change, pollution, unrestrained unthinking growth and destruction of the biosphere (there are many Simon, Piggy and Ralph types in this world fighting these injustices and highlighting these corruptions). The operation of this is power is all hidden under the rhetoric of success, freedom and economic progress and critics or dissenters of the G7 or powerful nations like Oxfam here are not given a proper platform to point out these shortcomings, risks, problems or dangers, instead G7 leaders are paraded as Master of the Universe, aristocrats or emperors for us all to revere.  The G7’s Deadly Sins: How the G7 is fuelling the inequality crisis (openrepository.com)

[23] Here Jeremy Lent who wrote the brilliant Patterning Instinct explains how the twinned forces of capitalism and consumerism will destroy the human future if unrestrained or uncontrolled, asking instead to explore different possibilities of human societies, to challenge the prevailing seductions, corruptions and governing principles of societies now and to begin fully the conversation and debate of proposals of what future flourishing and sustainable societies could be. Consumerism and capitalism and destroying Earth – EHN Although, what Lent has perhaps failed to appreciate is the forces making the powerful democracies in the world more fascistic and totalitarian identified by the late Sheldon Wolin, alongside the luxuries (the way that the Jack uses the pigs, described later) of reckless consumerism, how private, wealthy and corporate power has usurped all of the institutions of state and power using demagoguery, corruption and coercion, similar to Jack, to impose a ‘soft’ for now totalitarianism or despotism of private power based on treats, demagoguery, fear, scapegoating, propaganda, endless distractions and the disempowering of citizens.

Soft in that the luxuries afforded a sizeable chunk of the population to keep them compliant, mollified, subdued, emasculated or agreeable are in place for now. The powers to become more hard are in place with the increase of anti-protest laws, increased police powers, the diminution of rights, the classification of those considered seditious, terrorists or treacherous, the ability to deploy the military, violent or legal force. So soft power for now but when that established power is severely threatened or tested it has the power to display more teeth as it has hollowed out or controls the power of all societal and political institutions, the growth of robot and drone warfare or power means corrupted governmental power no longer needs to have to persuade the population of their position, the legal abilities to use violent and coercive force on citizens are there including imprisonment, internment, torture and murder . Inverted Totalitarianism | The Nation

[24] The Milgram experiment is refutable or is not without its challenges or controversies but it did demonstrate how many are easily convinced by authoritarian voices. Milgram Experiment | Simply Psychology the authoritarian personality type is another issue raised in that post World War Two period, it is easy to identify these qualities in political discourse, people in society and how often political leaders play to these personality types or ideas to manipulate power to them now, especially reactionary, conservative and fascistic power. Authoritarian Personality – Psychologist World

[25] This is a very good article on the conflicting notions of freedom. The Idea of ‘Freedom’ Has Two Different Meanings. Here’s Why | Time It explains how the conservative or reactionary notion of freedom is more about the protection of private power from collective or responsible decision making or public controls or laws. This is the notion of freedom which has prevailed and it is to serve private, oligarchical or elite interests over other more public considerations, consensus and it is born out of elite power who seek to oppose democratic, collective or public influence over resources of the Earth or them.

This aristocratic conceit and idea of sovereignty or lack of public obligations or responsibilities has become the dominant concept of freedom, then this has been been disseminated amongst enough of a section of the population to keep this notion of freedom as dominant, not the notions that with freedom comes responsibilities to the protection and thriving of all in society or that freedom is the removal of subjugations or oppressions of majorities, institutions or for groups or individuals within society. In order that all can be facilitated to be self-actualizers, flourish, be emancipated, protected and secure; problems or issues facing the stability, security, safety and flourishing  of a wholesome society and threats to the lives of people are responsibly engaged and dealt with.

Especially, from the oppressions of the operation of the former kind of freedom, which is exclusive for the vast majority of people by its operation and through its manifestations will destroy human civilisation and even the human species outright, affording no one any freedom at all. As having as many private assets as someone may have, every person lives in a public world, there is only one planet and private decisions have public consequences. If we are not to consider properly what they are then, that kind of freedom is lethally irresponsible, unaccountable and reckless. As Jack’s actions demonstrate in the book, they end in the ultimate destruction of everything because of a private wish, whim or grudge, the ultimate in narcissism and vanity. I would rather have everything die for everyone than be restrained, relinquish power, consider others or future generations, freedom as a perverse terrifyingly vain sadism.  

[26] The post Second World War era is often described as the era where empires declined and dissolved but this is a fallacy. If anything empires both emerging from nations, ideologies and other corporate forces expanded Corporate Power & the Global Economy | SPERI (shef.ac.uk). The US Empire has expanded under the guise of ‘democracy’ with the Open Door policies of the 19^th Century extended and continued to expand US commercial interests, there being not a lot of democratic influence from those living outside of the US to its actions regarding its interference in politics or acquisition of resources, economic subjugation and bullying of other nations especially in The Global South or Latin American sphere of influence, or even for most people inside the US with the operation of that elite aristocratic capitalistic power. Russia with other nations and China have been imperialists under the guise of ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’ but again they have been more the operation of an aristocratic vanguard, elite or amorphous authoritarian power, using the ideologies as cover to empire build, with leaders claiming that the party or what socialism or communism means is the personal thought or will of a leader  The Political Thought of Xi Jinping | SOAS University of London

The point being this empirical use of power has been supported by military and economic might, coercion, threat, violence, war mongering, corruption of politics both at home and abroad to serve narrow short term interests in what are reckless ways, like Jack on the island in the novel. There is plenty of evidence that even the former colonial European powers through the EU have created an Empire of sorts and have as individual European nations operated to still support corporate, national, imperial or elite interests abroad even to subjugate economically and in some cases militarily former colonies to serve their interests or elite power (although writing as a UK citizen I would argue Brexit is a more retrograde, fascistic and reactionary position causing more problems not fewer and is or was an attempt which has stalled or failed, to detach from the EU empire, which has the best possibility of reform, to attach itself more to the US Empire along the lines of the very questionable ‘special relationship’ and ‘international rules based order’ which seems to be the US mainly deciding what the rules are to serve their interests.).

This is why Jack Merridew is so significant as his coercive, corrupting, bullying, threatening, demagogic, fascistic, private, wealthy and exclusive operation of power to destructive, reckless and irresponsible ends is the current dominant power relationship to the citizens of the Earth, future generations and to anything, group or individual who challenges that power, authority or who dissents.

[27] Attached at the end of this footnote, is a very important book on Oligarchy by Jeffrey Sikkenga, as it outlines what political philosophers identified as the key problems with Oligarchical power, which is the dominant political power and governance model in all major nations. This longer footnote will focus mainly on the weaknesses and problems of the operation of oligarchical power not their suggested solutions or further identified problems, although the political philosophers answers varied wildly to the solutions of oligarchy and political power, some of those solutions are as problematic or are worse than oligarchy but where all of them converge is in their desire to identify how to build peaceful, sustainable, secure, comfortable, mostly wholesome and healthy societies free from egregious or damaging corruptions.

I am not expecting you to read another whole book so I will attempt to summarise some of the key observations of weaknesses and problems with oligarchy, as the problems and weaknesses identified here remain very valid, are very recognisable in the operation of political power now and are perhaps more profound and pertinent than ever. Even if the political philosophers do not have ready or fully formed solutions in how to reconcile the operation of political power between the tension of the wealthy and powerful, the rights and liberties of citizens, the betterment, security or peace of society.

Robert Michels is the first political philosopher he reviews who argued that all political movements of the left or right in the representative ‘democratic’ system are open to the corruptions and forces of Oligarchy. Michels raises some unavoidably difficult problems with the operation of ‘democratic’ political power and corruption which need to be addressed but they probably deserve a separate treatment so I will focus mostly on the others discussed in the book but not all.

Socrates identified various weaknesses with Oligarchy, they do not consider the common good or pursue objectives which are not of real value to society, oligarchies make decisions in the interests of corruption, making their own desires the public will or public service. Aristotle argued Oligarchy frustrates justice, the key element of democracy, they take all of the good or valuable things in society for themselves or to serve them e.g. privatisation of public assets, concentration of resources and wealth into the hands of the few. Government becomes dominated by private not public ambition, that oligarchies lay the foundations for tyranny through the neglect of justice and the common good. In oligarchies, human beings rule not laws, virtues or principles, they promote political exclusion but perhaps the gravest warning from Aristotle is Oligarchy will destroy itself, the citizens and the city or both if given full free reign, something which is by degrees happening right now but disturbingly it is the whole biosphere and all of human civilisation.

Hobbes argued that Oligarchy could lead to the rise of problematic factionalism which destroys effective law enforcement when the purpose of good governance is to provide secure public order, stability and security, that Oligarchy could lead to the sovereign power looting the commonwealth to enrich themselves and lose sight of this purpose or damage its realisation, sound familiar? He prescribes public service which should serve that higher principle but warns that those who seek power for vain or narcistic reasons may threaten the peace and security people desire and will use violence or other factional means to further their own acquisitiveness or that of a few. That the operation of political power in society is to preserve life and protect against the arbitrary death of citizens or the destruction of the commonwealth.

Locke argued that the rich can be politically dangerous to the rights of everyone and that those who seek dominion over objects and the world, can seek it over others too, that megalomaniacal obsession with power can violate the rights of others, when the preservation of mankind in peace and comfort should be the aim of the operation of power and that government has rational duties to serve citizens to these ends. This is not happening as the operation of political power now is corrupt, serves narrow short term interests and threatens the preservation of mankind in peace in the long term. Therefore the operation of political power can be concluded as tyrannical.   

Montesquieu warns that Oligarchy comes with the problems of arrogance of there being no need to serve the greater good, it breeds complacency and self-absorption, that oligarchical rule is born out of insecurities, a potentially dangerous for society pursuit of glory or vanity, a desire for distinction or prestige that damages and destroys the liberties of others. That oligarchy is obsessed with short term desires over considerations for the future and that lots of oligarchies become through their operation tyrannies, without restraining laws, oligarchies become corrupt and arrogant and this needs to be prevented. That oligarchical power can be despotic, that it can attack the security and liberty of other citizens.

Some of the other arguments are from The Federalists are that things which threaten equality, security and the preservation of society are illegitimate and irrational and that self defence is paramount to all positive forms of government. The only problem with this and other notions of liberty put forward by Hobbes, Locke or others when it comes to self-defence or preservation are that they assume the existence of humans in the biosphere  and were perhaps unable to see the problems with resources, populations, economic activity or military technology which threatens to outright destroy the human species never mind human civilisation. Or, fail to appreciate that future generations have no form of defence against the actions of previous generations especially if those generations act in dangerously irresponsible, ill considered, unthinking and unaccountable ways as the political philosophers pretty much agree Oligarchs can and do.

Or, how as De Tocqueville noted how ordinary people pose a political danger to liberty too, in their willingness to accept a “‘soft despotism” in which they exchange their liberty for material security and comfort provided by the national government, as has happened with consumerism and capitalism, like the pieces of pig dished out by Jack in the novel. This in combination with the weaknesses, dangers and shortcomings of Oligarchical governance, makes for a lethal combination of irresponsible government of short term, arrogant, complacent thinking which does not have the security, stability and sustainability of the common good or commonwealth at the forefront of its thinking guiding policy or designs. Which is made all the more dangerous as the population has surrendered their liberty and that of future generations for unthinking, selfish but ultimately lethal, self-defeating and destructive for human civilisation material security, short term interests, luxury, indulgences and comfort in the present,  without proper considerations for the future.

The varying positions on oligarchy form the political philosophers from warning of its dangers to acceptance of its inevitably even if it is only to an extent, to some of its more liberating or beneficial aspects for society is mostly postulated from a unifying position of wanting human society to sustain itself, be stable, secure and peaceful. In a way all the political philosophers in this book are humanists, are in love with humanity, the Earth and are trying to identify means to create liberty, peace, sustainability and security.

I cannot speak for them, but I severely doubt they would be absolutely fine and accepting of the destruction of human society and civilisation through the operation of oligarchical or any other operation of power. This makes the current operation of political power irresponsible, unaccountable and tyrannical with an inability to act with a duty of care or in an authentically adult or mature way, just like Piggy could see through his spectacles and something Ralph and Simon were able to ascertain too and who tried but failed to restrain this power (something again happening right now).

We have to confront these human weaknesses and confront the operation of political power of the Jack Merridews to bring it under restraint and identify the obligations and duties in service of society that allow those in it and future generations to be afforded the liberty and sanctity of life itself. If that cannot be done, then the flames await us all. There will be no naval rescuer.

NQ49981.pdf

[28] Corporations and economic elites destroying a habitable world is perhaps best illustrated recently by the documentary Seaspiracy and its terrifying expositions of the dangers and threats created by uncontrolled commercial fishing destroying the marine environment and the consequences this has for the biosphere and manmade climate change. The most bizarre part being that if governments banned certain kinds of commercial fishing, demanded regulation, removal of old nets, the protection of sea life and marine habitats, species too. Then a more sustainable form of fishing could be realised and the environment could be protected too but instead since then there has been little to nothing in term of a response to this threat to the very existence of humanity, from all governments or the commercial fishing sector. As exposed in the documentary, governments and regulators have been corrupted, dissent silenced, protestors or whistle-blowers at times murdered like Simon and Piggy.

 

[30] There are many movements, intellectuals, theories and thinkers with alternative proposals or ways we should view the resources of the planet, our relationships to the natural world, future generations and each other. The temptation to identify a number of them here is strong but that would be a distraction to the two main problems, firstly alternatives are not regularly presented in the political or public debate why not?

An environment of public debate, press and media which is deliberately toxic to this presentation of alternative ideas for society or engagement with the problems does not help but the apathy, irresponsibility and neglect of fostering this situation has huge consequences, the more pressing urgent issues are perilously and irresponsibly ignored. Even when there are no real reasons that prevent a future society being more nourishing, enjoyable, edifying or pleasurable, a public debate where genuine improvements could  be made or proposed. Instead we have a public debate which is mostly controlled or dominated by manipulative propaganda, misinformation and disinformation. If we cannot discuss alternatives for our societies or they cannot be presented or proposed, then this silence about these truths could turn out to be lethal, already is.

Secondly, the problems which require solutions, engagement and policy mostly remain, whether we agree with alternatives or not, or wish to ignore, downplay, avoid engagement with or be indifferent about them like little uns or those swept along or supporting the political corruption of the Jack Merridews. The mounting problems of the fire caused by poor choices, irresponsible or destructive political leadership and the cataclysm this will cause remain, they are not going away even if you do not wish to confront them and what does that say about your relationship to humanity, your obligations to your family, society or your love of the institutions and very stuff of life you value?  Not engaging with these problems and the destructive more like species suicidal Jack Merridew operation of power has severe consequences. When reconsidering our relationship with the Earth and each other, confronting our vicious, weak and dangerous qualities, like Simon had the temerity to suggest, is still something which needs our urgent attention, before the fire of these consequences becomes completely out of control.

[31] The wealthy corrupting governments and policy is perhaps best illustrated that big Oil and Gas like Exxon knew of the risks of manmade climate change and pollution forty years ago but have in that time corrupted the public debate, politics, expanded their power and operations, knowing there would be severe consequences for future generations; overseeing and fostering a situation which is now even more extreme in full knowledge of the damage it will do. This is just like Jack setting fire to the island to hunt Ralph. Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years | Climate crisis | The Guardian

[32] There are moves to commodify and commercialise all natural resources and the natural world, all of it. This process is though currently exclusive, again placing the whole planet into a realm of where it has a price as paramount over it having a value of and in itself, a very dangerous perspective to view what we all depend on for our survival.  The pitfalls of putting a price on nature: What’s next for natural capital? | Greenbiz

[33] Neal Lawson explores some of the problems facing progressive political movements in the UK and its main threat, a more Merridew like authoritarian populism that is more bold, which is seeking to remove entirely any progressive alternatives or politics which is more responsive to the problems identified for the future and sustainable healthy societies moving forward Dry your tears, progressives. Do politics in a different way, and you can start to make the desirable feasible – Prospect Magazine, .Although what is perhaps more of an indication of a domination of reactionary, regressive and corrosive political power is that no governments have a ministry for the future, there are few to no laws demanding that corporate, economic or business power has an obligation through its operations to future generations and future generations have no legal protections, they only mostly exist when you are born. So, the law and governments in most countries, definitely the most powerful ones do not recognise or acknowledge legally or in their governmental structures the future of humanity or future generations. Your property being destroyed in a flood caused by climate change can be categorised as an act of god, but saving it through the correct political policies apparently cannot be considered divine. A lot of the law is about protecting property but if the human species can no longer survive because of pollution, warfare or manmade climate change, then those legal protections become utterly meaningless.

[34] Attacks on rule of law especially human rights have become more common as explored here, including in established so called ‘democracies’ Global Rule of Law Index reveals worrying trends for human rights protection | OpenGlobalRights This has very troubling implications especially if the most powerful nations continue to concentrate power within governments, whilst at the same time, remove rights and power from citizens to protect themselves and their families against arbitrary governmental power.

[35] This article brilliantly explores the problems with growth and the use of resources and ending in a pertinent rhetorical question: how do we transition to alternative economic paradigms founded on the reconciliation of equitable human well-being with ecological integrity? This is the challenge all societies face and technology alone cannot solve them, policy and rethinking our relationship with the planet is what is required on a global scale. The Delusion of Infinite Economic Growth – Scientific American

 

[37] Often described as the lungs of the world, the destruction of the Amazon has consequences for the whole world but there are not the political means or power currently to restrain the governmental, corporate and criminal destruction of it and its destruction has intensified recently. Amazon under threat: Fires, loggers and now virus – BBC News

[38] Here the threat from fully automated robot militaries are explored and the reality that nuclear weapons are being updated to be more powerful and destructive. So, the threats from despotic, dangerous, out of control elite oligarchical and tyrannical power by Jack Merridew types is intensifying, where the restraint of the populations or traditional military power hierarchies or personnel can be removed. The threat of killer robots (unesco.org) Why is America getting a new $100 billion nuclear weapon? – Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (thebulletin.org)

[39] Explored here, the US oligarchs the Kochs and their heavily ironic obsession with dinosaurs as evidence of survival of the fittest and Social Darwinism, the wealthy are worthy and justified in their success and power as this is loosely and wrongly based to theories of biological evolution and strength, the poor and the oppressed deserve their position, as they are weak. The right’s dinosaur fetish: Why the Koch brothers are obsessed with paleontology | Salon.com

[40] Locke is a controversial figure as a political philosopher as he was seen as the theoretical justification for two very controversial things, enclosure, the enclosure of common land and resources into private capitalist hands, and colonisation and imperialism, the taking of lands from first peoples, where he seems to have a very large blind spot to the violence involved in both of these developments or the violence of how land or resources were acquired in the first place before colonisation began as a process.

He does though put forward some interesting arguments on tyranny and how corruption and the arbitrary use of power or the state is to be countered when the use of that power is tyrannical or places itself above the law or people it governs, where it may ‘impoverish, harass, or subdue them to arbitrary and irregular commands of those that have it; there it presently becomes tyranny, whether those that use it are one and many’, Locke often argues from the position of the capitalist, imperialist and landowner but he does recognise as well that the operation of that power has to protect or serve the commonwealth and argues that the tyrannical use of that power is unacceptable (the irony being it is tyrannical anyway) and he does argue for the importance of education of all citizens to build a stable peaceful set of societies.

[41] The anthropologist Jason Hickel in his book Less is More explains how Descartes and cartesian dualism has dominated much economic and political thought as it justified dominant church, economic and political thinking with things like colonialism and capitalism suggesting man is the only thing which has thought and a soul, creating a disconnect between humans, other livings and the material world. This allows the justification to treat the rest of the world as inert, unthinking matter.

Spinoza, however, almost immediately rejected this stating that the universe emerged out of one ultimate cause meaning that God participates in the same substance as creation, humans participate in the same substance as nature, it means that mind and soul are the same substance as matter. In fact it means everything is mind and everything is God. Spinoza suffered terrible personal consequences for this view and an attempt on his life as it challenged powerful interests. Science has proven Spinoza to be more correct than Descartes, yet the thinking and treating of the material world with the contempt of Descartes has prevailed as to the most dominant view currently of how humans see the natural world. The suggestion or implication being that if we change our attitude and see our oneness with the world and the objects around us like Spinoza argued, then we as a species may act in a more caring, reciprocal, thoughtful, nourishing and sustainable way to the natural world, rather than seeing it as something which can endlessly be abused or taken for granted but that we are part of it, it is part of us.

As it is attitude, the psychology and thinking which has to change more than anything before authentically serving change and reform can be realised.  

---

 [

By Robert John

This is a deliberately unusual and provocative title but before a set of considerations about why electric cars are shit suicide are put forward, it is important to preface them with some other considerations or ideas, to frame what follows later with some thoughts about now and the future.

This is for many a challenging moment in history, whether we wish to accept it or not, we are historical beings and the choices or roads in front of humanity at this time, some of them are very bleak and destructive but there are hopeful  ones too. This is a time of a conflict of ideas, interests and ideologies: one of confusion, pessimism and dread for many, where there are risks, dangers and threats with terrible possibilities but it is, also, a moment of flux, one which is pregnant with more hopeful possibilities of what future societies could be as well.

The threats of man-made climate change, other man-made pollution and ecological catastrophes are very real, to deny them, is now to deny or reject fact, science, learning, enlightenment thinking and rationalism in favour of a dangerous, lethal ideological or irrational set of beliefs. The dangers of extreme militarism and instability caused by nationalistic brinkmanship or environmental collapse are similarly very real.

Change of one kind of another is going to happen this is inevitable, for better or worse.

There have been many, many advances on all sorts of things in human societies, it would be churlish to argue otherwise and things are very different from a century ago. Therefore we know cultures, attitudes, dominant thought patterns that influence policy or actions can change, it will be argued in this essay they have to change and that change could mean something far better than the current situation.  

There does though seem to be a closing off of ideas, proper forums or scope about how things can be adapted for a future of better possibilities, a kind of fear or confused attitude to change, when change could offer far better solutions and situations than now, as it has done in the past. Progress and advancement lives alongside more corrosive or destructive things and one can inform the other to find better solutions or inspire new ideas or proposals, human civilisation is defined more by change than things remaining static.  

Where one culture, set of ideologies or ideas dominates to the exclusion of all others and that is a provably destructive culture ,however, then that is an unacceptable situation.

What is apparent as a problem within societies now is one of psychology, how humanity, humans and societies views themselves, problems with self-esteem, respect, value, worth and in a way how we see our role or purpose as individuals or a society. This will be looked at in more depth later through the ideas of the French sociologist Emile Durkheim. 

There has been, though, what is difficult to describe in any other way, as a mass falling out of love with humanity from humans. What has caused this is open to speculation and conjecture but there is plenty of evidence as proof in an argument to support this in our societies now, historically, across and between cultures or nations.

This falling out of love with humanity can be best evidenced or reflected in the current laws and government policies of most nations. The law is a very slippery concept or thing, it is unrealistic to say that it cannot be oppressive, be used as a means to entrench privilege, serve narrow interests or allow very dangerous or destructive things or institutions to exist, imbalanced or unfair situations to be maintained too.

It can, however, liberate, protect and enshrine rights, whilst stopping the powerful from acting in an arbitrary manner.  It could be argued that the law is there to protect a set of interests (what those interests are or should be is of course disputed) and represents a set of beliefs about what is acceptable and what is not in terms of human interactions, society or behaviour. The law is rightly or wrongly a set of codified and enforceable beliefs.

Yet, what is very obviously and evidentially true is that the human future has no laws or legal protection for its existence. In legal terms in any meaningful way, the future of humanity does not exist or is protected, the law pretty much everywhere currently does not recognise the future as existing, collectively we do not currently believe in the future.

As a foetus a certain amount of legal rights exist for you depending on which country you are born into as a citizen, they differ, similarly when born you have rights too locality depending,  but the future of humanity does not have any legal rights or protections. There are no laws or they are extremely few and very limited to demand that governments, business and policy makers are compelled to act in a way that is sustainable for human life and future generations. Not only that but there are limited political movements who are looking to have proper policies to protect the next hundred, thousand, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions of years of human existence or pledges to work with other nations or parties to make this a reality, beyond flimsy unenforceable agreements.

Most political policy, legislation and funding resources or policy decisions are directed at the next election cycle, the next few years, decades. There are no or few ministries or departments for the future; the law and politics in pretty much every nation, does not in anything like a proper manner recognise the existence of a sustainable future for humanity.

If that is not the biggest indication that humanity has fallen out of love with humanity in light of the environmental evidence, combined with our current relations as nations or that humanity does not currently have a proper duty of care for the future, then I am not sure what is. We do not legally recognise, politically plan or acknowledge that the future can be a reality, pretty much in all human societies that exist now to anything like the level required to make that a reality.                      

Do people want human life to continue, a sustainable future for humans? I sincerely believe they do and I would confidently presume there are billions who agree with me. It would make a nonsense of all of this human struggle if we did not want that, a more enriching and flourishing life for as many people as possible too.

It is against this framing of the lack, currently, of a proper legal or political recognition of the future this essay shall proceed on and it will endeavour to explain its links to the debate around electric cars.      

Why electric cars are shit will be reviewed first with some of the interrelated energy issues, their connection to suicide last, with some more hopeful proposals or other considerations sandwiched in between.

This essay was being formulated just as the coronavirus hit and it was placed on hold, like many other things. Everything in our societies now has to be seen through the evaluative lens and in many ways welcome reflective perspective that the tragedy of the virus has afforded us. Although, written from the perspective of someone living in the U.K., the themes and ideas when it comes to electric cars are shit suicide are universal.  

Electric cars are shit

The first reason that Electric cars are shit is that they are way too expensive. The entry level of a first-hand electric car is tens of thousands of pounds, for a good more reliable and more up to date with the improved battery technology model, double the price or more. This immediately excludes vast swathes of the population who would happily trade in their fossil fuel car or vehicle for a less polluting electric model, if they could afford it or it was accessible. These prices make that purchase impossible or extremely problematic.

If electric cars are to make a real difference in terms of the scale required in dealing with the manmade climate change pollution emission problem, there needs to be few to no issues in terms of access for all households in getting one. Most households in the country already have huge amounts of personal debt, adding to this problem with a huge purchase, the equivalent of a significant chunk of what the value of what their house would be. That is if they can afford a house or a car for that matter and people towards the bottom of our economic hierarchy cannot, this simply is a financial commitment the vast majority of the population cannot readily or easily make.

Especially, with the concerns that if their circumstances changed they could end up being made bankrupt for attempting to do the right thing and improve their green credentials. This makes many justifiably fearful of the debt consequences, leaving them simply unable to afford a good reliable electric car or they are put off the idea entirely because of their means, the financial burden or risk. Now, you also have the added uncertainty, unemployment and investment issues caused by COVID 19, the problematic situation with affordability is further exacerbated by this crisis.

This creates an uneasy environmental snobbery, resentment or antagonism in society. Where those with more means are able to liberate themselves from the guilt of owning a fossil fuel car and are able to use the new facilities developed for electric vehicles, whilst there are insurmountable barriers for most households, even though they may desire to make this transition.  

This reality does not help in resolving the crucial issue, the numbers problem, as the overwhelming majority of people need an electric car now to reduce the current carbon emissions to levels which will make an appreciable difference. This needs to be happening now, not decades into the future, nearly everyone needs to be using them and the majority of people need to be using them in the next few years, so, if that cannot be the case, then they are currently a non-solution to the manmade climate emergency, making them shit.

The overwhelming majority of households would happily switch to an electric vehicle if they had the facility or ready means to do so. The same with solar panels or other household green energy measures, as the majority of people are more wedded to the idea or principle of the ease of travel, having sufficient energy and so forth, if readily affordable, they would choose the least environmentally damaging option, as most people are good moral actors given a meaningful choice. Electric cars are shit because owning one is just not a realistic option for most people.

This is not freedom, it is a tyranny, it is tyrannical to effectively give the overwhelming majority of people no choice but to have to pollute against their rational will. It is definitely not democratic because if you were to ask people in the nation, what would they prefer, an electric non-polluting means of travel which would be sustainable for the planet and future generations or not? Even with the powerful propaganda machines which are employed by the fossil fuel lobby to win elections nowadays and buy governmental power, a majority would vote yes.

That might be placing too much faith in rationality and democracy but I am still confident of at least a close win for sense and sound reasoning.

Another reason electric cars are shit is that in the main, they are not fully ready. The facilities for charging, the battery technology and reliability, although improving all the while, it is not fully there yet or on the scale necessary to make a real difference and the real difference needs to  be happening now or very soon. Then there are the hopeful hydrogen fuel cell possibilities for cars and households too, technology still mostly in the prototype, experimentation and regulation defining stage but they will need electricity and facilities as well, there are solutions for greener travel and energy but the investment and engineering or design nettle is not being fully grasped.

Then there are the problems that there is a diversification in terms of funding for research, development and a competition of manufacturing for ownership of the best technology of new energy sources and electric car batteries by different companies and countries, in a sort of post war space race but this is obscuring the higher principle. That this technology needs to be refined and crucially be available everywhere whilst being accessible to all in short order. Rather than splitting the engineering, scientists, know how, research and development, a more collaborative approach is required in terms of how does humanity resolve this transport problem, which needs to be fixed in the capacity required, in a timescale which will make a real difference?

Namely, not this distant very questionable suggestions a number of leading politicians make, this problem will be miraculously fixed in forty years when they are no longer in office, but to happen in more like a decade.     

Furthermore, electric cars do not resolve the inherent traffic problems of the current car dominated system. If all petrol vehicles were replaced by electric ones, it will not resolve the ridiculous problems with traffic nearly all cities, rural areas and towns endure. Especially at certain times of the day, where a journey of a few miles ends up taking a ridiculous amount of time and if you were able to make that journey without the other traffic or interruptions of traffic signals directly, it would take a tiny fraction of the time it takes now; journey times are way too slow and the main cause of that are other cars and vehicles.

The electric car as an idea and solution shuts down debate on alternative transport methods, imaginative new proposals, designs or technologies of getting around cities or towns, which could be crucially faster, use less energy, cheaper and overcome this problem of traffic that electric cars alone just cannot resolve.

There must be better more efficient alternatives for the simple reason many car journeys in towns and cities are made with just one person sitting in a car with limited luggage, where there is a significant area of air, space and weight in a car that is not being used for anything at all.

A far smaller unit that is able to transport an individual and their limited stuff, which is narrower, would allow you to transport more of these smaller vehicles on the current network and would mean capacity could be increased per user. This is just one theory or idea, but these debates or theories are not indulged, especially, when a lot of car journeys made in towns and cities are only a mile or two, slightly more than a comfortable walking distance, there must be better logistical ways of doing this. Cars just generally take up too much space, resources and are inefficient or problematic.

Whatever a better model could be or other efficient models of design for fast, comfortable, secure, well designed and pleasing to the eye modes of transport, which, resolve the biggest frustration for those living in towns,  the countryside and cities: the speed of journey from a to b because of problematic traffic. These proposals or ideas are not even meaningfully discussed, they are not part of the public debate, these alternative solutions, suggestions or designs are ignored, that debate is denied by the heralding of the electric car as a solution to our green transport woes, alone, it simply is not.  

The solution to cars being a problem here, cannot be a different version of the same vehicles, without confronting the cause of one of the major problems itself, cars, and other vehicles clogging up the transport system in often an inefficient way, this making electric cars a floater in the toilet of green transport ideas that will not flush.     

Although developments, technologies and the situation are improving, lots of energy is still produced using fossil fuels and a transition to electric cars would require an increase in the need for more electricity. The fossil fuel dependency and problem is not going away or the dependency on minerals for the batteries and copper for chargers, there being many victims created by the extraction of minerals to support this including: modern slavery, oppression, murder, child labour, environmental destruction and war.

These shitty problems need to be diminished then stopped but do not form part of the wider debate of electric cars, instead we are just presented with a shiny vehicle, obscuring the misery and suffering that brought it into being. Whilst simultaneously, ignoring the wider technological and infrastructural issues that require solutions or being addressed in anything like the thorough and proper manner or scale required.

This transition to a more electrified travel would need further huge investment in less polluting, better ethically, systems of energy production, nuclear energy, battery technology and renewable energy for households. Households which are at the moment dependent on fossil fuels too, so, electric cars are not a solution alone, far from it, but are often marketed or put forward by governments and manufacturers as one, when they are not.

The challenges ahead can be overcome and it is not all about electric cars.

The problems outlined so far require greater and far more reaching policy decisions and investments which need to be happening now and not just here. This would require an international worldwide commitment: rather than the current counterproductive, unimaginative, limited and unnecessarily competitive piecemeal effort which lacks collaboration, that is in operation now, with the undue praise to the manufacturers of electric vehicles or that this alone will solve the man-made climate change or pollution issues.

No amount of slick advertising for electric cars or corporate promotional adverts outlining their green investment programme credentials removes the scale of what is required. It is far more complex than this and people or corporations should stop pretending it is not, being deluded about the scale of the solutions required, being dishonest or disingenuous about them.

The hopeful thing is that there are solutions.

There is the option of a vastly improved, far better, clean, safe, reliable, speedy and consistent public transport route. This would require the rethinking and redesign of towns, cities and the countryside, this has happened before, is happening now, that is not a barrier to change.

There are even healthier means of getting around walking, running and cycling are the far healthier alternatives. This is where facilities need to be improved dramatically, especially regarding safety, which is a major barrier to more people cycling or walking for instance.

These modes of travel not only reduce and pretty much eliminate pollution, the people doing this are getting regular exercise which simultaneously deals with health problems of all kinds too. This would seem the most important travel design feature that needs to be improved and provided for in terms of travel around towns, countryside and cities, proper walkways and cycle ways which are safe, secure, maintained and that not only exist within towns, cities and villages but between them too.

The longest distance in the UK, John O Groats to Land’s End can be cycled in ten to fourteen days. With better organisations of time and working days, there are only reasons of a limited imagination and facility, to make these methods a far more common way to travel and it would be a far better way of traveling, seeing the country and countryside, there are electric battery bikes too for those who doubt they may have the physical ability to cycle long distances.

People may argue these suggestions or proposals sound ridiculous but they are not as irrational as the current far more unhealthy and damaging arrangements. A situation which selfishly and myopically is damaging the environment and potentially the very existence of humans on the planet, whilst concurrently making people unhealthy in their own lifetimes through less of a facility to exercise and through inhaling pollution or through other damage to the environment. Fostering this corrosive and damaging ruling principle, that work and the economy are always more important than your health or that of the health of your family, community, the environment or the biosphere: the biosphere which we are all entirely dependent on for our survival.          

Electric cars are totemic of an inability or reluctance to embrace the changes necessary to make a substantial difference to the travel arrangements of all in the country, to meaningfully reduce emissions, to engage in far more imaginative and sustainable proposals or alternatives which remove this spectre of man-made climate change or other environmental concerns to the level required. To have a proper debate and process by which the transport networks can be redesigned, improved and redeveloped to a far better model for towns, cities and the countryside, they stand in the way of the innovations, restructuring and policies to achieve travel, with extremely limited amounts of pollution.

It is simply not true that a huge venture, redesign or proposals of this kind would be unaffordable. Government bonds, especially ones which provide security, stability and the opportunity for the long term sustainability of markets, are the safest form of bond investment in the world and there would be investment funds all over the world willing to invest in such schemes. Whole new transport networks and the majority of whole new towns or cities have been rebuilt or reconditioned in the past and on huge scales like the road or rail network for instance, similarly the energy provisions system of countries have been redesigned too: this can happen again.

Governments can issue grants to individuals for new vehicles, bikes, scooters all sorts, low to no interest loans too or tax free borrowing. This is all entirely possible to do now, it is only a matter of will.

The average life expectancy of a petrol-car is approximately ten years and the average cost of a new car is approximately twenty thousand pounds, then there are the fuel, maintenance and insurance costs, this all adds up to tens of thousands, a huge slice of the cost of owning a house. Yet, few consider this current situation as unacceptable or totally accept these absorbent, very costly, polluting and damaging modes of transport as normal, rational or completely justified, when it is unsustainable, we know this now.

That people cannot afford the same or similar money they pay now for a better system but can afford the current travel system or the second hand version circumstances demand they have, this is just nonsense and it is completely untrue.  

So, this idea there are not the means, funds or ability to be able to rebuild our transport networks is a lie and it is either a false or disingenuous argument or claim, made by those wishing to protect certain interests now. There are both the public and private funds available to make it a reality, redesigned well and it could even be significantly cheaper, healthier, quicker and authentically better than the current system of transport and for energy too.

AI and supercomputers can allow humans to programme in the details, frequencies, journey needs, journey variables but also other factors such as sustainability, reductions in energy use, different modes of transport, the details of cities, the facilities in place, the facilities which may need to be built, costs and logistics, future needs or possibilities too. To hold and synthesise all of a myriad of information, details and designs beyond the capability of a human mind, to provide sophisticated solutions to our transport network. There is with this sophisticated super computer planning facility, the opportunity to make transport not only quicker around cities, everywhere, using less energy and greener but also significantly a lot cheaper, with healthier modes and means of transportation too; allowing things to be planned and designed on scales and in multifaceted ways, not open to those planning in previous generations.

So, there are the tools but more crucially at the planning stage, the intelligence to fundamentally change our transport system and economic activity to be more green, less polluting and provide the fast, secure, reliable, safe and well maintained facilities to provide for a far more inexpensive and healthy travel network, energy provision infrastructure too.

What an exciting engineering and design challenge it would be. The birth of a new world of transport and energy for towns, cities and the countryside, transformed for a sustainable future, one of new more hopeful possibilities for future generations.    

Proposals or endeavours like this, they are not even considered meaningfully in the public debate on transport or energy. Demonstrating a counterproductive lack of imagination, a now provably dangerous limited discussion of the possibilities for the future and that the damaging policies of now are considered the only possibilities or a very limited, stunted and slow reform, when they are not.     

There is a very popular worldwide desire for radical change and reform in tackling man-made climate change and environmental concerns. Polls all over the world demonstrate majority support for wide scale radical action on man-made climate change, demonstrated further by many prominent voices during the COVID Lockdown period calling for change, but people are trapped in a society which has been convinced that this is impossible or is to be feared in some way. There are, however currently, few means politically to make these kinds of proposals, arguments for change or for them ever to even be entertained in the public debate, in a meaningful or sustained way, never mind become a reality.

This makes the current reality mostly tyrannical or totalitarian, as it is imposed with limited to no choice for billions but worse still a meaningful discussion of alternatives is refused, here and in most countries in the world. If that is not totalitarian or tyrannical, then language loses its meaning, it is certainly not democratic, as citizens or societies do not have the chance to consider and vote on it, have laws or institutions to protect them or have rights against the worst excesses of this pollution now. It is, also, against rationalism and science, there has even been a deliberate obfuscation or conflation of green issues with other issues, to deny a proper public debate on these matters too.    

Worse still, people are made to feel responsible or accused of not doing enough about this unacceptable situation as individual citizens through not making often absurdly difficult, expensive and all but impossible life style changes or measures to counter these environmental problems.  If they cannot make them, either way it is their fault as an individual for not doing enough, yet, those continuing in the more destructive ways who are not making these efforts are curiously, apparently, guilt free and excused and that people not making extreme lifestyle changes in enough numbers to save us all, they are the unreasonable and problematic ones.   

When, the only real solution for overcoming these transport and pollution problems is collective action, not only nationally but internationally to make this new world a reality: with short, medium and long term planning or policy. Something which is all perfectly possible, affordable and achievable, anyone suggesting it is not is either serving  special interests, has been manipulated into thinking it is not a possibility, when it is; are uninformed, ignorant,  being disingenuous, deluded, are gripped by a toxic nostalgia or plain lying.  

A new way of thinking and planning of travel, create better plans.

Electric cars being a shit solution, is standing in the way of a reappraisal of what travel and transportation can mean, especially travel.

It is a fair argument to make that travel is good for humans in all sorts of ways: spiritually, culturally, educationally and for the general all round health and development of a person. Then why not as societies and as a world provide the facilities to do just that for citizens but rather than quick travel, slow travel?

In our lives we should have more time to travel, the facility should be catered for, are we citizens first, or are we just servants to economic power? Why do we spend so much time tied to one place or working? A truly free society would provide the facility and means for travel for citizens around their own nation, continent and the whole world: this is a worthy ambition for all societies.

The principle that we are citizens first or at least equal to being servants to economic power and therefore should be afforded the time to see the world with a number of yearlong or sixth month periods of travel, is very agreeable and again possible.

Travel which is at least part funded, supported, with the facilities to travel at leisure is surely a worthy ambition for the future. Where you take your time getting to and from places, where you can use far less polluting means or a combination of them: walking, cycling, train or public transport; where you can appreciate multiple destinations and the places in between, not just the destination itself, taking one route there and another back, why the rush?

Surely a better set of societies and countries is where there is a conscious plan to do this or other things to add enrichment to our lives; it is better to have societies where travel and having periods of travel is planned and facilitated into the lives of citizens, than ones which do not. If we are not striving for better societies or more enriching lives as humans, then questions need to be asked about just what all this human activity is for.

Might this mean we need a more coordinated, collaborative world politics and better international relations on a variety of matters, to plan and ensure stability, security and safety globally? Yes it would, but the case against having this is a very weak, selfish, ultimately counterproductive and a myopic one. The facilities, education, cultural development and institutions to make this a reality can happen.

Would we need, beside your own language, maybe a world language that everyone could speak? It would certainly be helpful but crucially this is possible too, as languages have been born and made for this purpose in the past, the Lingua Franca being the most famous example. 

Would this mean that more extensive enshrined rights and world rule of law on certain things would be required? Yes, but this would surely be a good development for citizens too, as opposed to having those seeking to rule everything in service of narrow interests, those who wish to own or control everything in terms of resources and dominate lives to serve narrow agendas or to dominate what happens in terms of policy,  to serve the short term agendas of the few. Agendas which are provably destructive and self-defeating for human civilisation: those who seek to oppress, marginalise, alienate, disenfranchise and subdue populations to serve them. May we need a world government or institutions to make this a reality? Potentially, would that necessarily be a bad thing, probably not, as competing individual nations or a few nations bullying the many has caused many problems historically, is clearly problematic now in resolving these man-made environmental problems, other issues too and is damagingly imbalanced and destabilising now, whilst creating unacceptable human misery, suffering and oppression of those who are powerless.

World institutions designed to serve all, with bigger scopes and powers would bring with it far greater facility and possibilities: if it were to be combined with protective enshrined individual and familial rights, to protect against tyranny, excessive impositions and corruption. Would we have to change our relationships with money and time in our societies, again more towards empowering citizens and their families, communities or rights? Yes, but surely more security and empowerment for all would be welcome in this regard as well. Why choose an inferior society, why not have better plans and aspirations?

It is better to build and aspire to a more hopeful, enriching and flourishing future of this nature in a process of ongoing nationwide and worldwide liberation and reform. Where travel is seen more as a right or an educational rites of passage open to all, than an exclusive pursuit, it would certainly help with human unity, appreciation and understanding of other places. We would also have the superior facility, possibilities, time and genuine realities of being able to see far more of the world, in all its wonder in our lifetime, at a time more of our own choosing.

Why not build towards that as a reality for human societies? Yes it would be challenging but it is not impossible, it would have to involve investment, changes of culture, thinking, policy, education; it would not remove all of the problems of this world or the lives of people and it would create challenges, but problems and challenges exist now. This would be in a sense working to solve a better set of problems or challenges for more enriching outcomes. 

Why should the extreme vanity, narcissism, egos and megalomania of essentially a few powerful people dominate? Why should we live in fear of violence or destruction? Why should we accept the unacceptable policies and realities of now? Especially when what it is most people crave is stability, peace and security, with opportunities for flourishing and worthy indulgences.     

These proposals may seem fanciful, laughably unrealistic, impossible to achieve for many but what are the alternative sets of questions we should ask or what is on the rest of this spectrum of possibilities?

Should humanity die out because of heat problems causing plant species we depend on to become extinct or because of droughts caused by man-made emission problems? Should we have the sea level rise laying waste to coastal areas or inland areas and creating a huge humanitarian refugee crisis? Habitats and the biosphere made inhospitable or destroyed by pollution? Should we have wars over resources, nuclear wars over national sovereignty, ideological beliefs or economic ideas? Alongside other unnecessary petty or corrosive oppressions, should generations now have to live with these terrible spectres of the future hanging over them for decades and then through wilful inaction, desperation, negligence, irresponsibility, failure, malice, viciousness or deliberate policy, see them be realised?  

What is the future being chosen?

This brings us onto how all of this links to the ideas and observations of Emile Durkheim. 

The disturbing Durkheim suicide revelation      

The future could be something radically more agreeable. Right now, however, we still have this shit and unacceptable situation with these unresolved problems with man-made climate change, pollution and irrationality in our societies. Alongside, the denying of proposals for better possibilities for society and the invented affordability problems for reform or other issues of electric cars.

This needlessly  limiting and unjust situation with the silencing of alternatives, which is in addition to the other injustices or mindless unfairness in our societies, this leads to a psychological hopelessness and feelings of a directionless despair for our societies.

Rather than a proper, deliberate, conscious, rational, responsible, considered, thoughtful political, societal and international movement acting with a duty of care towards future societies and sustainability; with a proper rationale, through using less polluting cars, forms of transport or other green measures, instead of this, most people have to sit in their polluting fossil fuel car, polluting, whilst knowing this situation is wrong, breathing in pollution, with an almost constant noise present in the background to remind them of polluting vehicles and this pollution is pretty much everywhere they go too, this adds to this sense of despair at these crazy set of irrational values governing everything, relentlessly polluting and destroying in exponential amounts.  

Furthermore, this creates a corrosive psychological thought process in people of guilt, recriminations, despair, self-destructive attitudes and what the French Sociologist Emile Durkheim identified as a moral anomie. Anomie is where the right moral actions become unclear, messed up or blurred in society or for an individual, where individuals or society have no good answers about the correct courses of action to take: individually or collectively.

Where for instance people know that owning an electric car is the morally correct thing to do or that there must be other better options, but the societal, political and economic limitations prevent us from making that right moral choice, forcing us to take more damaging options and in this case, increasingly knowing they are destructive. This creates a kind of corrosive psychological despair, a gnawing uncertainty, a directionless inaction and hopelessness in the population or in individuals.

This despair that this issue cannot be resolved leads to resentments or thoughts of powerlessness or an inability to have a meaningful impact as an individual or as a wider society. This leads to thoughts of nothing can be done, even though we know it is harmful and wrong, fostering thoughts of reckless harm and the legitimisation of further damage on the grounds of despair, hopelessness or uncertainty, an abusive reflex, that you as an individual cannot do something meaningful, so why do anything at all? Why care at all? There do not seem to be as Durkheim recognised any proper individual or societal answers to these problems with people feeling trapped, lost, alienated or dumfounded, not knowing what to do.

Durkheim is arguably the most important thinker, observer or theorist on the effects of capitalism, more so than Karl Marx or Adam Smith because he was observing what modern societies do to the brains and the attitudes of the population. Not ideologically criticising or speculating what should or could happen in terms of economics but instead what capitalism does to behaviour and how we think about ourselves, the world and others, yes, he recognised the liberating aspects of capitalism but to ignore the problems is irresponsible carelessness and his observations have more profound revelations in them than perhaps he at the time considered himself or could have known, especially, when it comes to the reactions among populations to all of the environmental news and problems.

This moral and social anomie which Durkheim identified as a psychologically corrosive phenomenon in modern individualistic industrial societies is so significant. The breakdown of any moral values, standards or guidance for an individual and for society to follow, how the bonds or relationships between members of society and the institutions governing it he argued become problematic, isolating and toxic because of it, especially to mental health.

He argued that developing a more nourishing, kinder, gentler, understanding, more forgiving society; a society that was psychologically, spiritually and ethically more refined in terms of having the facilities or institutions which serve all of society more thoroughly, in a more inclusive manner, that this would benefit everyone more, rather than a harsher world where there is too much pressure placed on the individual in terms of success or failure.  He argued that we need to find better means to support all to find solace, enrichment and flourishing, rather than have everything on the individual, as this is an intolerable strain and burden, or it is better to have a society where all can flourish, feel included or welcome as a citizen, without excessive judgement and that the possibility of this society is denied by the individualism of consumer capitalist societies.    

His most famous book Suicide, explores the corrosive and damaging attitudes or natures fostered in modern societies caused by too much individualism, this anomie and a lack of a pursuit of a higher societal collective purpose or action, or a sense of belonging in society or communities. He observed and argued this individualism was the main cause of the huge increases in the amount of mental illness and tragically the increase in the numbers of people taking their own life in consumer capitalist societies. This corrosive individualism he argued created self-destructive attitudes in the population, issues with self-worth, self-esteem or the value of one’s own existence,  this creates widespread unhappiness, mental health problems and destructively selfish societal attitudes too, leading individuals to consider suicide and acts of self-harm.

Although, perhaps Durkheim had not appreciated the scale these attitudes would permeate through society and this is the disturbing revelation.

Durkheim in his observations perhaps underestimated the magnitude of this fostering of suicidal and self-destructive attitudes, thoughts and actions in society. How the complete lack of a moral compass would become so profound in society, how a lack of collective societal purpose or direction would eventually dominate to the exclusion of finding answers, in order to protect the very existence of human societies themselves.

As how else do you explain the attitude of society now to the environmental news of man-made climate change or other man-made pollution and environmental problems such as habitat or species loss as anything other than suicidal, or, a complete and profound breakdown of a moral ideal, rationale or collective societal purpose or solutions as to what to do? A lack of proper answers beyond more of the same damage, whilst knowing this is currently sowing the seeds of our own self destruction?    

The news that the planet could become uninhabitable and inhospitable for humans because of the death of certain species, biodiversity and foodstuffs because of an increase in temperatures caused by the economic activity of man; this alongside the other terrible consequences of manmade climate change, pollution or other environmental concerns or threats caused by humans: this should sound the loudest alarm bells there are.

It strangely does not.

The attitude from modern societies and governments rather than be of one to resolve to tackle this complicated issue, is instead mostly a rejection of it as a moral concern.  The essential new  reforming policies required for long term human civilisation to stay in place and the difficult but definitely navigable set of measures to deal with these problems with advances in technology, culture and other necessary actions or policies.

This is largely ignored.

It is instead met with a resigned attitude to death and a weird suicidal acceptance of a future darkness for all humans, it is suicidal. It is a species suicidal attitude: a preference for death in the light of the evidence over life, a desire for destruction and harm over construction and life towards better sustainable societies.

Modern societies are suicide and death cults!

This self- destructive, suicidal psychological state that Durkheim noticed is now amplified to the level of whole populations and nations, rather than an individual choosing suicide, it is mass suicide. With people who do not wish these terrible futures to happen, being dragooned into a collective mass suicide against their will by the many millions who are resigned to or are accepting of this suicidal fate. 

And again, this species suicidal situation is tyrannical, it is totalitarianism.

It is, also, like Durkheim’s other observations, a mass denial or confusion of moral responsibilities, directions or values: mass anomie.

How our actions now have an impact on the future is lost or there is a complete loss or confusion of a collective societal moral purpose or meaning, where a connection to our fellow citizens, humans and what is trying to be achieved is obfuscated with no clear set of directions or instructions.  

This mass anomie is so dangerous, when combined with the other antinomian attitudes so prevalent in societies now and with the appeals from politicians to short term self-interest, the myopic policy and law making that dominates nearly all current political realms.  That and how so often a kind of personal sovereignty or individualism is too often encouraged, fostered or widely considered as above all other considerations and is combined with this corrosive widespread notion that there are no moral or collective responsibilities for the results of our actions for the future.

This anomie has seeped into the thoughts and consciousness of society to a level that is now a mortal danger for humans, a mortal danger that Durkheim at the time he was developing his theories could not have foreseen.

The promotion of this individual or personal sovereignty is a kind of spoiled child infantilism, which maybe reflects those currently governing or in powerful positions in many societies, nevertheless, this corrosive governing principle that short term selfish interests trumps the right thing to do in terms of policy, this is happening pretty much every time.

The result from populations though, is disturbingly these strange suicidal attitudes or reactions to these acts and how we deal with environmental issues or make decisions in the light of the evidence. This is the response from far too many people, and from those in the powerful positions guiding policy and decision making too, that because something is maybe privately owned, which most resources now are, there is no public accountability or effect, when of course there are and to argue otherwise is to deny reality, there are no externalities

Then there are the other suicide machines of weaponry and war like Nuclear weapons or international conflict in the background, another suicidal construction of technology, policies and actions. The technology, machines and the institutions humans build are filled with the human qualities or values or designs we place in them, they are built to achieve human ends but what ends, mass suicide?

It is now time we questioned the values and virtues or vices we place in technology and machines, especially regarding sustainability. What those qualities we place in the things we produce and make mean for the posterity are, the long term health of our society and the biosphere: seeing economic, political, technological, design, institutional and societal decisions as moral ones too.

The 2020 film The Social Dilemma, where the architects of the tech giants from Silicon Valley hand wrung at the AI monster they had created to keep people glued to their phone and on social media with all of the other problems this has caused for societies everywhere. They never once seemed to consider that the AI could be picking up on this anomie, this destructive individualism, these antinomian attitudes, these corrosive ideas about individual sovereignty, destructive self-interest, this short termism and a loss of any principles or directions for society or individuals, other than to destructive ends. That the AI is just reflecting, amplifying and enhancing this, that the anomie Durkheim identified as so destructive for individuals and for society, is just being mirrored, accentuated and accelerated by this self-indulgent AI.   

The elephant in the room of man-made environmental and pollution problems, they very much remain.

A set of civilisations that are comfortable with the knowledge human civilisation in the future will be destroyed because of their actions, those are civilisations closer to barbarity, neglect, murder and suicide, than to ones of a cult of life and human flourishing: a cult of authentic, sustainable, long lasting human civilisation. The destruction of the habitat we depend on is at the moment a mathematical and scientific certainty, without reform and change, there is a very real possibility there will be no humans at all, as the plant life we depend on is under threat, I wish that were hyperbole.

Yet, people are incredibly blasé and indifferent about this, but, paradoxically, ironically, it is clear people value the raw vitality, beauty and majesty of life itself, even with all of its imperfections, challenges, caprices, ‘sea of troubles’ and ‘outrageous slings and arrows’. This is a paradoxical contradiction that must be confronted, as for life to be protected then something far more substantial and radical needs to happen in terms of policy, action and change. The laws, investments and rights to protect future societies and sustainable human civilisation need to be designed and made a reality throughout the world.

These unacceptable psychological situations and suicidal attitudes must be confronted, this culture can change, it must change, it can change and it can lead to a far more enriching future. Where we can keep the non-destructive institutions and things we value now too, it is not like everything has to be thrown away or reformed sometimes it might just need adjustments or maintenance. We would not all have to live like some sort of morally perfect puritanical beings, a likely but false criticism of these proposals, but instead be served better by rights, policies and laws as societies, communities, families and individuals. 

These considerations of change with these environmental issues, transport and energy issues proposed, they may seem radical, but remember what are the alternatives here? 

The frightening alternative is placing a noose around the neck of, if not all of humanity, then billions. There maybe those who wish to dismiss this as alarmist or unrealistic, yet vast forces are evidentially mobilised for destruction, the only reason there are not vast forces for construction and sustainability, is political and societal will.

No country should get to make excuses regarding collaboration in resolving this. This is purely about life and the hopeful aspect is, of course it can be confronted and of course it can be overcome: the design, policy and reform necessary can be implemented and humans are acting at their most intelligent when solving problems,  either way, there is no getting away from the stark choices presented by this current reality.

People must accept that through choosing badly, we condemn to death and to terrible suffering human life, children, future generations, the things you hold dear in your own life to be enjoyed by others, life itself with its beautiful imperfections. Sustainability reforms will not resolve all the problems of life and societies but it will afford the full richness of the human experience. The human experience for all its rights and wrongs is all we have, but to have no human experience at all? To deny that to future generations, that is the choice here, to choose light or darkness.  I do not accept humans wish to rationally poison the earth for humans irreparably and choose darkness.

It maybe unpalatable to confront this but everyone, all humanity is in this decision, we are all bound to one outcome or the other, this is uncomfortable for all but there really need not be sides in this argument or for it to become adversarial. There is no need for this to be a culture war, far better it is a collaborative process or reimagining of a different world, a world with more hopeful possibilities, it is not like we all have to be morally perfect but morally better and more sustainable in the institutions, policies and technologies we create.   

Psychological inflexibility, recurring patterns of behaviour, feeling helpless, low self-esteem, problems with substance abuse, weight issues or mania, anxiety, mental health problems such as depression, are all symptoms of a suicidal state of mind and they are also present and prevalent in our societies in disturbingly large and increasing amounts. Changing direction will change this and remove the heavy psychological burden Durkheim recognised that we have placed on ourselves. We also need to confront the anomie, the confused morality and the self-destructive psychological attitudes that have gripped our society: which is again, all entirely possible. 

A return to ‘normal’ after the Coronavirus crisis is to return, knowingly, to accumulating the fatal dose of pills for the suicide of humanity. I am sure I am not alone in not wanting to be part of the taking of those pills, the feeding of them to children and future generations, against our express and rational will.

The totalitarianism of this current situation is unacceptable, it must be stopped and seen for the tyranny it is.

The policies, laws and rights for the future have to identified and then implemented which serve and protect those sustainable ends, we have to legally and through policy recognise the future can exist, far more profoundly than we do now. The world can be saved for humanity.

Electric cars do not resolve this or deal with the problems of a lost societal or human morality, a proper human purpose, or these mass self-destructive and suicidal attitudes, although, in the right circumstances and for the right reasons, I still want one.  

---

If you consider me worthy buy me a coffee on the PayPal link on my page, although that is an Americanism, buy me a cup of tea.

by Robert John

In the first few months of the lockdown because of the Coronavirus there was a sober reflection on our society, with many articles, broadcasts and voices calling for radical change or progress on a variety of concerns.

There were compelling, sensible, rational, sound and well-reasoned arguments calling for changes to our relationships with nature and the environment, our relationships with work, consumerism, the economy, family, within society and our communities. There were calls to confront various destructive attitudes, behaviours or forces governing human activity and our dysfunctional societal and political institutions. Many intellectuals, academics, experts and commentators were calling for significant changes, different approaches and a redesign of manifold facets of the pre Covid world.

This was for many a very hopeful aspect of the unfolding tragedy and misery caused by the virus, a time with less pollution in the air and traffic everywhere, where people were reassessing what is truly valuable. There was a growing tide of opinion against what many people view as corrosive and damaging practices in society and the economy, which, needed to be confronted, then reformed or prevented from continuing.

This felt like for a while, a moment where real changes could be properly considered, then implemented. There was a genuine palpable feeling of things cannot carry on as they were.

Then along came lots of loud arguments about masks, the restrictions, conspiracy theories and other bizarre stuff, this polluted and overwhelmed this hopeful public debate.     

One of the best examples of this distracting noise is the masks debate. It has been puzzling to see so many very public and famous commentators, politicians too, who are incensed by citizens having to wear masks when shopping or on public transport, arguing it is an attack on freedom. Millions would consider this measure to wear a mask a reasonable request, on the grounds of safety from a deadly virus. That, however, has not prevented the emergence of a whole loud anti-mask movement, who view this measure as an attack on their liberty and a totalitarian governmental oppression.  

The masks are often referred to as a muzzle, that somehow the mask is going to stop you from being able to talk. If this is the case, surgeons must have a hell of a time communicating that they want the scalpel mid operation through using sign language, a certain look with their eyes, blinking or mime.

It has even been argued that the masks to cover your mouth and nose are dangerous for your health, preventing you from being able to breathe. Although, how come before the virus there were no news reports of surgeons and operation theatre teams dying or being incapacitated in their thousands, because of respiratory problems with surgical masks?

I seem to remember as a kid Hawkeye, the military surgeon character, cracking wise during operations in the hit TV show M.A.S.H. Or, maybe I am mistaken, and M.A.S.H was some sort of deep state conspiracy fake TV show, which was designed to have people wrongly believe that you can breathe, talk and tell jokes when you are wearing a face mask, whilst simultaneously completing complex lifesaving surgery, requiring very delicate hand movements and intense levels of concentration.

It is easy to slip into sarcasm or facetiousness when being presented with these arguments that the masks are an attack on freedom, but this incessant wailing from certain figures about the masks or other Covid restrictions being an attack on liberty or the other conspiracy theories flooding the public debate and discourse. They are disguising something far more sinister, serious and manipulative in their rhetoric.

Why go on about the masks and the restrictions, as an attack on freedom so much? That this is the state being oppressive or taking over the lives of the citizens? Why all of this incessant noise about denials of liberty?

This is happening deliberately for the purposes of power. Who defines what freedom is and what can be described as freedom, but more importantly, what cannot enter the public debate about what freedom is or crucially could be, what is acceptable for discussion, and what is not.

What is important to those public voices pushing this endless noisy stuff about the masks, other nonsense or conspiracy theories, is that those who sponsor these voices or whose interests they represent or serve: namely elite, established or reactionary power. Is that evidence based, rational, community minded, scientific measures which promote safety, security, sustainability, acting with a duty of care, health and well being for all citizens, that these ideas do not become too powerful.

It is to ensure these worthy principles are not widely approved of, are popular, are considered successful, important or are to be valued by the population. This is after all the thin end of the wedge, if measures of this kind are going to work, have wide public consent, support and be welcomed, then where else might these kinds of approaches, thinking or measures be applied?

Man-made climate change, pollution caused by problematic consumption or economic activity, to inequities in the communities in our societies, changes in the work and life balance, environmental measures? This kind of thinking or talk of evaluating the real worth or value of things, which has become more pronounced recently, it is very dangerous, well it is to those who benefit the most from things being arranged in their favour. These other ideas, noises and rhetoric of change have suddenly, unexpectedly and increasingly become more powerful in appeal and to more people.

This is unacceptable.

There just has to be irrationality, resentment, emotion, hate or anger which can be directed at particular things, groups or people: in order for the public debate to be managed or manipulated in a way that serves certain interests. That is if society is to be maintained in the structure desired, by those who benefit from it the most, established power.

These targets of resentment and scapegoats are important, as they allow events, attitudes, institutions and policies to be manipulated in certain directions, distracted away from certain things, ideas or people, into a debate that is more emotive than rational. It allows the power of ideas that have become more profound and a threat recently, to be diminished or removed. This serves the interests of arbitrary, unaccountable, reactionary private elite power by keeping certain things convenient to them strong as ideas or ideas that are a threat to them weak, with their power cemented as a consequence.

Out of nowhere, a lot of different rhetoric, suggestions or proposals have emerged into the public discourse about what freedom or society could be because of the virus. This is potentially very damaging for powerful figures, who wish to manage the debate away from these things and to silence these voices. Lots of noise is needed to distract away from these powerful ideas as important, to places where attitudes are more readily manipulated: where masses of people can be moved to be angry about something or someone else. To avoid the danger of the genuine causes of problems to do with freedom in society being identified fully, mostly them.

This then prevents a proper debate on a more authentic freedom occurring, whilst making sure that anger, frustration or resentment or calls for radical change are not directed at elite power itself, but instead at the scapegoats or somewhere else.

This powerful new talk or rhetoric of what freedom is or could be: what the economy, politics or society is for. This has to be controlled with rhetoric or a narrative about what is acceptable as freedom or not. That is why there is a lot of noise about the debate about masks and lots of other distracting stuff, they are loud denials of anything else, other than an approved economic, societal or political model from gaining traction or establishing itself more permanently in the realm of the public consciousness or debate.    

The freedom that is described by these wailing voices about the masks, who are mostly mouthpieces for the elite, conservative, established and reactionary power, is the ability of citizens to consume and work: work and consumption! That is what has been identified as the pinnacle of freedom for society. Plenty of people disagree with that, consider it absurd and have been making it known with alternative suggestions in the lockdown period. These other proposals or voices have to be dealt with, silenced and banished, as they are seen as a threat.

Any other powerful suggestions or proposals have to be drowned out with angry talk about ‘freedom’ being denied with masks or restrictions, something or someone else which is at times in reality either not denying freedom, is not the real reason, might even be actually establishing, defending or protecting freedoms but is blamed all the same.

Loud noises about fake conspiracies, distractions to direct anger at certain people or things are required, to prevent this new appealing rhetoric of change gaining ground or anyone who looks to question the narrow definitions of the approved kind of freedom from having a voice, which might be properly heard or considered. Especially, with proposals which may start to serve citizens more over the established order and reactionary elite figures who seek to dominate and have societal institutions serve them.

These proposals have to be pushed out and denied a fair hearing. Work and consumption are the approved freedom, the masks are preventing this approved freedom, there are no alternatives.Markets and work are important and very much necessary but is there value overrated, should it be paramount to everything else in life, are there not things of more value? Does all work have to be on someone else’s terms so much?

Many millions would not describe the pre Covid world of work, debt and consumption as being the zenith of freedom. The crisis has exposed how people are more often viewed as servants to economic power first, citizens second, when it should be the other way around. In fact many would see the pre Covid society or at least some of the elements of it as tyrannical, irrational and very unhealthy, more than free.

Many people would see it as full of impositions and often being dragooned into enterprises and ventures against their will, in an economy or society with very unclear objectives of just what all of this activity is trying to achieve, trapped in an unthinkingness. Where what is trying to be built as a human society is shrouded in uncertainty, that the pre virus society was built with a focus exclusively on freedom is a very questionable notion, laughable in many ways

This relentless unthinkingness, people have had time to reflect on this and they are questioning our society, our relationships with all sorts of things, but quickly the rhetoric and arguments has to be distracted away from these considerations and instead towards a debate of the denial of freedom being with of all things, face masks.

People have to be told what is acceptable as freedom and what is not. A proper debate emerging where people ponder alternatives to the very much provably reckless and destructive trajectory of our economic and societal activities, this has to be prevented, as it does not serve particular interests.   

When for millions the so called ‘freedom’ these false sirens lament, it is more like subjugation, tyranny or exploitation. Where the majority of your time, efforts, conscious self, your human resources and whole human being were being employed for the benefit of others you sometimes do not even know or particularly like, but are powerless against having to serve. On terms that for many, most, were not as agreeable as they would like them to be and where freedom would not be the first word to spring to mind to describe their life, and, to what higher purposes or ends did all of this serve? What is the direction and what are the goals?

In the lockdown there was a period when real change became a serious possibility, these alternative voices need to be quietened down, so kick up a large row about masks even it is risky and dangerous. If these voices truly cared about the lives of people they would be calling for people to wear a mask among many other measures to protect citizens, which, demonstrates something about the attitudes to other people and the planet those voices have, it is instructive and informative of the minds of the powerful interests they represent or serve as well.       

As wearing a mask, this is imbued with things like responsibility, care, co-dependency, safety, health, altruism, principled rules, rationality, virtue and a governance of serving citizens as a priority. Elite established power does not want the institutions of society to have a focus with or power resting with these ideas or the citizens, it has to be with or serve them above all other considerations. They desire power to remain elsewhere, in a more private realm, where it is arbitrary, beyond democratic, public or governmental influence or with a government which does not primarily serve them.

Many may think they are not taken in by the rhetoric about the masks, conspiracies or other deliberate noise and think it is absurd but that does not mean you will not be a victim of it, in more ways than catching the virus. Or, a victim or embroiled in other manipulative narratives of fake freedom, blame or hate figures, which are regularly presented in the public debate, which more than anything keep sustained focus or public debate away from proposals that could make a real difference to society. This tactic does not have to work on everyone in order for it to be successful.   

As what all of this is really, more subtly about, is power. What ideas are powerful and which ones are not, which ideas can remain in the public debate and which ones are to be exiled, as they do not serve powerful interests who want them gone, so create a noisy distraction.

This is a management of the debate, so that a mass of voices or opinions can be used as a tool against ideas which have become too powerful, which need to be put back in their place, before people get different notions about what freedom is. A kind of ochlocracy weapon or bludgeon, where a mass of people loudly proclaim what freedom is. Then this very narrow definition of freedom, which is arguably not freedom at all,  is then used to beat the alternatives into submission: as they are fledgling, still fragile or require a sustained exposition to flower. This is an obscuring white noise, used against inconvenient powerful ideas or alternative proposals, which may cause real change and damage powerful interests.

This to the point where so called respectable publications are now publishing articles about the masks row or other nonsense, whilst all of the other more hopeful ideas or proposals of change, they are very much now pushed into the background. Nonsense about the masks or other things now has the limelight. It is a fair argument to make that this is a deliberate management of the public debate, that is what the masks noise, the conspiracy theories, all the other noises about the restrictions and distracting stuff are about, do not think you will not end up a victim of this.

So, people better come up with some more defined ideas about what freedoms are and not give up too easily on that period of hopeful alternatives. All of those powerful and righteous ideas for change which emerged in the first lockdown period need to be supported, sustained and maintained in the public debate, before we return to being relentlessly told what is acceptable as freedom and what is not, by people who benefit from particular definitions of freedom.

Maybe freedom is too grand a word, idea or concept: improvements, authentic beneficial developments or real progress, change that will make an actual appreciable difference and on concerns which need to be addressed or are irresponsibly ignored.

Still, how can societies with so many people in it who see the height of freedom as not wearing a face mask in a supermarket for half an hour or so every week, for a year or two, how can that society ever consider itself to be truly free? Although, more crucially, how can a society be free with so many people in it who so meekly and easily are constantly embroiled with pathetic distracting debates about fake freedoms, blame figures, scapegoats or nonsense about masks, conspiracy theories, other useless or corrosive things? Why allow those distractions to become preeminent so often, above what are more authentic proposals?

Or, a society who so easily abandons worthy proposals which could make a genuine difference for a legitimate, responsible, sustainable, secure, healthy and free society: how can that society ever consider itself genuinely free?

So, the thing with the masks is something we all need to reflect on, as the distracting arguments are obscuring our chances of real societal reform and change. A world with genuine, authentic and responsible freedoms: where you putting your health and those of others at risk by not wearing a mask from time to time, that this is not presented as the height of liberty and it is taken completely seriously by huge swathes of the population. Whilst everyone else is suckered into a debate about that, instead of remaining resolute on the demands and arguments for genuine progress and reform, which were made so lucidly in the lockdown period.

Many of which were challenging the corrosive, irresponsible, short term, antinomian directionless unthinking and attitudes, which are driving so much human activity and behaviour towards self-destructive ends.     

—

I am going to do the thing of asking for money, there is a link on my WordPress page. I would encourage you to consider that money is power, if you give money to those agencies or forces you agree with in society, then you are giving them power and when it comes to writing and journalism, you are supporting freedom and giving those voices power against the powerful.

I would ask you to consider that all money is power and you give a lot of your power to institutions, which you accumulate through your endeavours. I ask you to question those institutions and question that power relationship, surely we should all have more say on what happens with our accumulated power and those institutions, actors or agencies should be compelled to act responsibly in the society and world we all live in. Where true values not price are paramount, as after all, we are all moral actors in this society and virtue and just principles have to have the upper hand over vice, otherwise we are on a very destructive trajectory.  

We all need to act with the health of society and the world in mind. It is unacceptable for agencies in our society to hoard our power then gives us little to no say over what happens with it, whilst acting in damaging, corrosive and irresponsible ways. A society with powerful undemocratic forces that takes your power and uses it for these purposes: where there are no proper principled or just guidelines, moralities or laws is tyrannical and totalitarian. Especially, when in reality there are few to no choices as to who we give that power to and the sheer amounts of power we have to forfeit.

A so called freedom or freedoms which destroys and removes the liberty of others especially the posterity, that is not freedom at all. It is tyranny, no matter how sugar-coated and immediately gratifying it might be in the present day, it is an arbitrary use of power. A power placed beyond the rule of law, accountability, democracy, morality and sound principled governance.    

The secret ballot obliterated. An essay on how a cornerstone of a fair, authentic and proper democracy has illegally been circumvented with Brexit and in the UK democratic system for very destructive purposes.

The secret ballot is a somewhat forgotten aspect of the demands for full manhood suffrage in Britain. The secret ballot was one of the demands of The Chartists on their People’s Charter. The Chartists were the political movement in the mid Nineteenth Century who demanded full manhood suffrage amongst the height of the oppression of The Industrial Revolution. The secret ballot was passed into British electoral law in 1872. The only demand of The Chartists which was not eventually made into law was the demand for annual Parliaments.

This is a remarkable achievement for a largely working class movement, who were disenfranchised in terms of the vote at the time. Chartism collapsed before all but one of its demands were passed into law by Parliament, in the seventy or so years after its demise as a reforming political force. This is something to give hope to any movement demanding new liberties, constitutional change or protections now, make your demands, if those demands have merit or are sufficiently righteous, it may take time, but they can become the law or accepted conventions. 

Why was the secret ballot a key demand for those who desired full manhood suffrage and an authentic democracy and politics which would be free from elite, landed gentry or industrialist control, close on to two hundred years ago?

The reason why was that up until it was implemented, people voted in the original Athenian way of standing in a crowd and raising your hand in public. The way you cast your vote would be known to everyone and anyone who witnessed it, this meant that your employer might know how you voted, your landlord, your neighbours and key figures in the community.

This left the electorate open to bribes, intimidation, undue influence, inducements and threats. Bribes or threats could be made to individual or groups of voters to vote for a certain party or candidate. The Chartists knew, as did unscrupulous actors or agents in society too, that this meant that democracy could be corrupted and manipulated through targeting specific voters using undue influence, to get them to vote for special or certain interests. Through this corrupt practice, democracy could be managed to particular outcomes.

Threats of many kinds could be made, threats of violence to individual voters or their families; threats of bankruptcy, economic ruin, eviction or social exclusion. Conversely bribes of money, employment, food and booze were common around a ballot before this act, especially the venal. Although, when the franchise was first extended, predominately it was to those sympathetic to the interests and concerns of the wealthy, industrialists, landed gentry and the elites, these practices of undue influence, however, were still regularly employed.

The Chartists and others saw this as an unacceptable corruption of democracy. As ideas or proposals were not considered on their merits, justness or qualities in terms of how they serve the population. Democracy stops being a rational debate about policies which or politicians who best serve society at large. Instead, certain interests, largely those of wealth, the elites and property, they could just manipulate the outcome of any vote to get the votes required for their preferred outcome or candidate by employing when necessary: improper inducements, undue influence and intimidation.

The secret ballot was introduced for people to vote in secret, in the secrecy of polling booths, so that they could not be corrupted or interfered with as a voter by these means. This would protect the integrity and authenticity of democracy, as the debate of which proposals serve best, how policies or Parliamentarians serve or protect the national interest or how they will attempt to resolve the challenges, problems or issues society or communities face now and into the future.

There has a lot been made about our law and British law in the Brexit debate, so, let us see what British law says in the Secret Ballot Act of 1872.

‘No person whosever, shall interfere with or attempt to interfere with or attempt to obtain in the polling station information as to the candidate for whom any voter in such station is about to vote or who has voted’; ‘No person shall directly or indirectly induce any voter to display his ballot…to make known to any person the name of a candidate for or against whom he has so marked his vote’ where those voters influenced by ‘bribery, treating or undue influence’, their vote is to be struck off the register and does not count, if ruled in a court of law to have been influenced in this way.

So, attempting to secretly find out how someone intends to vote at a polling booth, to target specific voters or groups of voters with undue influence, to interfere improperly with that vote or to find out how they voted is illegal. Especially, if you are obtaining it by secretive or manipulative means or that vote is to be discounted if won through ‘any agent’ using spurious interference, improper influence, bribes or threats.  

This law has been broken with data profiling through social media platforms, the internet and micro-targeting; the targeting of voters using psychological profiling and manipulation through political focus groups. All the ways used to determine who and how people will vote online or by other secretive or not obviously transparent means, is breaking the secret ballot laws on the grounds of interference, as will be explored in more depth later, this has often been done through using illegal undue influence too. 

Not long after the 1872 law was introduced, it was bolstered with The Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act of 1883, which, was another law to prevent the corruption of ballots through the use of bribery and threat. The stipulations of that law are that anyone using these practices or breaking the secret ballot laws is to be banned from holding public office or being allowed to vote.

The use of threat where ‘threatening to inflict harm….to induce him to vote or refrain from voting’ is considered an illegal practice in an election. This is particularly interesting when applied for instance to propaganda circulated before the referendum vote in 2016 and since on the EU Army, with the claims UK citizens would be conscripted into it against their will, as that is a threat of inflicting harm. It is saying that the life of your children, family and you are under threat. It might be doing it through an unwitting third party but it is a threat of harm, one that has no truth to it, but still a clear use of a threat, with an implied added further threat, that some sort of war is imminent through continued membership of the EU.

The 1883 law ruled that interference using bribery or the offer of bribes is unlawful in a ballot too and identified a ‘valuable consideration’ as a bribe. The definition for a valuable consideration in law was derived rather fittingly from a case not long before the act. A valuable consideration in the sense of English law ‘may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility, given, suffered or undertaken by the other’.

The propaganda and rhetoric used by Leave in 2016 about how there would only be upsides to leaving the EU, Brexit dividends and money for public services. That through Brexit a world of new trade deals, investment, government spending and new untapped markets would emerge, that old industries would be rekindled. That new growth would happen: breathing life into marginalised places and a new era would arrive to liberate the economy and people of the UK, with better employment, prosperity, freedoms or justice, whilst simultaneously, the EU would suffer, decline and lose out.

That all sounds remarkably very much like the English law definition of ‘a valuable consideration’, which, according to this law is a bribe and is illegal as a way to manipulate a vote through targeting voters, using undue influence or interference in this country.

In the digital age this allows bribes and threats to be sent directly to voters online to interfere illegally with their vote, the secret ballot is being circumvented, ignored and corrupted to a very sophisticated regional, community or individual level through the use of social media and focus groups. Employing some of the same or similar tactics of undue influence the secret ballot was passed into electoral law to prevent and in a way that is more pernicious than anything The Chartists, other political radicals or movements demanding authentic citizen focused democracy could have foreseen.

Why is it more pernicious? One reason is the narrowness of margins which determine who or what has power in our democracy, what that power is being used for and that the secret ballot as being a vital element of having a free and fair democracy or elections has been destroyed to manipulate outcomes, when it is still the law, it is British law.

The narrowness of margins for victory and power is a really damaging issue for democracy in terms of consensus in this country.  In the Referendum vote in 2016, the difference between Leave and Remain was approximately 1.2 million votes. These were very opposite views and with Leave having no clear detailed proposal for what Brexit would mean, something which is undemocratic as well, it is hardly a large amount of people determining the course of action for Brexit between Leave and Remain, when compared to the whole voting population at approximately 45 million.

The difference between the two main parties in the 2017 General Election was around 700,000 and in 2019 the difference between the party who won a majority and those who did not, a superficially more plausible three million, but, and this is very significant, this was only an increase of Conservative Party votes of 1%, when people voting for a party proposing a second referendum had a majority in terms of vote numbers, in an election supposedly about one issue. 

With First Past the Post, however, this meant a huge Parliamentary majority for the Conservative Party, they received almost 14 million votes, though that is still two million fewer than those who voted Remain in 2016 and those who did not vote Conservative in 2019 in a ‘one issue’ election.

This voting mathematics is something that was clearly known a long time before the vote in December 2019 and the 2016 referendum too. That a small increase in the Conservative votes in the Midlands and the North would return a large Conservative majority in Westminster,  a 1% vote increase in this case is approximately just 140,000 people, yet electorally, that was the difference between a hung Parliament and an eighty seat majority in Westminster. These seats and voters have been deliberately targeted for interference, as were voters in 2016.  

It will be argued that Brexit was a vehicle through which to achieve this majority and is a necessary illusion of reform, with the EU as a convenient scapegoat, threat or something to bribe against, used to secure power.

People may counter argue that a majority for Brexit in 2016 and in 2019 in the General Election were won in terms of the systems that are in place, the voting mechanisms of the UK, but the margins that made the key difference between winning and losing, approximately 140,000 or 1.2 million, are by comparison to the whole population, a small amount of people.

Through manipulating and targeting a relatively tiny fraction of the electorate in comparison to the whole population to one side of a cause over another, a party or an issue: a huge constitutional changing power can be achieved. When constitutionally Parliament is there to serve the national interest and that has to mean everyone, future generations too, that is what democracy as a political model is supposed to do: serve everyone and the posterity to the best of its ability. Otherwise, Parliament is not serving the national interest but it is instead serving a special, narrow, factional or exclusive set of interests.

As how can the national interest be that of effectively and mathematically, a minority of people, in a very small time frame or period? That would be by its very action unconstitutional and undemocratic.

It would be more akin to a new kind of ochlocracy than a democracy. Where one party who may have the majority of votes amongst parties, but is outnumbered by the wider voting population by about two thirds, has a dominant and disproportionate hold on power in our parliamentary system to use to their desired ends and how they see fit, with no clear explanations of how Brexit serves the national interest.

Ochlocracy or majoritarianism, was described by the very earliest democrats in Greece as one of the worst forms of government. The reasons being that it creates long term instability and corrosive societal problems, if one group rules with their interests as paramount to those of the population of the whole nation and the future generations of the state. It allows damaging short term selfish interests to be appealed to and serviced, which, has inherent dangers for the stability of the nation going forward.     

With Brexit: through the persuasion, manipulation, cajoling and more disturbingly in relation to the secret ballot, the threat or bribing of a comparatively small number of people, a ‘majority’ can be won for a party, outcome or movement. Then they can implement, constitutionally and in terms of our international position, pretty much what they wish in mostly an unrestricted fashion under our current system, whilst sidestepping proper Parliamentary scrutiny and our democracy more definitively than ever, moves position from a democracy to a managed ochlocracy.

This has been achieved through destroying the secret ballot with a combination of micro targeting on social media and the internet and through political focus groups, alongside more traditional propaganda techniques.

The destruction of the secret ballot is crucial in all of this for a number of reasons. The Great Hack exposed through journalists like Carole Cadwalladr and Peter Jukes, how online psychological profiling, micro targeting and manipulation of voters on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter is being employed to influence the outcome of elections. Through using very personalised and bespoke propaganda; and that this propaganda has been funded by dark corporate and political money using companies like Cambridge Analytica.  Internet data can be used to create a psychological profile of users and that profile can be used to manipulate, threaten or induce voters to vote in a certain way, using weapons grade psychological propaganda techniques and through using undue influence and knowledge of how voters previously voted obtained online, sometimes illegally and how they could or may vote in the future.

This is in direct contravention of the secret ballot, as it is interference and is illegal in this country according to the original law, as you are interfering with voters using techniques other than rational arguments, in order to manipulate a voter to vote in a certain way in a polling booth and this is ‘any agent’ according to the law. Nowadays, that means the agent that is in your pocket, your mobile phone, what is contained on it and the services on them. 

Keep in mind, only a relatively small number of swing or key voters need to be persuaded to win a mandate to have complete governmental power, without requiring consensus. This knowledge of who or how people will vote or how they could be manipulated with undue influence to vote in a certain way in the future: this ability becomes all powerful. 

Furthermore, alongside these illegal techniques: the use of disinformation, misinformation, fake histories and falsehoods on social media or the internet can be used by nefarious actors too. This allows a vote to be manipulated with untruths, lies, ad hominin attacks or through knowledge about psychological triggers within that voter to induce them to vote in a certain way or to think a certain thing about a party, policy, societal group or political figure.  When democracy is supposed to be about rational arguments and clear proposals about what serves the national interest or the public good, not misleading lies, images, videos, propaganda and falsehoods which are designed to exploit the psychological traits of people to manipulate electoral outcomes.

Democracy has to convene around the truth and operate with the public good principle or it cannot be considered legitimate and is in the realms of the tyranny of the majority. This is a clear illegal corruption of democracy, this is exactly why the secret ballot was a demand of The Chartists and others, who desired to prevent the corruption of democracy to serve special narrow interests through using undue influence, corruption and demagoguery.  

These acts have not been repealed, which, makes the practices of anyone acting in this manner now, a lawbreaker of British law. This means those involved in Leave, who are now in the Executive, those companies using social media, the social media companies themselves or those involved in the Cambridge Analytica scandal, they broke British electoral law and according to subsequent British laws they should be barred from holding public office. Furthermore they should have their right to vote removed and those manipulated to vote for them where interference or undue influence has been used, those votes should be struck off any electoral outcome.

Breaking The Secret Ballot Act according to the original law is punishable by six months in jail, with or without hard labour. Would Mark Zuckerberg, Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage or Dominic Cummings survive six months of hard labour? It is probably best for them hard labour has been abolished as a punishment.  

Social media, internet data and services: the nefarious groups, agencies or people using those platforms often know how people are going to vote but more importantly who and how voters can be manipulated to vote differently. So called ‘swing voters’ and specific target groups of voters can be determined and identified online through tracking or identifying their preferences, prejudices, desires and their psychological traits in their internet data. The kind of rhetoric or language to place in speeches that has an impact can be identified. How voters can be manipulated to vote for a candidate who weakens the opposition to a preferred candidate or to not vote at all occurs as well, through using tested language, rhetoric, disinformation, propaganda and images.

This psychological profiling and targeting of subsets of voters is something that has been ascertained and facilitated through political focus groups too. Political focus groups are a personal favourite of Dominic Cummings the top advisor to Boris Johnson and a key leader of the Leave campaign. Political focus groups were something first used by Reagan and Thatcher over forty years ago, they have been employed ever since as a method in politics and should be considered illegal under the 1872 and 1883 acts too, as focus groups circumvent the secret ballot through means of interference. They similarly attempt to manipulate specifically targeted voters or support, through means other than rational argument and clear transparent proposals.

Focus groups were first used by corporations and business to work out the best way to market or sell a product through using psychological profiling and techniques to manipulate a purchase. This was through identifying a psychological appeal that could be used to sell a product, this was not selling necessarily through the qualities of the product itself, but how the consumer could be manipulated by psychological means to buy it. 

Then it was realised these methods could be used to win support for political parties too: to test slogans, rhetoric or language, to psychologically profile and manipulate people to vote for a certain party through identifying subsets of people and what rhetoric or what else would appeal to the voters on a psychological level. Similarly, this is not really discussing the merits or values of policies or their implementations with things like evidence, the truth, and rational argument or whether policies are right, moral or just. Instead: what words, rhetoric or language would induce or illicit a positive response in terms of a vote on a more psychological level, or, that of a desire, discrimination or prejudice in the voter.

This, like the use of micro-targeting on social media and the internet, this is the practice of demagoguery not democracy,  this is manipulating voters through their prejudices, desires, their psychological traits and their irrationality, not through using rational arguments, sets of transparent open proposals or policies which are designed to serve the wider population or deal with societal issues. It is, also, a space where threats, inducements, bribes and intimidation can be employed.

People may balk at the suggestion that threats have been used in the rhetoric, propaganda or campaigning regarding Brexit, but, they very much have been used as a way to manipulate people to vote for Leave online and through focus groups, through targeting specific parts of the electorate. This was then used to facilitate the further manipulation towards voting Conservative in 2019.

Focus grouping and internet profiling allows impactful rhetoric or propaganda to be determined, which has an undue influence in the offline world too, people can probably very easily guess what some of that rhetoric was.

Who or what has been threatened in the propaganda for Leave? In answer to that question the EU will be personified, as it often was deliberately in the propaganda for Leave in 2016.

There are many instances of threat especially online, beginning with animals. Threats to polar bears, wildlife, bulls because of bullfighting in Spain and whales being under threat, were all used in the imagery and rhetoric of Leave propaganda, in order to entice and manipulate people to vote for Leave in 2016. The EU was cast as threatening and hurting animals or wildlife and that a vote to leave would somehow stop or save vulnerable wildlife or punish those doing it, as otherwise the EU was going to kill them through its policies or actions.

Through voting Leave this threat to the animals would be removed or they might be saved or that the EU was some sort of animal murdering organisation which needed to be stopped. All rather wide of the mark in terms of the comprehensive reality of the situation but a threat to animals in order to get people to vote Leave was used, through association or implication at least.

Threat was used in terms of Turkey joining the EU, the propaganda map image of Turkey and its proximity to Iraq and Syria. The clear implication or subtext being: dangerous people and terrorists from the Middle East are going to arrive in the country, assisted to get there by the EU and they are going to bring terrorism with them which could kill or hurt your family or you, a vote to Leave would protect you against this threat.

Or, these people from these other countries are going to take away a job from your children or opportunities, deny your children, loved ones or you access to public services like healthcare, education and so forth. That is the presentation of a threat and what could be more emotive than a threat of harm to your family or your own health, welfare and prospects because of foreigners about to arrive due to the actions of the EU or through our continued membership? It is again using an unwitting and innocent third party, but it is still a threat!

The slogan itself, Take back control, suggests that control has been taken away from the country and given to some power who is threatening to use that control against you, your community and your family. That our own government bears no responsibility since membership began and the EU is threatening to impose its control on the country to the ruin of your family and you in the future.

Then there was the EU Army conscription propaganda, a threat to your children being blown up in some war the people and the Government of the UK would have no control over: even though the EU is a peace project. Then there was the Lisbon Treaty propaganda, a whole series of individual rights and governmental controls being taken away by the EU, another series of threats.

It was, also, propagandised that somehow the EU are to blame for flooding problems in the UK, a vote to Leave would remove this threat to homes and communities in specifically Yorkshire, which, just happens to be where a number of the bricks of The Red Wall who swung the 2019 General Election are located. There were threats to industries as well, notably the steel industry in the North of England too.  

Then there was the threat to cups of tea, that the EU wants to ‘Kill our cuppa’, and people clearly thought this was a real danger. That if they did not vote Leave, their brew would be taken away and locked up in beverage prison by the EU. Tea is a powerfully emotive issue among the British especially, so, this is an extremely serious threat to make.  

Threat after threat of harm being made to your community, your family, your children, your nation; threats about your rights, threats to our government over the power of veto,  threats about employment, prospects for citizens; access to public services, industries and the security of the country.

Evil monsters were abound everywhere.  

Due to micro-targeting on social media on platforms like Facebook or Twitter, these threats could be personalised to match your particular psychological traits, concerns, discriminations or prejudices, in order to manipulate a voter towards a party or to vote in a certain way. This has striking similarities to threats of harm to an individual, their loved ones or things, possessions or their family, in the days before the introduction of the secret ballot.

It is clear and obvious interference using undue influence, this is illegal according to the 1872 and 1883 laws and should meet with the very serious consequences of breaking those British laws outlined earlier.

The truth or otherwise of these threats does not diminish their potential to appear real to the people viewing them. This propaganda is playing on fear, irrationality, feelings or emotions of protection, the psychology of control and authority.

Fear, ideas of authority or security being a very influential determiner on political affairs, as Thomas Hobbes, one of the first English political philosophers identified in The Leviathan. Hobbes argued that protection from dangers or threats from abroad, was a powerful political idea in the minds of citizens in order to command their unquestioning loyalty.  

Then there has been the venal.

Bribes have been offered to the electorate too in the propaganda to persuade people to vote Leave: investment in public services, communities and adverts with the talk of funding for the NHS. That the EU was a ball and chain on the economy and that through leaving ‘the innovation which creates and grows our economy’ would be ‘unleashed’, all very vague on details but it is a bribe in the form of a valuable consideration. As is the other rhetoric suggesting that leaving the EU ‘ensures British young people more jobs’, which is very emotive because it is an inducement based around family and children.

Different regions have been encouraged and groups of people to believe that through Brexit this will somehow mean that their region or their industry or sector will receive some sort of ‘Brexit dividend’, government led investment or private sector boom. There will be this economic renaissance through trading with the rest of the world and this will create some sort of development for their marginalised local town, region, service or industry, which, has been restricted or abandoned in some way though EU membership, these are all valuable considerations.

These notions of an economic renaissance are regularly demonstrated in the comments of those who voted Leave and this is akin to a cargo cult, the cultish belief that a radically new age will come, bringing in a paradisal age of plenty, together with freedom and justice for past wrongs: brought to the population by charismatic prophets. That this new cargo of a better world will arrive for those without or those who were wronged, the Brexit cargo is on its way here. Or, another way of describing a cargo cult: is a rhetorical and charismatic illusion to win power or influence in a society.    

Whether it will be true that the UK Government will make good on investments of this nature, to invest or lead investment into British people, goods, services, regions or sectors was entirely spurious or speculative at the time of the 2016 Referendum. These proposals, notions and pledges made by those trying to secure a Leave vote in their propaganda, the people making them were not in a position to make good on them, that is because they were not in Government and the referendum vote was not a mandate capable of doing any of these things.

The 2016 referendum was only a mandate to leave the European Union, nothing more. Any of these kinds of notions, proposals or ideas deliberately left vague, were a policy sleight of hand, the veracity of them could only ever be borne out by future real Government action, time, evidence, scrutiny and history, none of which were able to be determined, approved or verified at the time of the vote in 2016.  

So, it is fair to argue any pledges, proposals or notions of investments or booms of this kind were effectively illusory, that they are better described as bribes tailored to a specific town, city, region or individual through the use of focus groups, psychological profiling, social media and micro-targeting. They are valuable considerations, something which is deemed an illegal bribe in British electoral law when deliberately targeted at specific voters using undue interference in this manner.

Yes, politicians do sometimes use the rhetoric of threats, bribes and use excessively emotive language too but that is in some ways undemocratic as well. That reality of political rhetoric does not in any way justify these practices and an amount of the rhetoric used in recent decades has been identified by this manipulative use of psychological profiling using the internet and focus groups. Politicians speaking in public where they might be scrutinised, questioned or challenged is ,also, very different to the modern age of the opaque operation of focus groups, online manipulation and micro-targeting to target specific voters, with what is more insidious and damaging for the integrity of our democracy, how voters can be manipulated to vote in the future, through using individualised or tailored undue influence, disinformation and propaganda. All of this is in order to manage democratic outcomes unlawfully and undemocratically to special or certain interests.

This is the very thing the secret ballot was supposed to prevent: the 1872 and 1883 acts of British law too, furthermore, this profiling of subsets of voters, allows the resentments of different groups within our society to be identified and used to manipulate outcomes too.

Whether that is resentment at: the elites, the political class, the professional class, the intelligentsia, the middle class, the working class, ethnic groups, cultures, movements, attitudes, sympathies or different regions in the country, just about anyone or anything, and for those resentments to be played off on one another, in an elaborate game of divide and conquer. Where clear proposals are avoided and instead a fundamental weakness of democracy is deliberately exposed through identifying and fostering resentments between groups within our society.

The weakness being it is easier to get people to vote against something, someone, a group of people or a target of resentment: than it is to get the electorate to vote for something constructive or just.

This, however, creates more problems with a political body or house divided, with a new politics going forward built on resentment, punishment, vindictiveness, malice, blame or scapegoating: what are the ramifications of that? They will be further ugliness, dispute, rebellion, retribution and disaster. Yet, these very negative ideas, sentiments and divisive attitudes are what has been tapped into and are being used to obtain or secure power.

This power is then being exploited to further malign the constructive democratic progress of society, in that democracy or politics has to be in service of the national interest and building a better society for all, this is the true meaning and purpose of democracy as a political model.

Democracy is the challenging endeavour of building a more just or better society, where policy is convened around the truth, clear or evidenced based proposals and rational arguments. Using the public good principle as its guide to improve the lot of all over the longer term to the best of its ability and where the rule of just principled law is higher than any agent acting within that society. A society which has the welfare, security, peace, prosperity and protections of the population and future generations as its guiding lights, if it is not, it is failing as a system of government and is instead managed to a faction, demagoguery or ochlocracy. Otherwise, our politics and democratic institutions have lost sight of their legitimate purposes and meaning to resolve the complex issues societies face: choosing expediency and private or narrow political desires, over more just public principles of governance.

With Brexit, a consensus has to be reached which is broadly acceptable.  If Brexit is not the democratic means to build a better society for the population now and for future generations, as it was regularly sold as, with institutions or policies which genuinely and evidentially serve the population, then why do it at all?

If it is not, then it will just meet with further oppositional forces and create an ongoing dispute or schism within our society, making it undemocratic in the sense that democracy is to serve the people, the demos: not certain groups of people or special interests above others or a section of our society in a limited time frame. Democracy has to contain long term planning, thinking and strategy for the stability of the state or it will eventually lead to societal and political collapse.

These techniques of getting around the secret ballot by targeting voters to obtain mandates in a clandestine manner, using undue influence and resentment divide and conquer tactics, these are totally unacceptable. As it is often achieved through using the services of companies of other countries who are not fully under the jurisdiction of UK law, especially regarding social media.

They operate in essentially a lawless space, whilst using methods and propaganda as in the case of Facebook and in Silicon Valley, they will not fully allow UK authorities or journalists to see and who will not make themselves accountable to our Parliament, courts or citizens, through refusing to attend Select Committees in an executive capacity and by withholding evidence. There has been foreign state interference too with the propaganda machines of Russia, they are beyond the UK courts and our law system as well, but like the other agents involved, they are all as well, breaking UK and British law, which, according to many Brexiters should be entirely sacrosanct and paramount.     

This is not trying to persuade people with policy or clear proposals in a transparent democratic way, it is using other tactics to win their vote, the very tactics of undue influence the secret ballot was designed to prevent. It is corrosive and corrupting for our democracy as these practices to circumvent the secret ballot are happening without full disclosure and it is demagogic, it is mostly an appeal to the desires, irrationalities and prejudices of ordinary people.

Demagoguery is the antithesis and nemesis of democracy, as appealing to desires, prejudices, selfishness, excessive emotion, irrationality or short term interests can or will have destructive consequences for any society in the longer term.

See for instance man-made climate change, ecological resources issues and pollution problems: where long term planning, cooperation and strategies are very necessary. The corporate man-made climate change deniers, polluters, dark money, elite power and the corporatists who benefit from governmental inaction on these matters, they prefer this current demagogic state of political affairs as it suits their short term but evidentially destructive agendas.

As it is far easier to manipulate ‘democratic’ elections using these sophisticated techniques of demagoguery and ochlocracy which get around the secret ballot, to serve their interests. To prevent the implementation of international or domestic laws or policies to protect against their malpractice, damage, negligence and corrosive actions for the long term health of our societies, as the debate can happily remain for them in a world of prejudices, resentments, desires, selfishness, fabricated bogeymen and distractions; in a democracy which is supposedly constitutionally obliged to serve the whole population and the national interest into the future.

These elite, wealthy, industrialist, corporate special interest groups, figures and lobbyists who seek to have their interests served above everything and anyone else in our society in a profoundly undemocratic, more like antidemocratic way, who wish to deny any proper debate or action on a green transition and a more just sustainable society, they now have the support of the ruling party in this country after this electoral saga and vice versa.

It is, also, clear that corporate and wealthy elite power has funded either directly or indirectly these getting around of the secret ballot techniques, which were used in the Brexit vote, other elections in the UK too and as has become apparent, many other elections around the world as well, as the Cambridge Analytica scandal exposed in The Great Hack proves beyond any doubt.

To reiterate, the constitutional duty of our Parliament is to serve the national interest. The worst excesses of manmade climate change, other pollution, natural resource or ecological issues are not in the national interest: at least not in a sane national interest, nor, are they in the long term interest of any other nation in the world, the entire human race, that is a scientific and mathematical certainty,  it is entirely irrational to argue otherwise and democracy has to remain in the rational world to be legitimate.

So, not only is our Parliament not serving the real national interest, it has allowed the fostering and practice of demagoguery on a huge scale to emerge in our democracy. It has allowed discourse to be based on irrationality, prejudices, selfish short term interest, discrimination, malice and hatred over rational argument or clear proposals to resolve societal issues. It has allowed reactionary, elite, wealthy, propertied, corporate and industrialist power to corrupt democracy to narrow special interests, using illegal undue interference and resentment divide and conquer tactics, to create a manipulated and thoroughly managed politics.

This is the very thing the secret ballot was designed to prevent happening all those years ago and why this circumventing of the secret ballot is so pernicious and insidious.

I am not a lawyer or a judge but we are in a very dangerous place if the Government, the Cabinet, political parties and the Prime Minister are acting above the law, especially electoral law in a democracy. If any of this is illegal, unlawful or not, is not as consequential or controversial as it being a set of conspicuously corrupt and undemocratic practices. These actions were known as being just that, almost two hundred years ago, so much so, they were legislated against by our sovereign Parliament a century before we joined the EU and before the introduction of full manhood suffrage, these practices were made illegal in our law.

What should happen as a consequence of this? All sorts of things, what will happen? More than likely nothing will happen, as seemingly few people of influence or not enough people care about the integrity of our democracy or the national interest or what the real democratic national interest should be: in providing for the  liberty, justice, peace, welfare, prosperity, security, fair treatment and stability of the population and posterity of the country. If democracy is not in service of these higher more noble principles, then it is open to the vagaries, vices and abuses of the tyranny of the majority, demagoguery and ochlocracy, it is no longer a democratic society or a democratic system.

Neither, do enough people care sufficiently about the rule of British law or the wishes of those who suffered and in some cases gave their lives for authentic democracy to exist in this country, those who suffered and died in movements such as The Chartists, The Suffragettes or The English Levellers.

What is more whilst mentioning democratic history: the techniques reviewed here used in Brexit, are similar to unscrupulous and damaging tactics employed in democracies going back to ancient Roman and Greek times. Throw lots of money at identifying some sort of policy, idea or thing to win support off your democratic rivals to secure your own interests: Brexit. Never mind whether these policies serve the state, the population or society or are implemented significantly, just somehow get their support with some sort of policy sleight of hand, valuable consideration, other bribes, use of populism or demagoguery to cement your own power or interests.

This politics of factional self-interest in ancient democratic history was often a sign of the emergence of a more extreme politics: authoritarianism, dictatorship or the severe destabilisation or collapse of an empire or state. One thing it is not again is democratic, as it is winning support through manipulative means, not rational argument and is serving narrow factional interests over those of the whole nation.       

The population and future generations will just have to see what the consequences are of living in a corrupted unlawful democracy turned managed demagoguery and ochlocracy, and not just in this country, where divide and conquer is an acceptable means of denying a politics in service of all or a stable, sustainable society.

The worst part of this unlawful corruption of our democracy has been the disingenuous claims with feigned innocence of the agents who have benefited and secured their interests through this corruption. The outrageous lie that democracy has not been corrupted and is perfectly healthy, when they are completely aware it has been corrupted and this was always the intention of those behind these practices.

Furthermore, like other vaunted reforms in democratic history, Brexit, so very often presented as a liberating force to the nation, is in reality the preservation and consolidation of largely elite, wealthy, propertied, industrialist and reactionary power, presented as reform.

The mandate for it won through the destruction of the secret ballot: through using a series of threats and bribes (which were mostly illusory) alongside a mixture of lies, hyperbole, disinformation, fake histories, misinformation or the outright fantastical in its propaganda. This only needed to work on a small margin of the electorate to tip the balance to win power, which it has and those who do not think democratic results can be bought and managed in this manner are naïve.

Our democracy has been managed, managed illegally and unconstitutionally away from any democratic foundations,it has been bought, it is not worthy of the name democracy and our Parliament can no longer be considered constitutional or legitimate.   

—

I am going to do the thing of asking for money, there is a link on my WordPress page. I would encourage you to consider that money is power. If you give money to those agencies or forces you agree with in society, then you are giving them power and when it comes to writing and journalism, you are supporting freedom and giving those voices power against the powerful.

I would ask you to consider that all money is power and you give a lot of your power to institutions, which you accumulate through your endeavours. I ask you to question those institutions and question that power relationship, surely we should all have more say on what happens with our accumulated power and those institutions, actors or agencies should be compelled to act responsibly in the society and world we all live in. Where true values not price are paramount, as after all, we are all moral actors in this society and virtue and just principles have to have the upper hand over vice, otherwise we are on a very destructive trajectory.

We all need to act with the health of society and the world in mind. It is unacceptable for agencies in our society to hoard our power then gives us little to no say over what happens with it, whilst acting in damaging, corrosive and irresponsible ways. A society with powerful undemocratic forces that takes your power and uses it for these purposes: where there are no proper principled or just guidelines, moralities or laws is tyrannical and totalitarian. Especially, when in reality there are few to no choices as to who we give that power to and the sheer amounts of power we have to forfeit.

A so called freedom or freedoms which destroys and removes the liberty of others especially the posterity, that is not freedom at all,it is tyranny, no matter how sugar-coated and immediately gratifying it might be in the present day. It is an arbitrary use of power, a power placed beyond the rule of law, accountability, democracy, morality and sound principled governance.    

Preface

I am submitting this now, I would have liked more time editing, checking and adding links but thought I must submit it now before the election. I doubt it will have any influence but I felt I must submit it beforehand, I may well submit an adjusted version later. (Now edited)

To the inevitable people who will disagree with me, fine, I am not after everyone’s agreement, although, I do hope to get your consideration of the arguments and ideas presented.

Please donate or buy me a coffee, if you consider it worthy by clicking on the robertjohntrap73 tab on the profile website, below the main heading, many thanks if you do.

The Fourteen Common Features of Fascism by Umberto Eco, Brexit, Leave, Nigel Farage, UKIP and The Conservative Party: a comparative essay and a warning.

By Robert John

Umberto Eco lived under the rule of Mussolini, so, he is, or now sadly was, more qualified than many others to be able to determine the common features of fascism. Other writers have identified other features of fascism, their followers, leaders and the manifestations of fascism and totalitarianism in more depth. For the sake of focus, however, this essay will stick largely to the fourteen features identified by him in his famous essay, Hannah Arendt will make an occasional appearance in the essay too.

Why is fascism emerging in a country something to be feared? This would seem obvious to millions, but for the sake of clarity, Fascism by its very nature causes domestic or international conflict: it is destructive, corrosive, more often than not leading to war or militarism, civil unrest, civil war, revolutions and oppression of different groups within a society. Fascism is, also, very much an antidemocratic force, which places the institutions of democracy under attack and can destroy them outright to replace them with executive rule, authoritarianism, totalitarianism or dictatorship.

Eco saw fascism as being amorphous in terms of a name, for instance Nazism but its manifestations as an ideology or way of operating are the same,  he described it as a ‘fuzzy totalitarianism’ that was often contradictory, although, contradictions allow for a wider scope of control, manipulation and convenient ideological manoeuvre,  a lack of clarity or consistency allowing for the justification of anything, as anything can be justified as being righteous in serving a purpose towards ‘the cause’ no matter how tenuous or ridiculous it may appear.

So, this essay will look at how the actions, rhetoric and policies of Brexiters, Leave, Farage, the UK Government and Brexit measure up to The Fourteen Features of Fascism Eco identified and if it is a ‘cause’ to justify actions for. Yes, The Brexit Party are not in charge of our Parliament and Brexit has not happened yet, but both of those things could potentially happen or at least for The Brexit Party to have more influence on our political realm. With the 2019 election it would appear the influence of The Brexit Party on the policies and direction of The Conservative Party, its policies and future direction are profound. Brexit is their flagship policy and that No deal will be the reality as they have ruled out an extension of negotiation deadlines.

If mandated HM Government under the Conservatives will Brexit, so, it is important to evaluate, are people within Leave fascists, is fascism involved, are elements of The Conservative Party fascist, is this fascism or are there fascistic elements within Brexit? As this could have very damaging implications and consequences for our society if there are.

This essay will contend that there is fascism involved in Brexit and Leave and will explain how it marries up to the features listed by Eco.

This essay is not an exhaustive list of the features of fascism and links to Brexit but it will focus on certain things, speculate, comment and question on some of the wider implications and meanings of Brexit for the UK, because if the UK is about to be reborn, everyone should be questioning just what it is the UK is going to be reborn as and everyone should be asking what is their stake or position in this rebirth.

We all live here after all, we all should be asking questions and demanding answers. So, there will be critical thinking of the arguments and ideas carried within the Brexit debate, critical thinking often seems to be missing from the discourse about it, when if a country is about to choose a new path then critical thinking should be the most prominent function.

1. The cult of tradition “One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic and occult elements.”

The cult of tradition is that there are acceptable traditions and those traditions are somehow sacrosanct or have been damaged or are being ignored, banished or eroded in some way. In returning to or promoting these traditions and having these acceptable and very proper traditions in operation, society will be repaired, it will be able to function properly.

An example of this in Brexit is the notion of a ‘British culture’ or ‘British Identity’ which is prevalent in the rhetoric of Leave and that this British Culture has been under attack, ignored or has been diminished, diluted and unless Brexit happens, it will be somehow lost forever. The details of what that identity or culture is are vague to say the least, but that is unimportant rhetorically, as what is important is to suggest this ‘culture’ is under attack, it is under attack by: globalists, foreign powers or forces, immigration, foreigners, other religions and multiculturalism. These forces or threats must be brought under control and the government or the powers that be are not protecting the victims of the destruction of British culture or identity.

The victims being the believers in a strangely undefined and amorphous British Culture and the acceptable British people, the main characteristic of this seems often to be: being white.

Nigel Farage said ‘in many parts of England, you don’t hear English spoken anymore (vague mostly as to where in England, ignorant that English was not the first language in Britain, Latin was here before more modern English or that English itself, has its roots in Germanic languages, French too or rather ignoring many Brits go abroad, even live abroad and speak in some places only English or ignores that English is not the only language spoken in the UK )…this is not the kind of community we want to leave to our children and grandchildren ( it being easily suggestible there will be other things communities desire ahead of everyone speaking English as a first language)’, Britain a century ago was far more internationalist as well, because of the empire.

Rhetorically what this does, instantly, is create a division, an us and them, it rather implies that grave action needs to be taken to deal with them. Them who are ignoring or destroying the tradition of British Culture, one of the most important aspects of which is, apparently, speaking English, even though our language was imported and although there are plentiful great aspects of British culture, our culture has more often than not been borrowed or appropriated or developed from elsewhere too; for example Shakespeare was influenced by Greek Theatre and The Beatles from American Rock and Roll and Blues music.  

There has been, also, a lot of talk of certain towns, districts or cities no longer being British. This division of us and them again and this demanding of action against those deemed separate or not part of the nation or who are damaging the culture in some way: these are all obvious features of fascism. The idea that through this cult of tradition, the return or promotion of ‘The British Culture’ or British people, through these traditions returning which in reality never really existed, through the reinstatement of them and the British ways or people, all will be resolved in our society in the future. The implications of this being that those considered outside this group should have fewer rights or representations, they should not be seen as equal and that action must be taken against them  to reduce or remove them. As they are attacking or are in defiance of our ‘traditions’, our British Culture, well, a British Culture that is defined by certain people for the purposes of politics and manipulation.

This us and them culture has become an official government policy since 2016 with ‘settled status’. Now many immigrants or people of immigrant heritage some of whom who have lived here their entire adult lives, consider themselves citizens, have children, businesses and careers here, their ability to remain in this country is now in confusion, under threat and may become impossible for some, their very citizenship. Yet, strangely our government is not demanding British people in other EU countries are treated in the same way, even though many of them are doing exactly the same things with their lives, which, is a very questionable set of standards.  

This is a policy or policies of acceptable and non-acceptable Britons. People who have contributed to our culture, who have learnt the language and who have broken no laws have to leave, this being for the benefit of the cult of tradition or for the reason of the British Culture, otherwise, why make citizenry so awkward and difficult for people, when they have done nothing wrong or committed no crime? Who would be pleased by the introduction of this policy, other than those who bear malice to foreigners or citizens originating from other countries?  

A clear definition of what a ‘True Brit’ is has been left vague in this debate, as to do so would be to create an exclusivity which would be politically damaging. Farage, UKIP and Leave have dismissed accusations of racism by saying there are people who voted Leave or who support them, who are from a different ethnicity.

There have, however, been countless instances of racism to people of all ethnic backgrounds and towards particularly Muslim Communities from Brexiters and the anti-Islam tirade speeches from Nigel Farage or the infamous poster of him standing in front of refugees from the Middle East, Boris Johnson too and the Conservative Party have been accused of Islamophobia. The exclusionary notions that not speaking English is not British or that parts of Britain ‘are like a foreign land’ something Farage said in 2014.

This rather suggests that those from different cultures or traditions outside a white, Christian heritage, may have to do more to prove their ‘Britishness’ in any final analysis of where Brexit may take our society. There has been a rise in hate crime, intolerance and racism of all kinds since 2016.        

This contradictory and loose definition of being British can, however, be very much used as a stick to beat people with, including anyone not signing up to Brexit, who have similarly been accused of not being British enough, aiding and abetting the foreign or globalist power or being a fifth columnist or being an enemy of the cult of tradition in British culture. The people making these accusations have been overwhelmingly very much white. The argument being that action needs to be taken against the Non British Brit, with demands that Remain voters and those not behind Brexit go and live on the continent or are made to live there by the new Brexit government.

This is a Britishness which is never really clearly defined beyond voting Leave, but certain Brexiters have the stamp of approval and can determine who is on the outside and who is on the inside. Being British, something which could amorphously and rhetorically change over time and people who thought they were British, they may suddenly find that they are no longer British anymore at a later time.

So, yes, on the first feature of Fascism, the cult of tradition, Farage, numerous Brexiters and Leavers meet this feature, the government too with settled status. Which, could have very serious consequences were the keys of power handed over to this line of thinking for a prolonged period, as many millions of people would be instantly considered not completely British citizens by the governing bodies.

This is further illustrated by The Brexit Party founder Catherine Blaiklock and her conspicuous links to far right organisations, including ones calling for forced repatriation and Neo Nazis is a case study. If you just look at her Twitter feed, you can gauge her attitudes and of those who support her, there is plenty of anti-immigration, minority, hostile, racist and bullying rhetoric coming from her, before she was abandoned or made to leave by the party and she protested on exit, that ‘The Brexit Party is not right wing enough’.

She curiously got very upset when the BBC made a documentary on The Rise of the Nazis, which, she seemed to think had been made deliberately as some sort of Remain conspiracy slight on The Brexit Party and called for the BBC to be banned, to quote Shakespeare ‘Methinks the lady protests to much’.  She has attacked all sorts of groups in society, which are mostly people with a non-white skin, immigrants, environmentalists, foreigners, gay people and anyone with a different political view. Alternative political views is something she seemingly argues should not be allowed, in of all places a democracy and if she is indicative of some of the attitudes behind Brexit, someone who is close to those at the head of the movement. Then those attitudes being given full licence is something to be very concerned about, there being clear links to fascistic ideologies here.  

Where does this mind set, ideology, policy making and thinking go if given free reign? The settled status and hostile immigration programme are bad enough but what are the levels above that exactly, should this be empowered, legitimised or endorsed further?

2. The rejection of modernism. “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity, in this sense Ur- Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.”

A perfect example of the rejection of modernism or more modern thought is the speech Farage gave about The Royal Family in Australia. Firstly, he praised The Queen for her more traditional role as a ‘traditional’ monarch figure, then he went on to criticise Prince Charles for his views on climate change and supporting measures to deal with that. Then he criticised Prince Harry and mixed race Meghan Markle, who is a hate figure by those on the right, Brexiters and many newspapers, for their progressive views. This is after praising Harry as a bachelor going to a fancy dress party, dressed as a Nazi, Farage preferring Harry then.

Farage has openly declared that he is a climate change denier,  as have many other Brexiters and those supporting Leave:  Jacob Rees Mogg (nicknamed Rees Smogg for his attitudes to air pollution), Arron Banks, Ann Widecombe, Claire Fox, Annunziata Rees-Mogg, George Farmer, Nathan Gill, Michael Heaver, Martin Daubney, Lance Forman, Richard Tice, all those at Tufton Street and John Longworth.  

The Conservative Party are deniers in action, they have disinvested in green technology, planning and have implemented mostly damaging or counterproductive green energy policies. The party taking the politically irresponsible and convenient rhetorical route of blaming or placing the responsibility on individuals in society or that ‘the market’ will somehow provide solutions. A policy chosen by other denying bodies, movements or authorities as it absolves them of blame or responsibility or worse still, having to take the necessary meaningful action, when creating convenient blame figures, reasons or excuses is so much easier.  

Not all Brexit advocates or Leave voters are deniers of course, but, the ones who have the most power and influence are. When the one hundred percent scientific consensus view is that manmade climate change is real., there is no doubt anymore, it is like claiming the Earth is flat, climate change denial is irrationality on a species ending and endangering scale. The Conservative Party has in government facilitated and endorsed fracking over renewables, their policy and attitudes are not in an evidence based or rational position towards this threat, they clearly endorse fossil fuels over a green transition.

‘People have had enough of experts’ the famous line of Michael Gove is a classic case of irrationality and a rejection of intellectualism. Yes, experts can be wrong and in many ways the true meaning of intellectualism is to challenge thinking, theory, evidence and learning, including your own views, ideas or beliefs to find meaning. Doubt, reassessment, re-evaluation, mistakes and being wrong are all part of the process to higher understanding.

The notion, however, experts are to be dismissed or ignored completely is absurd and dangerous; the pursuit of human knowledge, truth and meaning is a gradual process. An intellectual, professor or scientist may spend their whole career wrestling with an idea, concept or understanding to not conclusively deal with or understand it or to still have doubts or reservations but through their understanding, thoughts or actions: open the doors for others or open up new areas or fields of understanding, including in political, economic or societal thought. What experts have done is spend a lot of time, their whole careers: reading, thinking, evaluating, considering and trying to understand a subject or subjects. Expertise is not omniscience but it does mean a higher understanding or appreciation of a subject or sector.

If we are not going to allow those with knowledge, learning, experience and expertise to govern or lead our society using rationality, reasoning and evidence: then our society will surely be in trouble in the long term.

What will be the governing principles be instead, popularity, just popularity alone? If that is the case then our governing institutions will be wide open to demagoguery, charlatanism, charm, arbitrary power or irrationality as the governing levers. This cannot end well if those are in charge long term, any healthy society has to be guided by rational, virtuous intelligence. Not intelligence on its own, as other qualities will be necessary and intelligence can be used for immoral or amoral ends, but it can definitely not be ignored, if that society is to survive, sustain and thrive. 

There has been an attack on intellectuals, Academia in general as being pro Remain, attacks in rhetoric on students, professors, economic experts and historians. The best example being the MP Chris Heaton Harris McCarthyite like letter demanding information on those lecturers lecturing at university on Brexit or European political affairs and what they were teaching,  arguing or discussing.

A shocking attempted witch hunt by Heaton Harris against opposing views or perceived opposing views and a clear attempt to devise a list of professors for who knows what purpose. His laughable claims when he backed down in the light of criticism that he is a proponent of free speech in the aftermath, this can be dismissed with the rebuttal, why send the letter in the first place if you believe in free speech?

Just because a lecturer says something, it does not mean you have to agree with it after all. It, also, rather implies a warning or threat about anyone academically scrutinising Brexit, the implications or the consequences of it, when after all, that is what academics and students do, they evaluate, interpret and study phenomena in the world of all kinds.

Why the open letter though? When all of the information he required could easily be found on Google in an afternoon. What was going to be proposed or what would happen in the identification of an anti-Brexit intellectual or professor? Something Heaton Harris was a little unclear about and he has since not pursued his challenging of professors or intellectuals or lecturers in this field, this is remarkably odd. It would be almost as if he ran away from the challenge of putting forward his intellectual and rational counterarguments, rather than pursue this project as a way to engage in an intellectual rigour about Brexit and its implications, his intellectual challenge of academics has quietly gone away.  

Would that be because the counterarguments have no real merit? Sadly, we will never know.    

There are numerous other irrationalities in the arguments for Brexit, for example that people knew exactly what they voted for but simultaneously, no one will know what will happen. The UK will be able to negotiate a better deal with the EU than membership as an outsider, that Brexit is about being more international through ideas like ‘Global Britain’, whilst, it is at the same time removing itself from easily the biggest and most integrated international movement in the history of humanity thus far. That somehow shortfalls in our interactions with the EU will be made up in the Far East, with countries like China or India, but are they aware of this? Might not they have something to say about it? How is everyone in the UK with speaking Hindi or Mandarin Chinese?  That the UK took no active part as members and were endlessly having things imposed on them, when the evidence and historical facts confirm the opposite.

Brexit is riddled with irrationality. That a vote to Leave was argued by different Brexiters concurrently: to be a vote to destroy the communist or socialist superstate of The EU and by another, a vote to destroy the dark corporate forces of capitalism, it cannot be both. 

In that revolutionary struggle, the forces that would prevail would more than likely be those on the right. As generally they are the better resourced and serve the elites, but this strange contradictory revolution, with contradictory ideological forces working within it from left or right, it cannot be grounded in what is rational. Similar, opposing revolutionary forces have existed historically in societies and countries before, right before a fascist take over. So, Brexit rhetoric and action again, meets this feature of fascism, as being in the realm of the irrational and anti-intellectualism.   

3. The Cult of action for action’s sake “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation”.

Brexit now! No deal Brexit! WTO Brexit! Leave means Leave! Get Brexit Done, these are all statements and slogans seen over and over. As the action demanded when fleshed out with any detail are invariably riddled with inconsistencies, incompatibilities and totally unworkable proposals.

They are all demands for action, action for the sake of action.

Actions, however, have consequences and some of those can be very grave, serious and long lasting. Decisions about the directions a country or society go in require careful consideration, planning, forethought, review, evaluation and reflection. A desired destination needs to be identified that as a society you are trying to achieve, a set of principles by which you wish to be governed or a desired outcome for the population of the struggle ahead forging a new position in the world.

Surely the question, independent of the EU, just what is it the UK is trying to achieve or be through Brexit, should be paramount in the debate? Bizarrely the debate is mostly not about this, if you are not trying to build a new society or country, then why even bother to do it at all? Or, why are not Brexit advocates clearly stating their plans for our society? We all live here after all and we have a right to know.  

Lots of people seem to be demanding action but are not really asking properly, just what it is in the long run those actions are trying to achieve which would be beneficial to Britain. What it would mean for citizens and future generations in real, quantifiable evidence based terms and what are the designs for our future society.

For the sake of argument, let us say Brexit goes really badly. It is an absolute disaster and causes huge damage to our society because of taking action for the sake of action, a no deal Brexit for instance, it is a wrecking ball through our society, economy and nation.

How will those decisions be viewed then in the future? How might a total lack of circumspection or a considered plan in the cold light of day be seen by the analytical eyes of historians in the future? It is unlikely to be seen favourably. Why, would any sensible society, government or parliament take those actions without the proper thought? Why take an action for the sake of action? Surely any country should make the right choice, having considered all of its options? Choosing the evidence based, most thought through and well-reasoned option with clear and identifiable virtues of the courses of action to be taken.

Now it may seem bold, daring, courageous, exciting or noble to take such a forthright action with Brexit but it leaves a lot of questions that will require further actions or solutions. Well, what are those actions or solutions going to be? Things do not end with Brexit, if this is to be a new beginning for British society, then what is that new beginning going to be? Slogans are not going to serve as practicable in the light of what are bound to be nuanced and complex problems or difficulties for any nation seeking to redefine or reposition itself on the international stage.

A good example of that is the UK or British internal market or the bizarre lack of a proper debate about the kind of society or country Britain will be post Brexit. Leave, Brexiters, the opposition and our own government have been unclear about what kind of society or marketplace we want in the UK, Brexit is a real opportunity to do this.

How do we want employment rights to work for instance, what kinds of protections do we want to have for workers, how do we want employers or companies to conduct themselves in our society or marketplaces? How do we want to insure investment is happening in every part of our society? What is our policy to be for instance on energy, water, pollution, research and development? What are we trying to achieve through investment in terms of wage levels or opportunities for careers, education or training? What is the society, economy and politics we want to arrive at which benefits the whole nation, population and how are we going to achieve it?

There are actions that need to be taken going forward regarding these, yet there seems to be a huge paucity of debate about what those action or policies will be.  There seems to be a huge focus on certain types of actions as being worthwhile, when surely what these actions will mean is far more important? And, there seems to be a very narrow focus on a few quite extreme actions which leaves little room for debate about just what those actions could or will achieve. This seems extremely rash, immature and irresponsible, it seems rather exclusive too. As it is not really asking or proposing in a way that is clear, the kind of society the British want or demonstrating how Brexit will serve as many of the population as possible, saying it will be ‘great’, is a little short on detail.  

These fine words of greatness sound remarkably similar to something Hannah Arendt who wrote about fascism and totalitarianism noticed about the rhetoric of fascists and totalitarian movements ‘ideologies that pretend to be keys to history but are actually nothing but desperate efforts to escape responsibility.” Promises of success in thirty years as Boris Johnson said in his maiden speech  or fifty years time are something she would recognise as framing the debate far into the future to avoid scrutiny, responsibility, sound actions or clear proposals now, a time when the people saying it, will either be retired or dead. Or, justifying any actions now as serving some mythical ‘golden future’ that they will never have to defend or be assessed against ‘There is hardly a better way to avoid discussion than by releasing an argument from the control of the present and by saying that only the future will reveal its merits.’

‘Thinking is a form of emasculation’ is a feature clearly here too as through not taking action, there is ineffectiveness or impotence and things are not happening or moving forward quickly enough. Yet, surely anything which has the very livelihoods of the nation at stake, requires plenty of thought and consideration before any action is taken. Parliament is taking too much time debating, analysing and thinking about Brexit, when Brexit just needs to happen, somehow thinking about it is lacking the balls to just do it or take action.

The choice was popular, that is all that matters, just get on with it.

Here it is probably best to consider the ship example Socrates gave as a criticism against democracy. Imagine that metaphorically society is a ship in a storm, what kind of decisions or people would you want governing that ship, considering you are on that ship too? Wise people, making well thought through decisions about how to navigate the ship through those waters, who have experience, are considerate and knowledgeable in sailing, making wise and well thought through decisions? Or, would you want just the most popular person with the most Facebook likes or friends on board to make those decisions on action, no matter what their qualities at sailing are?

Which society or ship is more likely to survive, the one who has thought through their choices using acumen, intelligence, wisdom, reason, evidence and experience? Or, the one which is governed by charm, popularity or worse still the beguiling, where the most popular person on the ship just demands random actions to be taken because at least something is happening?

These questions are important about Brexit and for democracy in general, because popularity of personality or an idea does not necessarily confer the qualities or ability to lead automatically, especially, through a difficult or challenging situation; for that sound judgement, intelligence, wisdom, experience, evidence, practicality, pragmatism and planning are the more likely attributes to result in success.    

Another example of this in Brexit is leaving the Single market and Customs Union, this is an action for the sake of action. I doubt that many people will have ever heard of or understood what the Customs Union is or know how the Single market works or what it is for before 2016.  There are not many instances that readily come to mind of either of them killing anyone, but the urgency to take action to leave both would suggest this is somehow a regular occurrence. 

What they are both seemingly there to do as mechanisms is to facilitate trade, yet, if trade was a reason for leaving because that was causing problems in society, then how can more trade alone be a solution, to problems caused by trade? There is more irrationality here. The solutions on proposals for a post Brexit UK seemingly focus on trade deals elsewhere in the world, the US being one example, because there have been few solutions about how Brexit will improve society beyond trade, sovereignty or economics.  So, again, trade or new trade as an action in itself without any qualities or conditions attached would seem irrational and potentially very counterproductive for society, unless it is clear how trade alone improves things for society and that has not been made clear. There is no clarity, when the nation deserves clarity!

How will the new UK marketplace benefit citizens, their workplace, their rights, their communities and lives?  Brexit seems to inspire lots of questions but has few answers beyond bromide, magical thinking, platitudes, rhetoric, facile assertions or arguments and profoundly untested solutions. There certainly are not detailed actual proposals, evidence or plans which can be evaluated in any meaningful way.

Leaving the Single market and Customs Union assumes that something better can replace them, well is there definitely something better? How do people asking for this action definitely know? Why are they unable to explain their better alternative?

Yet, action for the sake of action is demanded by Brexiters and this includes those in government and Parliament overseeing Brexit saying things like ‘Get Brexit done’ so we can ‘get out now’, slogans which are entirely empty of meaning or actual policies but are all about action for the sake of action.   

Conversely, for the sake of argument let us now say that Brexit through its actions goes really well.

The UK becomes a very successful ‘independent nation’, which has served its citizens and future generations commendably, let us leave aside how this exactly can be done or how you can judge, measure or quantify that for one moment.

Would this not be a greatest gift that the UK is going to give to the world? How to be a fully functioning and brilliantly ran independent country, society or state?

So, these actions and choices take on a whole new meaning, not just for the UK but for every citizen and country in the world. These actions would be something that would be impossible to keep a secret, if the actions taken are so impactful in a way that it is difficult to dispute, then that would make these actions some of the most important actions and choices ever taken.

Can those be actions that happen with little to no proper thought through choices or without intelligent consideration, reflection or be decisions made which have no obvious or explainable merits and are just taken to do something?    

So, action for the sake of action it is, unless there is proper consideration, thought and reasoning to arrive at clear, realistic and actionable proposals, as taking the action to leave with no clear directions: is a cult of action for actions sake.

Brexit is fascism in this regard here, until it proves itself beyond doubt to be otherwise.

4. Disagreement is Treason. ‘The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.’

‘Traitor Remain voters…should be hung’ Padmini Nissanga, UKIP Councillor. Eleven Remain MP’s ‘betray their leader’, Judges are ‘Enemies of the People’ Daily Mail headline, ‘Corbyn’s Brexit Betrayal’ Yvette Cooper branded ‘Traitor by her constituents’ ‘Quislings, collaborators and traitors’ Gerrad Batten of UKIP talking about Remainers. Brexit Party candidate suggesting Remain MPs should be taken to The Tower, to be executed like traitors were in the past. Brexit betrayal, the language of traitors, betrayal and treason has been a regular feature of the debate of Brexit, there have been open calls for all Remain voters to be mass murdered on social media.  

Disagreement is treason has been a feature of the debate around Brexit, leaving aside the very questionable and illegal means by which the mandate was won. The mandate of 2016 has then been used to justify a whole series of actions, proposals, suggestions and policies, then rhetoric has emerged that anything which does not serve ‘Brexit’, is a betrayal of the mandate.

What has never been made very clear cut, however, is exactly what is meant by Brexit beyond very simplistic terms, with often conflicting views coming from those advocating for Brexit and Leave and from the different parties in Parliament too, as to just what Brexit is.   

One of the striking examples here of disagreement over betrayal is those advocating for a WTO (Word Trade Organisation) Brexit. Firstly, this was dismissed as ‘Project fear’ and never going to happen in the 2016 Referendum debate but has since then emerged after the debate in 2016 as a serious proposal and even the only true version of Brexit. Which, rather begs the question that if WTO Brexit is the only true Brexit, then why was that not what all the Leave advocates and Leave proposed in 2016?

They obviously and with overwhelming evidence to the contrary did not propose this ‘WTO Brexit’, if they did from the start, the result would have more than likely been very different in the referendum. As ”We intend to destroy completely all our economic, political, societal, legal, technical and logistical links and arrangements with our nearest neighbours as countries to operate on the worst trade terms possible in the world” as a political campaign, this would have been unlikely to have done as well as the sugar coated, jingoistic and facile notions presented in 2016 from Leave advocates about how everything with Brexit would be wonderful and extremely easy.   

WTO and No deal were dismissed as ‘the worst case scenario’ by Nigel Farage and nothing to be concerned about by Boris Johnson because we were going to get a ‘great deal’ which according to some was going to be sorted out over a cup of tea, done and dusted in an afternoon and a better deal than the one we have now.

To not want no deal now though is traitorous and those trying to prevent it are ‘surrendering’, no one is allowed to disagree with no deal according to many people or Brexit happening no matter what, to disagree with Brexit and no deal Brexit is traitorous.

It is clear now that the Conservative government is heading towards no deal or effective no deal, in its declarations and rhetoric over Brexit, so, this is or could become government policy next year.  

Move on three years from 2016 and Farage on his LBC radio show is going on about betrayal, collaborators, internal enemies, infiltration and fifth columnists (even though, when it comes to his role in the EU: he is conspicuously and very ironically all of those things). This is all the rhetoric of fascism: the enemies without, the enemies within and the imagined victimhood.  His position and that of The Brexit Party and what he is demanding of the Conservative Party is now no deal and WTO, something that he described as ‘the worst case scenario’ is now the thing that he demands as Brexit. The position he claims now is the one true Brexit, which, three years ago was the worst one and anything else is ‘betrayal’?

People with slightly longer memories will remember him endlessly proposing Norway as a way forward for Britain, a country which is in the Single market. Many other Leave advocates suggested we are staying in the Single market, including the now Prime Minister on the Leave campaign trial ‘I’d vote to stay in the Single market’. Farage is still given a huge media platform, including his own radio show and he is rarely if ever pulled up on this in interviews but is instead allowed to spout his next change of position and what is his latest inconsistent manipulation of what the mandate is. This convenient ideological and contradictory positioning in serving ‘the cause’ is a conspicuous feature of fascism.       

What is more remarkable is that the EU negotiators have offered us a deal, the WA to negotiate ‘a deal’, the EU negotiators have understandably been a little cool on what that deal could be for a few reasons. Firstly, the UK has not made its intentions and position clear, there have been conflicting and contradictory noises coming from the UK Parliament and parties within it, none of whom have a majority. So, it is difficult to commit to anything outright when the UK has not decided what its position is and figures within the EU are suspicious of the motivations and intentions of the UK Government or some within it and our Parliament, and with good reason.

What is clear, however, is that the EU is willing to make a deal to any UK government who is willing to clearly state its position and make compromises, compromises which can only be reached through negotiations, which at the moment has not happened, the UK has not meaningfully entered into negotiations on a future relationship.

So, no deal would be a choice of the UK, to personify, it would not be the EU being unreasonable in some way. The EU has to look after the integrity of the Union and its members and not being a member, we can hardly demand the EU do everything that we want as a non-member. If no deal were to happen, that would be a choice of the UK, as the EU has been as reasonable and diplomatic as possible and as far as the UK has been concerned, it is a good job they have been.

No deal, however, was very much not what was proposed in 2016,to argue this is what was really proposed, this WTO Brexit, is rather opposed to the verifiable truth, reality and empirical evidence of what was actually proposed. Unless someone can provide all the literature, interviews, clips and articles of all of the Leave advocates arguing and proposing exclusively for no deal in 2016? Which would be an impossible task as that did not happen, so, this would be a denial of the truth of the arguments made in the referendum debate and the critical spirit.

However, disagreeing with this assertion about no deal has now become treasonous, that any kind of exit is acceptable when it is clearly not.

What, an exit where we are put on a war footing with France or the EU is acceptable? One that causes long term civil unrest is acceptable? An exit that just has to be reversed because of the ham-fisted or damaging way it is implemented for the UK and EU? One which creates dangerous amounts of instability in Europe or in the UK where demagogues, populists and fascists have free reign? That worked out so well last time. One which damages the prosperity and livelihoods of citizens of the UK and EU in the long term or irreversibly?

There are surely doubts those are acceptable to the majority of population here and in the EU member countries.

The WTO Brexit offers more things where evidence or the critical spirit is being simply ignored or suppressed. Any WTO or hard Brexit would require the implementation of border controls and tariffs, this by the mathematics of the percentages to be applied would make business more expensive and difficult in the UK, and, what is more, the executives of the WTO have stated this too. The WTO themselves have openly stated that it would be a less favourable economic position than the one we have now. Through doing this the WTO have been dismissed as traitors and trying to somehow damage Brexit by Brexiters live on television, so, even the organisation Brexiters want us to join have Brexit traitors in their ranks.

Economics is not everything of course but that is not how the economic arguments of Brexit were sold in 2016 and again, there is a huge amount of verifiable evidence to prove this beyond doubt. Brexit was sold along the lines of there will be no economic downsides at all or on rights, only benefits.

It is the equivalent of arguing that you knew all along that the people you supported in the debate, their rhetoric, literature and so forth or who you were voting for were not telling the truth at all. You knew all the time it would be really damaging for business and would make everything in the country more expensive but voted for it anyway, this would seem a stretch of credibility and the truth, to suggest that all those voting Leave, that all of them thought this in 2016.

This mind-set and acceptance of contrasting rhetoric, lying and deception is something Hannah Arendt noticed about totalitarian and fascist ideologies, with the blatant inconsistencies of message, meaning and bending of the truth; combined with the willingness of people to accept this on mass.

‘In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached the point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and that nothing was true. … Mass propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly object to being deceived because it held every statement to be a lie anyhow. The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness.”

A totalitarian government we may not have, yet, but when it comes to the arguments and rhetoric for Brexit by its advocates, this kind of mind-set and ability to present entirely inconsistent arguments, tell lies, and dismiss reality, the truth or what was said earlier is demonstrable in the evidence provided in this section. The willingness of millions to accept this state of affairs too.

Politicians have argued in all seriousness that is effectively what people voted for, this WTO or No deal Brexit, pro Brexit commentators and plenty of voices elsewhere the same. Though, this is just against what is provable as true in terms of earlier rhetoric, where it was all sunlit uplands, problem free and easy deals.  Those pointing out these earlier claims on Brexit have been dismissed as traitors or traitorous or antidemocratic, the critical spirit, this sign of modernism denied.

As alluded to already, who can forget Ian Duncan Smith arguing that he knew more about how the WTO operates, than a former head of the WTO, who he implied was being traitorous to the cause of Brexit for disagreeing with him. This is a kind of anti-knowledge or against a more scientific or fact based approach, as it is against the easily found evidence, which refutes the arguments made now, as being consistent with those made earlier on in the debate, especially in the referendum debate 2016.

Rather than be dismissed as risible nonsense or that the same people are now arguing the opposite of what they argued earlier, this has been indulged as consistent and now an indisputable position of what Brexit was all along. Making it now far too permissible for Brexiters to argue that anything is true regarding Brexit, including easily disprovable lies and including the very verifiable factual truth. That any counterargument can be dismissed as traitorous in some fashion, shutting down rational and evidence based debate, please read and reflect again on the Arendt quotation again.

A WTO Brexit would make everything more expensive because tariffs would have to be applied, that is a mathematical certainty. Unless, you are not going to apply the rules of the WTO, which would mean the notion of a WTO Brexit is a misnomer but not agreeing to the conventions of the WTO, the EU or International Law would have all sorts of implications for the nation. As you would be through your actions as a country making it clear that international agreements, treaties and laws of any kind are something the UK no longer respects at all. Which, would rather put the UK at odds with every other nation to a greater or lesser degree and that just cannot be a healthy position for any country to take, other than a country who has taken leave of their senses.

The disagreement about WTO or ‘no deal’ Brexit has not led through the debate of it to a way to improve knowledge or agree on an acceptable compromise position or make clear a position which would maintain an acceptable amount of compromises for both sides. Yet, one side claims legitimacy or authenticity on everything, Leave, and dismisses that of the other, agreement will be impossible to find if one side refuses to compromise but still any disagreement with Brexit is treason, this is the argument that is frequently put forward.         

Then this argument, this is what people voted for, this very spurious and questionable ‘will of the people’ has then been used to attack: The Rule of Law, Parliament, Education, experts, The Civil Service, politicians, the press, journalism, the media and democratic, societal and economic institutions in general.

Brexit is a revolutionary force and anything which does not agree with it, impedes it, scrutinises or questions it is traitorous or is in the way of the cause. The more disturbing aspect of this rhetoric and policy is its implications going forward; that there is no room in this space for doubt, nuance, sophistication or argument on issues which are clearly open to conjecture.

What are the conclusions of a politics where one side is convinced it is always right? Even when the facts and evidence prove them emphatically wrong and they can take whatever position or action they like or implement anything they see as necessary, as they can justify it on the grounds that they won a vote in the past which legitimises anything?

That Brexiters know ‘the will of the people’, is a fascistic device, and as documents have revealed in the very suspicious Yellowhammer and Black Swan reports. As far as our own government goes, apparently ‘the will of the people’ means setting up internment camps if necessary and placing the army on streets, ‘We will be setting up internment camps’ or ‘The army will be on the streets’  are slogans which did not make it on to the side of bus or were not placed in the Leave proposals in 2016. It is a struggle to see why, it would have been such a vote winner.

If Brexit can move from being ‘the best deal’ to ‘a deal’ to ‘a deal but entirely on our terms’ to ‘no deal whatsoever’ ‘ to WTO Brexit’ to ‘ not respecting WTO’ to ‘outright aggression to our nearest neighbours as countries’ let us not forget the threats to Spain over Gibraltar or the very blunt talk to France over Calais; then to internment camps or the army on the streets, to what next?

Where does that go? As what Brexit is, who is a true believer and what is justifiable as an action because of it, keeps moving and it keeps moving in a more extreme direction.     

Brexit fits this feature of fascism. If this kind of thinking is endorsed or given more or worse full licence: then the UK will not only be a danger to itself but the rest of Europe too.

5. Fear of difference ‘The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition’.

Any movement where a country wishes to isolate itself as a nation or become more ‘independent’ has a problem of some kind with people from other countries or those other countries themselves, that is the reality of taking that position.

To say that the rhetoric from Leave, UKIP (BNP in blazers), The Brexit Party and Brexiters is not racist is to deny reality. There are countless examples of racism and xenophobia from Leave, you only have to go quickly look on Google or go on social media to find it easily, quickly and there has been a lot of it. If people wish to pretend this is not the case or delude themselves this is not the reality of what has happened or is happening, they can, but it will simply not be the truth. Not every Leave voter is racist but there has been plenty of racism from Leave and Brexiters, that is factual.

When it comes to Brexit, the truth is racism and xenophobia has run through the whole thing, a look at our newspapers now and historically there are again, numerous and plentiful examples of racism, xenophobia and anti-immigrant sentiment. To say that there has not been, is easily disproved again by the overwhelming amounts of evidence, proving the truth and reality about racism and xenophobia.  

The irony being, Britain has been formed, like every other nation by intruders. This idea that intruders are to be feared is made risible by the reality that Britons are the ancestors of intruders and anyone who follows their family line back will find that there are people in it from other countries, either in the UK or from Europe or elsewhere and many times from only a few generations ago.

Our Head of State is of Norman and German descent, some of the earliest fossils of humans found at Cheddar Gorge showed that early Britons had black skin. When the Romans conquered England and Wales they recruited soldiers for the garrison here from elsewhere in The Roman Empire, rather than locals to prevent rebellion, the garrison here situated in Chester, had many centurions coming from Northern Africa. The soldiers were here for at least twenty years, which, is a long time to keep it in your pants. So, that would mean there would be children fathered in Briton, half African children and Romans did marry locals too. Then there are the influxes of tribes from Europe, The Angles and the Saxons and more recent immigration from The Commonwealth.

Then there is Farage complaining about people in this country speaking in a foreign language, forgetting that when The British Empire was in operation, we respected the language of other countries so much, that we forced them to speak our main language. Making Modern English, a language spoken first in a relatively small island in the Atlantic, the second most popular language in the world. Almost a billion not even living in this country speak it, but, apparently foreigners coming here have a problem with not accepting the culture, language and traditions of other countries. 

Why is this anti-immigration and race rhetoric so effective?

One of the reasons is economics. Those likely to be more Eurosceptic are those who are made to feel insecure or feel threatened or undermined or are in insecure work or are in a jobs market competing with immigrant or foreign labour. So, it would seem that many people would like some protection against their income, their employment security, better wages and conditions or regulation in the jobs market.

These are hardly unreasonable things to want, everyone wants security, stability and good working conditions, career opportunities, a reasonably comfortable life and so forth. That Brexit is the vehicle to achieve that or that those advocating for Brexit are trying to achieve this for the people in the population who feel this way, is very questionable, for the very reasons that beyond demagogic cries of greatness and appeals to the flag, there have been few to no concrete or credible proposals to resolve these kinds of issues. 

How you achieve all of those desired things in the employment of people throughout the country or in communities throughout the land would not be an easy task. It is achievable, but would take considerable planning, regulation, investment and continuous reassessment. This would, also, suggest this is more of a domestic political, societal and economical issue than one imposed from abroad.

The relations between employer and employee, about the nature of what society is and its economic or societal relations has been an antagonistic field for political philosophers and economists since the beginning of those disciplines.

Can a better society be achieved through Brexit or for the nation? First of all people in society have to want a better society and work situation for everyone, before that can be achieved and not all actors or agents in society have this intention or desire. It is doubtful that one of Nigel Farage’s objectives with Brexit is to help a landscape gardeners marketplace from Cumbria for instance.         

Furthermore, these societal and economic tensions and dynamics are unlikely to just disappear once the UK has left the EU, as they are age old, as it is in many a society or country and would take far reaching reforms, a wide debate about what as a society, economy or political body you are trying to achieve, just trying to exclude foreigners or immigrants will not resolve this.

Democracy, as has proven to be throughout history being open to damaging or manipulative demagogues, charlatans, ideologues, elite figures and vested interests when not built upon solid principles or purposes: would make this task more problematic too. As the very nature of democracy would have to be confronted and its ability to provide complex and sophisticated solutions to benefit all stakeholders within society, it would need to be redesigned, maybe even with a new citizen focused constitution of the UK.

How democracy and society is designed, how it is implemented and how democracy serves the population best was a bone of contention for soldiers fighting in The New Model Army in The English Civil War, they were nicknamed The English Levellers.

They argued for the public good principle of democracy, that democracy should always serve the whole citizenry whoever was in power, with proof too. They argued for a democracy that served the whole population and future generations in the best ways possible with proper far reaching rule of law applying to all and with evidence based policies that could be tried in court if necessary, four hundred years ago at The Putney Debates 1647, almost three hundred years before full manhood suffrage arrived in the UK in 1918.

If democracy had achieved or was with clear evidence and justification achieving those ends of serving the whole population, all stakeholders in it and future generations in the best possible way, then there just not would be the division that there is in the country or other countries under democratic rule too and there would be no Brexit.  

As politicians by design would be made to serve the betterment of society and citizens, all of them, all of the demos, The Levellers argued for a people first democracy and saw the rule of law as a way to achieve this, not serve 17.4 million people but the whole population. Yes, that might be complex and difficult to accomplish but making society better through increments, reason, and rational argument with evidence which can be challenged, sounds a lot better than what a majority might be persuaded is right at one moment in time through demagoguery or the tyranny of the majority.   

The design or problems with democracy in how it best serves society was something argued about before The Levellers. It has been since The Ancient Greeks when democracy was born,  some philosophers then and others who lived in those first democracies argued about the shortcomings of democracy as a political system.

That in a democracy deceit, self-interest, facile ideas, manipulative rhetoric, sophistry, damaging policies, superficiality, irrationality, charm, the elites or corrosive policies in terms of the long term health of society or facile solutions or counterproductive proposals for the stability of it; they can win out at the ballot box over what is rational, evidence based or those arguments, which are supported by sound reasoning, having more noble, inclusive, long term or sustainable principles at their heart: with the welfare, stability, sustainability and health of all and future stakeholders in mind for society as the key determining guides of policy and action.

Which, is why still in many ways democracy can be dysfunctional, because it is open to corruption and manipulation, it always has been and will remain so unless it is designed to serve better and to no longer be prone to these shortcomings.

There is though little evidence Brexit will resolve these ancient problems or deal with these economic or societal relations around employment.  The Greek philosophers doubted the ability of democracy as a political system to deliver a better society and the first English political philosopher Thomas Hobbes argued the same too. They thought that authority should be found in wisdom and essentially those more suited or trained to lead and take decisions for a society, the ability of democracy to have the authority and facility to deliver on the challenges, economic, employment or otherwise societies face, is still in question today, as it was back then.

If democracy could so readily resolve issues in society, then why are so many people frustrated, angry and disappointed by it or feel constrained or disappointed by the society it has delivered, with the inaction on so many things for the health and long term or sustainability of society or communities and the country?    

That does not mean Democracy has not delivered on many beneficial and societally good things, it has and on a lot of things in spades, but the notion that corruption, the dysfunctional or manipulation will disappear post Brexit or in democracy in general without more serious reform, is naive. Or, that with Brexit everything in your line of work or community will magically be resolved, it will not be.

These problems are thousands of years old, not that these questions or problems do not have solutions or cannot be confronted for the best of society, they can, but the idea one vote in 2016 will resolve them, this is magical thinking of preposterously large proportions. This makes a nonsense of the idea, that through just excluding foreigners somehow society regarding employment and better conditions in that, will be fixed in a panacea moment called Brexit.

The debate, to make the point further on Brexit, has not really been about what is best for society or the economy in this regard. This is bizarre, because if you are to remove yourself from ‘the monolith’ of the EU, surely, there must be some more solid details, ideas, proposals or policies for how things will be improved for the whole population and society?

That would be the rational or logical reason for doing it and if it were then fewer would object. Detail or thorough proposals, have been mostly non-existent or vague from Leave, the Government and many others so far and from all colours in Parliament, this being the case, many people are left either suspicious or mystified.  

Still, the EU and foreigners have been blamed for these domestic societal, economic and political shortcomings, creating another us and them narrative,  blaming foreigners going forward will not provide the necessary solutions for society and employment either.

It fits the features of fascism here and again leaves you asking:  where does the blaming of foreigners or certain groups in the country for domestic problems narrative end? What are the conclusions of that line of thinking?

There are some pretty ugly suggestions that could easily be made of what that mind set could result in. There are plenty of ugly historical examples where a nation thought itself better than the rest and deserved special status or certain groups within a society were to blame for everything, or, another country or countries were blamed for the problems in your own country and used as justification for regrettable, vicious and malicious courses of action.       

6. Appeal to Social Frustration ‘One of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups’.

Political humiliation has played a large part in the Brexit debate, this has been largely around the idea of sovereignty and laws. That sovereignty and power had been seceded to Brussels and we were being run from Brussels as a country and all of our laws were being made there.

At the extreme end of this argument is the idea that the EU is a dictatorship which was set up by Hitler, so that Germany could rule over Europe in some sort of Reich. Some claiming he made plans for the EU in his last days in the bunker, that effectively one person had made the EU a reality and designed everything and they are serious, people genuinely believe this and other paranoid fantasies such as the EU being a communist state or superstate which is controlling everything in Europe, including the budgets and politics of member states and through voting for Brexit we are going to extricate ourselves from this ‘dictatorship’, totalitarianism or tyranny.

Now, normally you cannot propose leaving a dictatorship by a letter, or, have a vote at all in one other than for one party or the regime. Nor do you vote to ask to be in one in the first place and there are no such things as oppositions in dictatorships and they tend to violently oppress their dissenting, dissident citizens and be in military conflict or stand offs with other military powers. It would seem unlikely the majority of the population would have not noticed that one person Hitler had been in control of the setting up of the EU all this time or that they had been under communist rule for four decades and these other key features of dictatorships, notably the violence and war, are conspicuously absent. Which would make these kinds of notions and arguments, even at the less extreme end of this kind of irrationality: unverifiable, delusional, fantastical and paranoid.

The humiliation of having law imposed on us from abroad is a curious one. Firstly, people do not seem to understand the principle of the law. The law is a way normally of protecting the liberty of people, individuals, their property, business, safety or how people operate in the world. It can be punitive, sometimes oppressive or biased but it is amorphous in that it can be repealed, adjusted and removed if it is an impediment but it is usually there to protect someone or something, for example food and health standards, the environment, physical safety or property. Possibly explaining why when Brexiters are quizzed, they cannot name a law passed by the EU which is damaging to their actual liberty or everyday life.

The rule of law enforced properly protects and serves against corruption, irregularities, criminal or fraudulent behaviour. It is an invisible but powerful shield to protect citizens and their lives and it really is not important who devises the law but the qualities and effectiveness of that law and how the law serves, if there were so many egregious laws imposed on the UK by Brussels then why cannot anyone name them?

Laws are, also, not as often as important as policy in determining your society. Policy will determine the kind of society you have more than laws and that is determined politically at a government level.

Fears of a risky economic future were, also, part of the Leave rhetoric and propaganda. That it was riskier to stay in the EU as this would damage the long term prospects of families and the next generations, as the EU was failing.

Average household incomes have been in decline in the UK for decades that is a statistical reality. Correlation, however, is not causation, just because we have been members of the EU in that time has not been the only cause of that. The UK has followed a similar path to other ‘Western’ countries in this regard, this may have fuelled discontent, but placing the EU on the hook for this is a distraction and is an obscuring of the other factors involved.

This has made this narrative an easy one to sell because it blames the EU for this economic and societal ill. It rather ignores the actions of domestic government policy regarding employment, economics and the marketplace, it ignores the actions and responsibilities of companies, shareholders, corporations, the regulations and policies influenced by them or that there are many influences on this reality, including technological advancement.

Brexit has been cast as some sort of saviour against these complex and difficult problems, Brexit will bestow economic freedoms that are now somehow prevented by membership of the EU. This is a bizarre argument, considering the first call after Brexit from a leading Brexit advocate Liam Fox after the result came in, was to ‘deregulate’ the employment market. This is code for stripping away worker rights, conditions and employment status protections: the very opposite of a better more secure economic future for the population.     

Another threat to jobs and security identified in Leave rhetoric has been the wage and conditions undercutting immigrants, coming over here to take away the prospects and livelihoods of ‘British’ people. Although, the reality of the situation with immigration is that our economy and society is dependent on immigration, in all sectors from top to bottom of the employment scale and in all areas of our society.

This is because of a number of factors: skills shortages, an ageing population, lower birth rates and the difficulty recruiting ‘British’ labour into certain jobs. Immigrants or a better term for them, human beings, provide essential services of all kinds to our country and if they decide to commit to this country, they should be considered full citizens. Unless, we are only going to value certain peoples contributions to society over others or wish to treat what is a large section of our society or citizens as some sort of servant class and not see them as equals.

There is no evidence that low skill immigrant labour lowers pay and conditions for domestic workers. There is plenty of evidence immigration benefits our society and there is little to no evidence immigration is the main determining factor in workplace conditions, pay or regulation.

There are more stringent measures the UK Government could take on immigration as a member of the EU and against non EU nationals but they have not and the reason why is that they know immigrant labour is essential for the success of our society and economy. Anyone telling you different is lying and if immigrant labour were removed, our society would quickly collapse.

The UK is not alone as a nation that requires immigrant labour to sustain itself, the USA, Germany and Italy require it too for similar reasons. This argument that immigrants arriving from other countries determine wages or the marketplace for employment, conditions or working rights on arrival into the country is simply not true, it is determined by a combination of the governments of the sovereign member nations themselves, private interests, corporations, enterprises and companies.

If you think it is the other way around and immigrants determine those wage levels and conditions. Then try going to another member state using freedom of movement and see how far you get as an immigrant worker demanding how the pay and conditions you want in entry level or lower to mid-level employment positions, should be exclusively on your terms.  

The middle classes were presented as being under threat in these ways, when the forces that are the biggest threat to the employment status of workers or marketplaces or are determining these things, are not the EU. In fact, the EU could well be a solution to ensuring an amount of protection and regulation for workers and citizens against the economic and political forces who are threatening and damaging them; with the potential ability of the EU to be able to determine the rules of employment within the Single market or better regulation for workers.

Or, do you think Amazon and the like would be better at deciding how employment works, what with all the votes you have for how they or similar powerful agencies or corporations in our society operate? 

This fear of a future where your community or your family was going to be disempowered and a faceless bureaucracy on the mainland was going to determine their future, was definitely part of the narrative of ‘taking back control’. This vote meant that somehow, through this one vote, you, your family and community would be represented and served better.

A future you were excluded from in the EU, and a future you were included in, after Brexit, a powerful emotive sell, as social exclusion is something no one wants to have happen to them, that Brexit will resolve this is facile and those selling that notion are being disingenuous.

It is not unfair to argue that many a politician make promises and pledges of golden futures, change and new beginnings. The challenge voters and politics in general faces are the dilemmas or problems of who is telling the truth and who is not, who or what is authentic in their proposals? Who really has the real and genuine interests of the society, future societies and the nation at heart and who does not? Who is legitimate and who is faking legitimacy to serve special or certain interests?  This has been a problem in democracies and politics since forever and is one that is unlikely to be resolved through Brexit alone.  

So, yes, the rhetoric of Leave meets this feature too, as the middle classes have been threatened, with the EU as the threat to their circumstances now and in the future, when that is simply not the whole truth, many Brexit advocates, very much know this too. 

This has formed a powerful aspect of the propaganda campaign for Brexit. Exaggerate or create a whole series of problems that are then attributed to the EU, then when the ballot emerges, Leave has a far better chance of winning, as ridding the country of the EU will resolve all of these menaces and problems in the minds of many of the electorate. Even though the overwhelming majority of them are entirely fake, spurious and exaggerated in order to create a bogeyman in the consciousness of people that needs to be dealt with. This is a very effective method of manipulation and propaganda but it is empty in terms of real solutions for our society or proposals to genuine concerns and totally ignores the other economic, societal and political forces causing this situation, which will still be there post Brexit.   

7. The Obsession with a plot, “the followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot of the appeal to xenophobia”.

The federalisation of Europe is an example of the obsession with a plot. There are clearly those in Europe who support federalisation but it is not a foregone conclusion. Winston Churchill proposed federalisation in his ‘United States of Europe’ speech and in the Treaty of Rome: the very first line proposes ever closer union. So, it would seem that if there is some sort of plot it is hardly hidden, it has been conspicuous as a proposal from the very start of what was always a political union.

The likelihood of federalisation is very slim at the moment as veto and domestic politics would more than likely prevent it from happening, as every member state would have to agree to it at once which is extremely unlikely. What seems to be missing from this debate is the discussion of the merits and demerits of federalisation or ever closer political union. There are reasons to suggest there would be fewer representations for the citizens of Europe but if it is formalised in the right way, it could be argued that it could be more representative and better at implementing far reaching and citizen enhancing reforms, services and policies.

A case could be made either way but that the case should be dismissed on the grounds of fear and not rational, meticulous, properly considered and well-argued proposals, that can hardly be considered the mature response.  

This was how it was presented in the debate though, as a great threat to freedoms and something to be feared. None more so than a piece of social media propaganda about The Lisbon Treaty listing a whole series of terrible things to be feared that will happen when the treaty comes into full effect and that is why we had to get out of the EU quick; the treaty has though been in full effect for years, ever since it was ratified in 2009, now a decade.

A key message in this piece of propaganda and elsewhere was that the power of member state veto was going to be removed. This rather ignores again the reality that every member state would have to agree to remove the power of veto at the same time. This is extremely unlikely, but it plays into this idea of a plot to remove controls from the UK government and by extension citizens and that laws dreamt up in Brussels would be imposed on the UK, there would be no say from citizens or the UK government whatsoever.

However, thinking these things through logically or critically, would not these laws devised in Brussels apply everywhere in the EU? What are the chances of the long term sustainability of the EU if it brings in endless oppressive, stifling and limiting laws on individual member states? Which are designed to hinder those societies or certain countries or benefit other countries? Rather quickly it would be easy to imagine the power of veto would be reinstalled at least, or those parties or governments would be voted out of power with repealing and reforming movements.

Why would an institution designed to serve citizens in the best way possible, do this huge disservice and injustice to the citizens of Europe or members? How could they expect the union to be stable or sustainable?  Also, if it became clear any one nation was dominating too much in any new set up, the majority of the rest of Europe in terms of numbers would act as a clear check on that power.

Other examples of this are the plot of Franco-German control or outright German control of the EU. That the EU is predominately run for the benefit of the French and the Germans; well that surely cannot be for all German and French citizens because like other countries and member states there are clear internal tensions and problems with dissenting political parties, protesting citizens and so forth. There is evidence to suggest France and Germany has had a lot of influence, especially earlier on, but so does or did the UK.

It is series of historical facts that the UK has been a key architect in terms of the current design and institutions of the EU, especially the Single market, Freedom of Movement, the trade negotiations and treaties, expanding membership, the laws and legalities framework of the EU. If there is a plot in the EU, then the UK has been a big part of it and a huge conspirator. There have been nationalist movements and protests against Maastricht for instance in other member states, yet the majority of member states have remained loyal and membership has grown, this rather suggests that it benefits those nations who join or who are members mostly, otherwise surely the organisation would have folded and collapsed by now?

Appeals to xenophobia, there have been many and numerous appeals to xenophobia, the obvious one again being immigration, which formed a huge part of The Referendum debate and rhetoric. So much so that many voters saw it as a referendum on immigration and not just immigrants from the European Union, with some people thinking a vote to Leave would stop immigration or make people leave and even make people in Muslim communities or originating from Islamic nations or elsewhere in the world including former Commonwealth nations, any foreigner or perceived foreigner whatsoever, to be dealt with somehow. That they would be made to leave the country, even though there is not an Islamic, African, American or Asian nation in the EU.

There is a rather laughable irony about Britain voting to keep foreigners out, to stop them from coming over here and making the place theirs, The British Empire?

Whatever you think of The British Empire and its achievements, one thing that can definitely not be said to be true about it is that the countries that formed the empire had a vote to decide that Britain should come and rule the country, take their resources, artefacts, make them speak our language and so forth. That definitely did not happen. The notion that it is an outrage that people from elsewhere in the world should come here to live, could easily be seen as joke by a great many people; roughly about a third of the world if you look at the old maps, who were once members of the empire.

Immigration was a major issue in the rhetoric, imagery and arguments of Leave, especially, this idea that immigration was out of control and there were no choices that could be made about it.  A lot of politicians in western countries are not being entirely honest about this, our societies and nations are dependent on immigration at all levels of the economy and society. Demagogues and populists will use anti-immigrant rhetoric but again the actual evidence and reality is that we are dependent on immigration. Many in the UK do not seem to have any issues with anyone in the UK wanting to live elsewhere in the world as well, which is part of the whole questionable double standards on immigration in this argument on Brexit.     

Then there was the propaganda that Turkey was about to join the EU and there was nothing that could be done about it. Turkey was about to join, with the infamous map showing the adjacent countries of Iraq, Iran and Syria, suggesting that millions of Turks and other refugees or immigrants would pour into the UK from The Middle East using up all the services, taking jobs from British people and the clear inference they would bring terrorism or violence with them or turn the UK into part of a caliphate within months.

This was obviously playing into the paranoid great replacement theory, which, seems to be a favourite among many right wing groups, that Muslims will replace everyone in Europe by stealth and through some conspiracy to do so.  Something you would not need to worry about if you were a westerner, got married, had plenty of children and provided for them, whilst simultaneously assisting in supporting and developing a flourishing citizenry, but no. More aggressive exclusionary tactics with more military and oppressive measures seem to be the more dominant proposals of how to confront this imagined problem from these right wing groups.   

There was a clear rhetoric of xenophobia and fear throughout the Brexit debate. That we would be governed by foreigners, speaking in languages we do not understand, imposing laws on us we have no say over and the doors to the country would be forced open to an invasion of foreigners that was completely unstoppable and out of control, especially people from the Middle East and that through voting Leave, this would all be stopped.

All of this is not true and it is a paranoid fantasy to believe it, but it is very effective as propaganda, even though immigration from other countries post Brexit will continue, that is the reality of the situation. Despite the appeals to xenophobia, insularity, fear and some sort of plot here, the rest of the world with all of its diversity will still be there post Brexit.  

This narrative inexplicably ignoring too that in recent history the UK invaded Afghanistan and Iraq in the Middle East, bombed Libya, alongside other Middle Eastern interference and meddling in The Yemen for instance. This would be called an unacceptable outrage were that interference and meddling to be the other way around, so, there are further standards issues here.   

The easy justification or attitude that it is okay for the UK to invade where it sees fit militarily, in more recent times and historically is fascistic, as is the xenophobia and obsession with plots from the continent or elsewhere around the world, it meets this feature easily.

8. The enemy is both strong and weak ‘By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak’

The enemy is too weak has been spun as a narrative throughout the Brexit saga regarding the EU. This has been largely about the EU’s imminent collapse, this would be caused by Brexit but other economic factors such as the Euro collapsing as a currency, this would lead to the collapse of the Eurozone because of an economic crash, as there would effectively be a run on the Euro, damaging the economy on the continent beyond repair.

This was spun and propagandized as a reason that people should vote Leave. As the UK would have to bailout the Eurozone because the whole of mainland Europe is really weak, they cannot survive without the UK and they will not survive anyway because they are pathetic and there is an inevitable crisis which will lead to the destruction of the EU. The UK will have to pay the bill for it, the whole EU, or sort it out, as the Eurozone is just an accident waiting to happen, it is a liability, the institution and member countries are fundamentally weak.  

Will there be a crisis? There are arguments and theories that have credence there will be a crisis because of the restrictive measures on deficits placed on Eurozone members by The Maastricht Treaty leading to the collapse of the Euro. There are, however, theories there will be a sovereign debt fund crisis with The Dollar, a debt crisis in China because of the Yuan, a whole range of currencies caused by a variety of reasons and fiat currencies in general will collapse.

Guess what, The Maastricht Treaty can be repealed, currencies and economies can crash or boom, regardless of membership. The notion that the UK would be unaffected by a crash of the Eurozone as a number of voices in Leave have suggested, or one in China or the USA is an absurd one, which, just does not stand up to any kind of evidence or rational analysis. In the three years, approaching four since the vote, there has been economic turmoil in member states but the Eurozone has not collapsed. There have been internal struggles inside member states but resolve and commitment to the EU and the Eurozone has prevailed. The Euro could go into crisis but so could other big economies and the damage in a very integrated world would be felt in other countries and including ours, this is a non-argument: of course there will be economic problems in the future.

The EU has been portrayed as weak in that it cannot resolve the crisis of individual nation member states or turmoil in the Eurozone, especially on matters like unemployment. Unemployment and underemployment is unacceptably high in many countries but to pin that on the EU is unfair and is just not true as the main cause or solution.  

There are all sorts of factors involved in causing unemployment, technological, economical, societal and political too. Less employment is encouraged and fostered in a lot of enterprises or agents in our society, as it either increases costs or decreases profits, so, there are powerful agents in our societies who have actively desired to create unemployment.

What you do about this employment, unemployment and underemployment problem is an antagonistic field in economic, political and philosophical theory and has been since the beginning of those subjects. How do we best employ people in society, what are the best roles for citizens in society, what should be the form and structure of society and the economy?  This is the very stuff of political theory, political philosophy and ideologies.

Resolving unemployment and underemployment would take a huge commitment as a society or societies to resolve them, some people however within society, do not wish that endeavour to happen. As there may be detrimental or perceived detrimental consequences for them, reactionary figures or movements and elite figures, many of whom are very powerful, rail against these notions of change, as they see those sorts of proposals, theories or arguments as a threat to their wealth, power or status.

A citizenry who are secure in employment, who know there will be enough economic security, opportunities and there are plans for investment to provide for society, that society would be far less malleable and controllable after all, far less open to irrational and evidence free proposals about brighter or golden futures. As they would effectively be in a good society already, in which they are largely provided for.

Are those things possible? A high investment, high opportunity, secure and stable society where everyone is provided for as best as possible with better freedoms, rights and protections with a sustainable economy or society?

Yes they are, but first of all as a society everyone has to want it and there are powerful and influential forces within all member states, who actively do not want that to happen and there are many citizens who can be persuaded they should be fearful of any change to the status quo too, or, any or certain reforms of society, economics or politics, because they can be convinced it will damage them as well: when that may not necessarily be the case.   

Could the EU assist in creating a different kind of employment, societal, political or economic model? Well it would not be democratic if that is what all of the member states wanted and they guided policy through The Council. Although, perhaps all member states could begin at looking a bit closer to home first about its designs and wishes regarding employment, economics and society.

The EU is too strong has been another narrative, it is a huge protectionist monolith which is crushing African countries and weaker member states such as the PIGS, Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain. There are truths in this narrative and the treatment of Greece in particular could not be considered to be the greatest moment in the history of the EU. What tends to be ignored, however, is that bailout money for Greece has not gone to The Greeks.  It has gone to North American and Northern European Banks, who lent recklessly throughout southern Europe or the Irish or other banks who did reckless things too. The EU does not set the regulations on financial activities of member states, if they did and regulations everywhere were the same, this may remove the clear fraud and dodgy banking practices which are and have been evident within that sector.

The strange issue with Brexiters and double standards emerges again with African countries. Many wishing us to be proud of The British Empire which involved the plunder of African countries; something arguably that is just as bad and in some cases worse in the postcolonial era, but at the same time they want us to protect and promote African nations and their economies, but do not see any hypocrisy or conflicting attitudes or are happy in the reality of their lives to accept this exploitation and even more bizarrely think Brexit will sort things out in Africa. Or, that the EU not allowing a favourable market for farm producers from Africa, which is not true, is somehow worse than something like The Slave Trade of earlier centuries.        

The argument about protection is a strange one too because that is the whole idea behind the EU: to join together to act as a strong unified force against the other larger nations and economic or political forces of the world.  Every country wants an amount of protection or are we expecting after Brexit, workers here to accept the same pay and conditions as employees in Bangladesh or India or China? Are UK citizens in a totally open market going to work mostly for the benefit and profits of people from other countries? This is a difficult mentality to understand or promote this removal of all protections, unless somehow you will be a beneficiary from it. Why would you not as a government want to protect your own citizens?

The UK has benefited from this protectionism as an economy and if the EU is some sort of economic monster, through its involvement in the design of The Single Market and its key role in trade deals, the UK and successive governments here have made this economic monster, a monster we asked to join and then through our very actions, made more ferocious.

Then there have been narratives about The Commission holding too much power. The Commission, however, is only acting at the behest of The Council and The Parliament, who are all elected. Should the working of The Council and Commission be more transparent with clearer directions and objectives or better at making itself more transparent of what it is trying to achieve? If it wishes to be a better and more authentic and honest organisation, how can it not want those things?

Members and citizens have to want that transparency too and demand just what it is they want from the EU but the EU like any Parliament suffers from competing ideas, ideologies, solutions and parties. The same sort of problems with democracy and society recognised by the first known political thinkers, throughout political thought and civilisation.

These paranoid arguments that the Commission which is unelected, like our own Civil Service, is making all the decisions in the EU, is just not provable in reality, this is against what is evidentially true. It is simply not real.

Another example of this kind of strong and weak rhetoric is The EU Army and NATO. On the weak side, the narrative has been that the EU has not kept peace amongst the major nations of Europe and on the European continent.  It has been NATO which has kept peace in Europe because the EU could not do that because it is too weak and ineffective to provide peace,  we have instead needed the protection of the USA.

People from within Leave like to credit NATO with keeping peace in Europe but this rather ignores that NATO was set up to deal with the threat of the Soviets, Soviet Russia and now Russia, not warring nations in Europe. It, also, ignores the reality that throughout the whole era of The Cold War, at no point was Russia about to invade Western Europe. As the USSR as it was then, not only did not have the capability: it did not have the desire, the threat Russia posed often being exaggerated to make big military cheques be signed in the USA and in the nations of Co-Signatories of NATO, similar to a protection racket.

The weaknesses of the Soviet states as a political, economic and military force were exposed in their collapse over thirty years ago, with many former soviet states becoming members of the EU and all the more prosperous and stable for it. Those countries entry into the EU championed by the likes of Margaret Thatcher, who, has strangely been appropriated to the side of Leave.

Although, far from being perfect as an organisation, the EU is somewhat of a beacon and success story for close international cooperation at a political, economic and societal level. Its remit was to create peace and stability on the continent, it has been successful, this is a clear reason why other powerful forces in the world wish to place it under attack.

A successful international organisation where there is cooperation, the rule of law, shared rights, power and values rather threatens the status quo of other nations, actors and agents within those nations and other powerful figures or organisations in the world. The EU has been far more successful and effective than the UN or NATO as an international organisation in terms of keeping peace, creating stability, prosperity and is a good example of where pooling resources and international cooperation could lead. With the threats and challenges facing humanity, the biosphere, and other species too, this would seem the rational and evidence based road for humanity to go down, more close cooperation to deal with global problems, with global governance and rule of law.

Considering the history of Europe, that the EU has prevented a war between major nations, even really a standoff or military mobilisation of any kind whatsoever for over seventy years is remarkable. To dismiss this achievement as solely down to NATO, an organisation whose whole raison d’etre was to deal with the threat, real or imagined of Russia and the soviets, is simply not true.

Especially, when the architects behind the EU and us joining were often veterans or victims of the Second World War and desired through its design and through integration and cooperation to prevent major conflicts happening ever again in Europe, any major conflict anywhere. This included Winston Churchill, another figure who has been misappropriated to Leave. To suggest it was all NATO is a huge insult to the legacy of those who set the EU up and those in the war generations who wished to see an end to war on the scale they experienced in Europe previously.         

Despite this weakness of supposedly needing NATO to provide peace, the EU is now, according to Brexiters, about to set up an EU Army. According to voices and propaganda in Leave, young people in this country will be conscripted into the EU Army and our military will be taken over by the EU because it is so strong, the EU will do as they see fit in terms of fighting wars with the young of our nation.

Our own high ranking military officials have dismissed this proposal as non-existent but it is absurd on all sorts of levels. The first being the EU is an organisation committed and designed to promote peaceful cooperation between nations. Then there is the reality that all nations have the power of veto and the idea that this would just easily pass though the parliaments of all member nations throughout Europe. That their citizens could be conscripted into an EU Army and have their military operations and command just handed over, this is very much at odds with reality.

Although, perhaps the most important thing is, just who are they going to fight? And, why on Earth do people in the UK think that everyone else in all of the other member state countries would be just fine and absolutely support their children being conscripted into an EU Army or fighting force to be blown to pieces? Of course they would not but few in Leave have asked themselves that question and assume people on the continent would absolutely, totally and unconditionally accept and encourage that their children be smashed to bits for the EU, there are serious reality issues with this assumption.

There is a case to suggest that with an increasingly unstable USA and Russia, fraught relations with China and the USA. That Europe needs to look at options other than NATO which is clearly dominated by the USA, who are not cooperating as a nation on the international stage and are taking more of a confrontational and adversarial foreign policy approach or one that is mystifying, manipulative or contradictory. With both Russia and the USA taking too much of an overbearing influence in politics in the EU and other nations around the world, there is a case to say that relying on previous alliances, organisations and allies is perhaps not sound strategical thinking and geopolitical positioning. 

The EU and NATO members reviewing their options here diplomatically or in terms of the geopolitical realpolitik, is something that should at least be considered and which may actually lead to a better situation for all stakeholders, as countries reappraise their position on the world stage.   

The idea, however, that the EU is about to create a military force to begin some sort of military campaign or war to directly confront and challenge  powers in a military sense:  is like in all seriousness arguing that the EU wants to begin World War Three, with the military weaponry and technology available, not only would this be suicidal for Europe but the rest of the world too.

Though the most risible ridiculous notion is people thinking that the EU would be able to keep a proposal, desire or design to do this a secret, this is a delusional and paranoid fantasy, worthy only of the world of fiction.  That the EU has that power or the will to become an aggressive and confrontational military force is just made up nonsense, this is a fantasy world. The EU is an organisation designed for peaceful cooperation.  

To return to Arendt again, this is the kind of rhetoric she noticed about fascist regimes “The most striking difference between ancient and modern sophists is that the ancients were satisfied with a passing victory of the argument at the expense of truth, whereas the moderns want a more lasting victory at the expense of reality”, which fits this creation of fantasy narratives about threats well, the possible achievements of Brexit and the many untruths or fantasies surrounding it too.

The rhetoric of the EU being strong and weak is there and so Brexit fits this feature too.  

9. Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. ‘For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle’

Nigel Farage before the result of the 2016 Referendum described the fight to Leave the EU as ‘a war’, he, also, pledged to pick up a rifle to fight the EU. He has made references to World War Two, wanting to be part of D- DAY landings and The Allied effort against Germany he has used on US television as a justification for Brexit and a US trade deal.

There has been endless rhetoric from Leave about the World Wars, which were rather ironically, where The Allies fought against fascism; there has been the rhetoric of war ‘a war cabinet’, ‘collaborators’ ,‘infiltrators’, ‘enemies’ and so forth. The EU has been described as The Fourth Reich ‘Junker in his bunker’ from Mark Francois, another person who has referenced the Second World War and the military. There have been calls from within Leave for an increase in militarization in the country by Government ministers like Gavin Williamson and being in the EU has been seen as being pacifist and trafficking with the enemy, the Germans.

Even though we have had a German or German descent Head of State for hundreds of years, a lot of the population are descended from Germanic tribes and elements of our language are German.

There has been much jingoism about the war, references and disputes over whether Churchill would support Leave or Remain. Leave claiming that a man who made one of his most famous speeches about ‘We need to build a United States of Europe’ would definitely be one hundred percent for Brexit, which is an isolationist and increasingly antagonistic nationalistic move, this is a credibility stretch of a remarkable distance. There has though, been plenty of the lexicon of war and referencing of war in this whole debate, as if this whole EU thing is trafficking with the enemy and pacifist and through being part of it, the Germans have won some sort of war by stealth or through selling cars.  

The rhetoric of war and lingering on divisions of long gone regrettable historical events is potentially very dangerous and the rhetoric of it often is revisionist historically, dealing in myths and shameless propaganda, rather than what really happened.

What is one bewildering aspect of it, it is gone, why the desire to linger on the war? The wars have been fought and a prosperous and healthy protected peace is far more agreeable. Anyone preferring, hankering or nostalgic for war is a danger to our society and other societies too, could the protracted peace we enjoy now be better for more people? Of course it could be, but taking an aggressive stance or dwelling on or wishing to celebrate war is an irresponsible, perilous and shameful position to take.

Although, using the lexicon of warfare does somewhat begin the process of people, psychologically speaking, accepting that there will have to be casualties.  

It is especially irresponsible to celebrate The Second World War, which has obtained a sort of glamour or mystique since it ended. That the deaths of tens of millions in the biggest human conflict of all time should be thought of in this way is to forget the key lessons of The Second World War.

The most important lessons being that ordinary men from villages, towns and cities from different parts of the world, in a relatively short amount of time through the promotion of myths, propaganda and nationalism: could be turned into mass murdering, raping and torturing machines. Through the dehumanisation of others, racism and most dangerously, through being given the sheer licence, indulgence and consent to commit acts of extreme violence, then the world witnessed the slaughter and suffering of tens of millions.   

Violence, which a frighteningly large amount of servicemen enjoyed carrying out, soldiers and servicemen on all sides of the conflict and this is what terrified world leaders and many citizens the world over. These are the forgotten lessons, hidden in post war propaganda, dramatizations, fictions and this dangerous mystique that has created a kind of soft glow or focus on what really happened.

Now, some may like or fantasise about the idea of fighting in a war and the conditions where extreme violence are acceptable, that would be right up until it is visited on them or their family, community or country. When the mass murderers, rapists and torturers turn up on their doorstep; that is when their thoughts on outright violence will change and they will want protections.

In many ways that is what the EU is protecting against, our worst natures and the violence of man. That is why people crave, create and desire peace and stability, as the biggest threat to civilisation is always barbarism and all of the worst aspects of human behaviour which civil society and its institutions protect against. That is why we build political, civil and societal institutions governed by the rule of law because humans need to curb the excesses of what they are capable of in order for decent societies to survive and sustain, we build them to protect and to prevent wanton terrible violence, malice and excessive cruelty.

As The Second World War proved beyond doubt, men and women can be made monsters in short order, including extremely intelligent engineers and scientists: all societies need protection against those looking to exploit or solicit this viciousness.

It is extreme to suggest that war or conflict or the extremities of World War Two is the intentional design of Leave and Brexit but Brexit would bring us into conflict with the EU on trade. That will happen if Brexit happens, not just members of the EU but other countries too, are Leave or figures within it effectively beginning a confrontation on trade with the EU? Or, trying to manipulate one between Britain with notably one of our Allies, who have powerful figures within the country making very open declarations of support for Britain, who were involved with the Brexit campaigning too, the USA?

There are many links between Brexit advocates and the US, especially corporate and oligarchical figures and power. From The Atlantic Bridge with Liam Fox, Danial Hannan and US think tanks including ones run by The Koch Brothers in the Cato Institute; to Farage, Bannon, Mercer and Trump. Are Brexiters trying to cause open antagonism between Britain and the EU or other nations in Europe with some powerful elite figures in the US, To cause a trade conflict with the EU, disturbing the peace and security of Europe? Russian elites too?

Reading Machiavelli, Brexit does seem to be about power. Largely economic power in this regard, but the history books show many examples of trade wars developing into full scale wars. Is it ridiculous to think war could break out in Europe again? That should never be a ridiculous question to ask. Of course things can always get worse and of course things can slip into awfulness, nations should never be complacent and guard against all kinds of demagoguery and fascism, other threats too, if those nations wish to maintain peace, security and stability, no one should be complacent.

No matter what happens with Brexit it is going to and already has caused instability, insecurity and is attacking the peace of the UK and why would anyone want those things to happen? Why would anyone desire that as a state of affairs, yet that is what has happened, why would anyone want an unnecessary struggle in Europe or between the UK and other nations? That is what Leave and Brexit has done. It has created internal struggles between the nations within the union of the UK and between the UK and the EU, and, with the government and those in Brexit choosing to no deal or effectively no deal and fly in the face of the EU. The UK is the one initiating and causing that struggle, not the EU.  

The proposed positioning of the UK on trade and economics would be at least mildly aggressive. Leaving the customs union would mean a customs barrier between the UK and the EU, similarly a divergence on regulatory standards would mean further checks and hostility or at the very least antagonisms and difficulties between the UK and the EU. At the thin end of the wedge it is going to mean constant spats or renegotiations, at the fat end of the wedge a complete regulatory and trade aggression. As the UK looks to set up entirely different regulatory standards, divergence and position itself with the USA, with the USA and the UK taking a more openly confrontational stance against the EU as an economic, legal and political force: with a supporting role from Russia.

Both Russia and the USA would benefit in terms of geopolitical power from a destabilised and diminished EU, which explains the clear involvement in it from powerful figures in both of those nations.

In simple terms if we are not part of the union, then to one degree or another we are in competition, conflict or opposed to it in some way. It may not exactly be a war but the country is positioning itself to be at odds with the EU at the very least.

This is a fascistic position to take and one where you are creating a new struggle, with many unanswered questions as to why.

10. Contempt for the weak ‘Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology’

The Elites have clearly backed Brexit, both foreign and domestic. Some of the propaganda about Brexit is that it is an anti-establishment and anti-elite project, but any closer analysis very quickly reveals this to be absurd.

The starting point to that evaluation is to look at who the figures within Leave identify as their enemies. They are largely the Labour Party and other progressive parties such as The Green Party, regulations to do with employment, the environment or those proposing green reform and their main enemy, the European Union itself.

The EU, although, clearly a friend to capitalists, business and corporations. It is a creeping, slow progressive force in a number of ways or has tendencies in that direction.  It is changing the political and social landscape or has certainly changed its dynamics.  It enshrines human rights, promotes regional investment, environmental standards, promotes regulation, the rule of law, standards and as an institution is open to a more progressive and sustainable green transition to a new economy. It has sought to regulate against corporate power and against corporate excess, especially on matters like the environment, data, suspect accountancy and tax.

Every political body has plenty more to do on these and it is very far from being an outright progressive force and there are many powerful reactionary forces within it and influencing it, but it is making slow but definite progress on certain things.

What it has the potential of becoming as a conscious political body acting in the interests of citizens, the environment, workers, rights, future generations, energy, regulations and the rule of law, all sorts of things: is more of a threat to elite power both domestic within the UK, elites across member states, USA, Russian and the elites of other countries too. An ever growing unified and cooperating political body, governed by proper rule of law, protecting rights and acting on the behalf of citizens is a threat to elite and multinational corporate power everywhere.   

Brexit, however, is a definite reactionary movement and it is led by the Elites and for their benefit. It is against regulations, rights, standards and the rule of law, it is outright hostile to the rule of law as reactions to The Supreme Court ruling demonstrates and our country is currently in dispute with the EU over Chinese goods and VAT. Leave advocates are hostile in their attitude to the ECJ and The Sun newspaper owned by Leave backing Rupert Murdoch infamously championed the removal of The Work Directive, so, that people could joyously work more hours and have no restrictions on the amount of hours they work, not something most workers would be really happy about.

A clear example of Brexit being for the elites, are characters like the hedge fund owner Crispin Odey, who made a lot of money in 2016 in currency speculation with the value of the pound (Jacob Rees Mogg’s fund is connected to his too), Odey funded the Leave campaigns too. Leave campaigns who have been involved in illegal practices and using weapons grade psychological manipulation techniques online, with very dodgy sourcing of personal data. There have been interviews with him where he was all excited quoting Italian proverbs about having gold in his mouth, when the reality for most people after his huge cash bonanza, is that now they have in real terms less money in their pocket and their wages are no longer of the same value, pensions too. For businesses, everything they import becomes more expensive, the performance of the pound and economy has consequences for public services too, the ability of how businesses and government can operate.  

Yet, he is filmed, a clear elite figure, brazenly congratulating himself, excitedly grinning like an utterly and disgustingly spoiled child about how he made a load of money off a worse situation for the vast majority of people in the nation.  How a figure like Odey is anti the establishment and elites with the best interests of the ordinary Briton at the heart of his dealings and thoughts. This is a completely laughable suggestion for anyone other than a peer or the deluded self-deceiver, ignorant, the dishonest or the hopelessly naïve.

Then there is the first real figurehead of the Brexit movement, the plutocrat James Goldsmith., who set up The Referendum Party which ran candidates in nearly all of the seats in the 1997 General Election. David Mellor the Conservative MP famously described it as an attempt to ‘buy British politics’, Goldsmith was one of the infamous asset stripers of the 1960’s onwards. Who, like his contemporaries, sold off much of British manufacturing and industry for a quick buck on the share price, facilitating off shoring, decimating communities and undermining the strength of workers and unions: shifting the power in the economy to shareholders and the boardrooms. Shares which were largely bought and sold by British people, shares which are now overwhelmingly in the hands of elite figures, pension funds and other asset funds beyond democratic control.

An economy concentrated in the hands of the elites.

The stock exchange and its failure being one of the factors behind the start of World War Two and it was considered in the immediate post war years as a monster which needed to be controlled. It was not long before that was forgotten or ignored by the likes of Goldsmith. Goldsmith then was part of a group of asset stripping figures who did the same in the USA too, he made himself fabulously wealthy and powerful in the process, so much so, that he was able to spend more on campaign funding than The Conservative Party and Labour Party combined in the 1997 General Election.

It was not the EU who facilitated or allowed the sale of British manufacturing and industry, it was a combination of plutocrats like James Goldsmith, British share owners and Westminster policy allowing it to happen. So, one of the founding fathers of Euroscepticism and Brexit was a conspicuous Elite reactionary figure, he was a key figure in decimating manufacturing and industry in the UK, who did this for the main reason of rapaciousness.

The decimation of manufacturing and industry was blamed on the EU in propaganda from Leave in 2016. When all along it was domestic figures like Goldsmith and domestic economic policy that did it and not the EU, this is another easily disprovable lie, falsehood and myth.

There are plenty of other conspicuous domestic elite figures such as Jacob Rees Mogg, the ERG and the right wing of The Conservative Party who are clear elite figures. There is Lord Lawson, The Tufton Street right wing elite led think tanks such as The Taxpayers Alliance, The Policy Exchange; the currency speculators Jeremy Hoskings and Chris Harborne who have connections to The Cayman Islands and British tax havens; Jim Ratcliffe the richest man in the UK and The Barclay Brothers. The domestic elite figures attached to Brexit and funding The Brexit and Tory Party is clear and obvious.

This is not some sort of anti-establishment or elite attacking progressive movement. This is a reactionary elite ran project for the benefit of the elites to avoid regulation, to dominate or subvert the rule of law and Parliament, especially regulation of The City of London and British tax havens. To empower elite control over the political, economic and societal institutions of the country because there is little evidence their involvement is for the benefit of your average citizen and they are funding Leave or supporting Brexit out of the goodness of their heart.

Parliament is sovereign is pretty much our only constitutional convention, which, if Boris Johnson were to obtain a majority, he could then use to change all of our domestic institutions, our constitutional positions and foreign allegiances too, the abilities or powers of Westminster and democracy in general in this country. Brexit is a revolutionary force after all, which is using the mandate of 2016 as a battering ram against the flimsy constitutional framework of the UK Parliament. A constitutional arrangement that entrusted that all those in Government and Parliament would definitely act in the national interest and not in a very narrow set of interests within the nation and some interests from outside of it.           

Then there are the foreign elites behind Brexit, British tax havens are where much of the loot from elite figures, corporations, plutocrats, oligarchs, dodgy regimes and outright criminals around the world is stashed away. Estimates suggesting there is twenty trillion pounds at least within them. So, not only are elite figures in this country supportive and beneficial of Brexit, so are elite figures the world over, as EU directives have looked to curb suspect accountancy practices and tax avoidance.

Then there are the US elite figures who have backed, supported and facilitated Brexit, Rupert Murdoch now classed as a US Citizen or dual national with Australian citizenship. The infamous quote of how he approved of Brexit as he had leverage over Westminster with his press and media influence but no impact over Brussels. Robert Mercer, Mark Zuckerburg through Facebook and figures in Silicon Valley who clearly facilitated and supported the propaganda campaign to manipulate the result for Leave.

Then there are the US think tanks with clear links to the Koch Brothers and UK think tanks, there are also the links between Farage and Bannon, Bannon being an operative of Robert Mercer. The Koch Brothers who bought The Republican Party, who are now making overtures to the UK about a US trade deal, Mercer who has been funding anti EU propaganda all over Europe.

The Koch brothers whose main think tank is called The Cato Institute, who are behind constitutional changes in the USA to emasculate and dominate the political realm as exposed by Nancy Mclean in Democracy in Chains and place power completely in elite and corporate hands. The Kochs and other US elites like Mercer, who clearly wish to promote antidemocratic, fascistic and white supremacist movements to promote a lawless capitalism with elite control, where democracy has no influence in terms of the public good principle and the wider population.

Then there is Vladimir Putin, one of the richest men in the world, who funded propaganda and the Russian Oligarchs connected to him who have been funding The Conservative Party and there are now indications of effectively Russian state interference in British Politics all the way to The Executive, in what has been termed the unreleased Russia Report.

This is Putin who as Timothy Snyder exposed is a follower of the philosophies of the Russian fascist and aristocrat, Ilyan,  Ilyan who was an open supporter of Hitler even after the horrors of The Holocaust were revealed, it is difficult to get more fascistic than a post war open fan of Hitler. Now, open fans of Hitler are connected to the highest political office in the UK. Putin obviously benefits from a weakened or destabilised EU as it cements his power, these foreign elite powers all backed Brexit.

That the Russian government could influence the Executive, rig elections in their favour and produce favourable electoral outcomes for themselves in the Soviet Era would have been seen as a huge national emergency then, but is curiously very permissible now that Russians are funding The Conservative Party. There is nothing wrong curiously with Russian interference in destabilising the country, changing our position diplomatically and internationally, and breaking UK laws or attacking our constitution, our societal and political institutions today.

There is little doubt Brexit is an elite project but what makes it all the more clear it is an elite project, is the main answer coming out of Leave for the post Brexit future, they are all about trade. The Brexit Party and Conservative Party are anti public sector investment, unless it is for a corporate bail out or is managed with a corporate focus and they wish to undermine or defund public services. Farage wishes to privatise the NHS, so they do not see government or democratic institutions as the answer, Brexit advocates see the market, global trade, the Elites and corporations as the answer, but a more extreme deregulated version of this with effectively two rules of law, one for the haves, the other for the have nots.

That would be the market and globalism which has hammered all sorts of communities in the UK by Brexiters like James Goldsmith, many of whom have been hoodwinked into believing this was all the fault of the EU and that Brexit will resolve this situation.

The world of international commerce and corporations are by their very design antidemocratic forces or agents in societies and countries. Corporations, for all the public goods and benefits they may have brought, are often beyond the realms of democratic control or they look to subvert, corrupt or dominate elected governments.  Corporations, whose societal value is rarely discussed in terms of our communities, are more often than not dictatorships, fiefdoms, authoritarian organisations or are akin to aristocracies or kingdoms, they are not democracies or democratic or desire to be influenced by democratically elected bodies.

Farage declared on his radio show that the country should be run like a business, they are not democracies and ran his party as one, so he believes that democracy should not apply in the running of his party. This would suggest that is how he sees the country should be run, a self-appointed or appointed leader, to do as they see fit and appoint who they want.

This is a very socially Darwinist or Hobbesian world Brexit advocates and the elites backing it and elites everywhere evidently believe in, where the belief that economic or social power equates to authority and a contempt for the weak of those lower in status. Where economic strength, power and might rule over democracy, rights, environmental, community or national concerns. This is a world envisaged where the elites have complete control in a lawless capitalism, a world or a UK where democratic controls or structures, in terms of the public good principle or serving the whole national interest have been removed or are at the very least emasculated so they can rule and democracy is just an ineffectual mostly one state pantomime.  

This is exemplified in the repeated attacks by Brexiters and those advocating for Brexit against the rule of law, the judiciary and law making powers or any other bodies, figures or institutions who look to hold the executive or government to account.  Or, who stop them from acting how they see fit, the constant calls for deregulation from those within the Brexit movement too, as those deregulations would suit them.

This is another way of saying: remove laws, lawmakers and law enforcement if they are inconvenient. Or, remove the rule of law when it applies to certain people or organisations, and more crucially remove anyone holding power to account or criticizing it or any body or groups from the citizenry trying to use the law against their power.

Anyone, government or party criticizing, legislating against or damaging Elite power. 

It meets this feature of fascism in spades.

11. Everybody is educated to become a hero ‘In Ur-fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death’.

Brexit is clearly a death cult. There are several ways in which it is heroism linked with a death cult. For instance the desire to accept from Leavers the hardships, privations and shortages brought about no deal, where people have claimed they would sooner die of medicine shortages than not leave the EU, others who have claimed they would rather eat grass than be in the EU and many desiring or making favourable and desiring comparisons to rationing and ‘The Blitz Spirit’ of The Second World War, the WA described as ‘the surrender bill’.

Psychologically speaking why in peacetime would you wish any of these things on yourself or the wider population, unless you wanted to prove yourself as some sort of hero or would be willing to die or see others die to achieve those ends? That is a clear and obvious death cult.

Brexit is about creating an unnecessary struggle, it is about picking a fight otherwise why all of the rhetoric and language of war?  It is about stirring up trouble in Europe to create a conflict through which ‘heroic victories’ can be claimed. Where you can claim heroic status and individuals or groups can become heroes fighting against an imagined, perceived or created enemy, which until recently did not exist, a fight with an institution which in reality was an institution largely created, designed and forged by the UK with the UK’s interests at heart, which served it well and has served peaceful prosperity.

The ‘no deal’ culture is not a realistic, sustainable long term solution: that there will be no legal, technical, administrative, logistical, political, societal or economic links between yourself and your nearest neighbours as countries. Any country cutting itself off in this manner can only harm itself and cause damage to its population, this is wishing death, or at least the death of the stability of the country on the population, it is placing the country into an unnecessary conflict with other countries.

Conflict can always escalate and if Farage is willing to call Euroscepticism ‘a war’ with the EU, then a real war could be the tragic conclusion of that trade war or rhetoric, to ignore or dismiss that possibility is to ignore the strange mentality behind it.

Farage, openly talking about The Second World War when the war ended over seventy years ago, before he was born. Why should what happened in the war still matter so much to Brexiters? Why still consider countries we have been at peace with and working together with since the war ended as a military threat or somehow a military or diplomatic enemy?  It is clear that many in Leave view them that way.   

The obsession with World War Two itself from Leave is a death cult and a desire for denied hero status. Why constantly refer to the war if it is not fulfilling something which is missing or has lodged itself perversely in your psyche? Why obsess about easily one of the darkest episodes of human history, which on closer inspection no country comes out of with particular credit or honour, a war that was a deeply disturbing mass slaughter of human life? Obsession with that war is another indication of a death cult, why consider war glorious or heroic?

This is deeply offensive to the victims and the ancestors of victims in that war and to foster rhetoric and warlike attitudes can only be playing with fire and a very dangerous thing to do. This point was made earlier but is worth repeating, as this is a risk that must always be warned and protected against.      

The rhetoric of traitors, traitors being hung, Remainers being killed, death threats against MPs and public figures who are deemed to be standing in the way of Brexit are further indications of a death cult and a call to heroism. Those trying to ‘defeat’, ‘the traitors’ in any way shape or form are celebrated or viewed as heroes. If they oppose the traitors, threaten them, insult or ridicule them or call them fifth columnists, they are heroes, there are postings and mock ups of gallows to hang ‘the traitors’, there have been calls for mass killings of Remainers on social media, for Remainers to be forced out of the country like that would not lead to conflict involving death. This is the rhetoric of a death cult.   

Then there is ‘Make Britain Great Again’, a call to heroism. That through Brexit a heroic achievement will be accomplished, no one has stated the exact year or decades when Britain was great but that is unimportant rhetorically, there have been references made to The British Empire, an obsession with The Commonwealth and former colonial countries.

Well, no matter how much you sugar coat The British Empire with ‘White man’s burden’ nonsense, it was still the British turning up uninvited to lands all over the world, killing locals in the tens of millions, causing suffering and stealing resources, it was armed robbery and established at the point of a gun. Whilst simultaneously, there was no democracy in the UK beyond the privileged few, political dissidents were oppressed here, transported to Australia, killed and full manhood suffrage only arrived pretty much after the empire was over, or was in terminal decline post World War One.

So, an obsession with a time that was very authoritarian, oligarchical, plutocratic, arguably fascistic and when there was lots of killing of foreigners and the outright killing, quashing, undermining and removal of dissenting political voices domestically, with limited to no democracy, that was a great time? What for everyone? Charles Dickens had no grounding in the reality of this society and everyone loved it, it was unreservedly or unquestionably great? We should return to that somehow?

This is more evidence of a death cult in Leave.

Another way Brexit is a death cult, its proponents are largely climate change deniers. Manmade climate change is a 100% scientifically proven reality. Anyone wishing to deny it, delay the green transition is in a death cult to some degree or has strange suicidal desires for the human race. Climate change being just one of the man-made environmental challenges and threats facing humanity,  anyone now standing in the way of a worldwide effort to tackle these issues and facilitate a greener more sustainable future through the green transition:  is a death cultist!

How can you not be? It seems almost an impossible task but governments not engaging with it, are woefully irresponsible and selfish.  It is still not beyond the wit of man to do something proper and fundamental about these problems and Brexit does appear to be a very large nationalist distraction from doing this.

The famously penned dichotomy by Shakespeare in Hamlet on life is pertinent here but on a species scale ‘to be or not to be, that is the question’, societies all around the world are choosing, are being manipulated to or having it enforced upon them: towards the decision of not to be.

Brexit is a death cult for another more immediate danger. As sociologists and anyone observing big economic, societal and political transitions or shocks will clearly demonstrate, that during these immensely stressful times or periods, death rates go up of all kinds, including suicides. No deal or some sudden complete and radical change in the UK society will lead to deaths, this is a certainty.

Many Brexiters ,also, wish for the EU as an organisation to die and the economies of the EU to fail, which, is wishing death upon them and as the statistics prove, economic crashes, that would mean actual death, as severe economic collapse would bring untimely death with it as well.

A significant number of Brexiters wish death on various British institutions: The BBC, Westminster itself, the Political Parties, the House of Lords, the list goes on.

Brexit is a death cult. Where people can become ‘heroes’, heroes of a particular fashion, attacking its enemies; with a wish to create heroic moments for attacking the targets, real or imaginary, of Brexit.

This is Fascistic.

12. Machismo and weaponry ‘Machismo implies both disdain for women and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality’

There are a number of examples of disdain for women in Brexit, firstly, the treatment of the journalist Carole Cadwalladr, she has been harassed, threatened and bullied online for her exposition of Cambridge Analytica and their involvement in the Leave campaign. She has been dismissed by Andrew Neil of the so called impartial BBC as a ‘mad cat woman’ and despite the overwhelming evidence of the involvement of Cambridge Analytica in the Leave campaign using psychological propaganda and manipulation techniques. She has been cast as a crank, crazy and a mentally unstable woman, she has been harassed that much, especially by Arron Banks, that it has resulted in the involvement of lawyers.

She has been threatened with legal action over the claims of the involvement of Cambridge Analytica, even after whistle-blower ex-employees from the company have admitted the involvement of the company in Brexit campaigning. She like many other women suspected of supporting Remain or stopping Brexit have received rape or death threats.

There has been the sustained sexist and racist abuse of Gina Miller who ensured the constitutional integrity of Parliament, preventing the Executive triggering Article 50 through bypassing Parliament and further preventing the Executive implementing laws without Parliamentary scrutiny and approval. She has been the victim of sustained vile calls for her to be deported when she is now a full citizen, she has endured racist abuse and sexist abuse for ensuring that Parliament is sovereign, the very thing Brexit was supposedly all about for many Brexiters in 2016. She ensured that sovereignty was respected and for doing that, rather than be praised by Brexiters for cementing Parliamentary sovereignty in the courts, she became a hate figure.

Whatever you think of her record as Minister or Prime Minister, there has been the sexist treatment of Theresa May. The Metro ran the headline ‘Tell her Phil’ and The Express ran similar stories on her husband, as if she needed to know her place and be informed or told so by her husband or male figures, the clear inference being, the woman has lost it and her husband needs to remind her of her place in the household and society, affirming a patriarchal world view, that he should have the final say on her political views or career, when she had made it to be The Prime Minister!

The respect levels were almost non-existent. Then there has been the discussion of her role in domestic duties, Christmas dinners and then the discussion of her clothes, rather than a discussion of her as doing the job of Prime Minister. The outfits of David Cameron and his ability to knock up a good lunch were never discussed when he was Prime Minister, the same with any other male Prime Minister.

Even on International Women Day she was asked about what she does with her girlfriends to ‘let her hair down’ than to look at her role and career as a prominent and senior politician. Regardless of what you think of her politics, this was possibly more of an opportunity to inspire young women to the prospect of being able to take a leadership role in the country. To champion the very authentic and serious role women can take in any field or career, rather than reduce it to frivolous matters perhaps better suited to another occasion.

Then there was the sexism from across the pond in the shape of Donald Trump and how he told May ‘how to do Brexit’ but she wrecked it, like he, a man, could have resolved it easily, which, is an absurdity of course: even more so when that man is Donald Trump. Tragically, however, there has been the willingness of May to openly accept a clearly sexist figure like Trump, just for the purposes of a post Brexit trade deal with the US.

Then there has been the treatment of Greta Thunberg, not directly related to Brexit but she seems to be a figure of hatred for Brexiters who have repeatedly attacked her on social media. Arron Banks infamously wished death upon her, on her voyage on a yacht to the USA in ‘an accident’ with an iceberg. Even though she is only really a child, she is an inspirational figure to many and is only pointing out what is verifiably true, so, an attack on Thunberg is simultaneously an attack on the truth and what is rational, see 2.

As uncomfortable and as difficult to countenance, accept or react to as the truth about man-made climate change and the environment is, or to know what to do about it, that does not stop man-made climate change or these other problems being the truth. Or, that her response to it and those desiring of the green transition as being rational and those opposing the green transition being irrational: though she has been cast regularly as the irrational girl who is talking nonsense by Brexiters.  

Then there has been the open hostility from Arron Banks who funded the Leave campaign to homosexuals, suggesting that it was a choice. Jacob Rees Mogg has similarly opposed same sex marriage and homosexuality as a sin against God in his catholic views, others in the Tory party opposed same sex marriage and there has been open homophobia from Boris Johnson: The Prime Minister!

One of the Leave campaign whistle-blowers Shahmir Sanni was deliberately outed to leave him exposed to homophobic hatred, abuse and threats. Brexit party candidates have declared open war on the LGBT community, whatever that means, then there are the views expressed online, it will not take you long to find homophobia on there from Brexiters.

Although, the biggest indications that Brexiters are homophobic is that voices in the Bexit movement wish to abolish The Human Rights Act. An act which protects the rights of people against discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and freedom of thought, freedom of expression, the right to freedom from degrading treatment, no punishment without the law, the right to marry, the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property and a respect to your private life, a right to liberty and security.

Who are going to be the most vulnerable to abuses if those rights were to be completely taken away?

It would be those on the margins of societies who would definitely suffer the most and one of those groups would be homosexuals. People may point to advances in marriage, representation and rights in society for homosexuals but they would rather be ignoring the reality that legislation like The Human Rights Act underpins those advances and protects individuals and communities against abuses.

What other agenda could there be for removing those rights than you wish to make all marginal groups more vulnerable and people in general? What other reason could there be than undermining the status of currently more protected groups in society? Surely, it cannot be to improve their rights, otherwise you would be proposing new or improved rights, when that is not what is being proposed: outright abolition is being proposed.     

Who else are likely to suffer in that scenario? Women and children are, especially, women and children who are in a difficult circumstance of some kind, something which can happen to any woman. Even more so if respect or rights to your home, family life, rights to your property, rights to your education and your rights to other present societal norms are removed with the abolition of The Human Rights Act. Rights are generally there to protect the vulnerable, removing them would leave them exposed to discrimination and abuse, to pretend or argue that would not be the case, ignores just why those rights were installed or had to be fought for in the first place.

Then there has been the threats made to women MP’s, the mass exodus of female MP’s from The Conservative party. Sadly, there are many, many examples to draw upon confirming that Brexit fits this feature of fascism.

13. Selective Populism ‘There is in our future a TV or internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People’.

‘The will of the people’ is a phrase that is often heard and when certain people speak about Brexit, they are apparently representing the ‘will of the people’. They are the Voice of the people, they speak for them. They know what they definitely voted for and wanted, like some sort of religious leader or TV Evangelist who has God on speed dial.

Even though it is an impossibility to have a consistency of views in a room of five people, that 17.4 million always concurs about at times seemingly contradictory and inconsistent things or that this morphs on occasions into the whole electorate or the whole population, this should be dismissed as absurd. This has, however, been a regular occurrence in the rhetoric of Leave advocates and voices discussing Brexit. This idea that actions can be justified as ‘the will or the voice of the people’ should be preposterous but it is often entertained or posited as factual and everyone definitely agrees with them.

This selective populism, this ‘will of the people’ narrative has then been used to attack our democratic institutions. There has been an attack on Civil Servants, Ollie Robbins, being an obvious prominent example, as he has been part of the negotiations team with the EU, Farage said he would ‘put the knife’ in civil servants. The Civil Service have been criticized as obstructive, when their function is to implement plans, directives and policies issued by Government, they cannot act independently of those instructions. They have to operate in the world of political and practical reality, they have to provide detail, mechanisms, technicalities, and legalities, they cannot repeat slogans to their foreign counterparts and expect things to be taken seriously or for those slogans to magically resolve the minutiae or complex practicalities of issues.

Nigel Farage demanded that all Civil Servants believe in Brexit, which, shows a startling ignorance of the nonpartisan role of The Civil Service and its remit to serve Parliament, citizens and the national interest as best it can. It is, also, a demand of obedience from all to Brexit. That everyone within the political and democratic institutions of the country ‘believe in Brexit’ which is kind of hard to believe in if no one can clearly define what it is and even if they do, it would be like asking us to believe unquestioningly in our new relationship with other countries, not the country itself.

So, it would not be so much to ask people to believe in Britain but to ask them to believe in Britain’s new relationships with other countries, as that is what the Brexit process would establish, but, we do not know what that international relationship would be yet because it has not been determined. Though, apparently, we have to unquestioningly support the thing that we do not know what it is yet?

The only real country emerging as a new partner is the USA. So, we are supposed to believe in the USA? Is that what Brexit is supposed to mean?

This unquestioning demand for loyalty and obedience, even before power is achieved, this is the rhetoric of a totalitarian regime, as Arendt identified in The Origins of Totalitarianism the demand for ‘total, unrestricted, unconditional and unalterable loyalty’ begins before power is achieved and there have been open demands for this from the population towards Brexit from Brexit advocates. 

The Judiciary has been attacked as being against ‘the will of the people’ more than once, the highest court in the land, The Supreme Court, they have been referred to as ‘The enemy of the people’, that they have been ‘infiltrated’ by the EU. The Judiciary have been ridiculed for their sexuality (see 12) and for their taste in music. The Judge was a Jazz fan, which is a clear and obvious indication of terrible corruption and traitorous Europhile ways, this rather begging the question what is the acceptable Brexit music to listen to? The approved kinds or lists of acceptable music were inexplicably missing from the criticism by The Daily Mail. 

The bizarre part being that The Supreme Court  when asked to judge on the lawfulness around Brexit, despite all the howls of protest from Brexiters about parliamentary sovereignty in 2016, ruled that Parliament was sovereign and that it is the law-making body in our democracy, twice. That the executive could not do as it saw fit, as that would no longer be a parliamentary democracy where decision-making could be held to account by democratically elected parliamentarians.

The sovereignty of Parliament at Westminster being such a bone of contention during the 2016 debate by Brexiters, as something which had apparently been lost to the EU and which needed to be reclaimed. Although, it did not take long for Parliament to be traitorous and a ‘Remainer Parliament’ and now Parliament being proven to be sovereign is an outrage. According to Nigel Farage the Supreme Court ruling was the ‘Worst political decision ever’, that the courts should rule Parliament as sovereign is now the worst decision ever, what?   

This has then lead to serious calls for the removal of the separation of powers and to install ‘elected’ judges, when the whole purpose or operation of an authentic judiciary and for the proper rule of law, is for the judiciary to be separate from political or external control,  with no one, not even the Government or The Head of State as being above the law or its ruling. Political bias should not be allowed in the judiciary and the courts did not make a political decision on Brexit, they concluded that Parliament is the decision and law-making body, asking Parliament to make a decision on Brexit on both occasions it was asked to rule on it.

Brexiters have called for the abolition of The Supreme Court and the ability of the judiciary to hold the Government or Executive to the rule of law. If that is not fascism, that The Executive should be able to do what it sees fit, including ignoring the rule of law or having the judiciary under its direct influence, then it is difficult to argue what is.

Proposals to do this have made it into The Conservative Manifesto.   

Leave have attacked Parliament itself with this Will of the People rhetoric. Parliament, our sovereign law-making body, which is full of elected MPs has been described as ‘a disgrace’ and ‘undemocratic’. There have been calls by newspapers for Parliament to ‘get out of the way’, which is a call for an executive rule, a dictatorship or an ochlocracy with all the inherent demagogic dangers of that for the nation. There have been demands that the Prime Minister has complete power to do as they see fit and bypass being held to account by Parliament, this has been presented somehow as ‘the voice of the people’ or the voice of the 17.4 million, which is still a minority and by a distance in terms of the population.  There have even been polls to determine the public mood for a dictator type figure ‘strong man’ who does not have to be held to account by Parliament.

It is entirely constitutional for MPs to vote in what they view as in the national interest, a culture of intimidation and an encouragement of threat and violence to opposition MP’s has, however, been fostered. The Prime Minister Boris Johnson himself, dismissing real threats of violence as ‘humbug’ and those opposing the government position from Conservative MPs as ‘fifth columnists’. When we are very much are not at war with the EU, implying our nearest mainland neighbours are the enemy, that the EU, which we are still a member of, is an enemy that is attacking us, a diplomatic or military enemy is dangerous rhetoric.  

Then we can return to the calls to abolish The Human Rights Act by Brexit advocates. This would remove all sorts of rights which are currently afforded to citizens as mentioned earlier but more crucially the act is only enshrined in law in this country, through our membership of the EU. There have been no clear proposals to enshrine these rights in UK law and open calls for abolition from Brexiters, even the Prime Minister in Theresa May proposed abolishing it, as have other Ministers in Michael Gove and Dominic Raab for instance.

Further rights that would be removed by abolition include: freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, freedom from slavery or forced labour, rights to a fair trial, freedom of assembly, freedom of expression, rights to vote and to remove the abolition of the death penalty.

Any political movement wishing to attack and outright remove those rights is unlikely to be a utopian, open and democratic one. It is very likely to a fascist movement with demented designs on a future society in the UK.

This kind of talk and proposals on human rights has fitted under the heading of ‘The Will of the People’, abolishing human rights was not a policy proposal presented by Leave in 2016.

This is more mandate manipulation and rhetoric of fascism from Brexiters.

14. Ur- Fascism speaks Newspeak ‘All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.

There has been plenty of this involved in the Leave campaign and Brexit, mainly taking the form of meaningless slogans and arguments. The locutions and slogans employed have been used to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning and arguments. There have been many, so, this will not be an exhaustive review but a focus on some specific ones.

Firstly, from the campaign for Leave itself ‘Let’s take back control’, which was praised as a powerful slogan because it suggested that essentially foreigners were in control of the country. It played into fears, xenophobia and the general sense of powerlessness people feel about many things in the world and in their lives, it is psychologically very effective. It, also, implies this measure will be taken to protect the country from things threatening it.

This slogan, however, rather obscures just what The EU are in control of, who will this new control be handed to and what is intended to be done with that control for the betterment of society. It, also, ignores the reality that the UK is part of the EU and has control within it, it had a lot of influence due to its key contributions on growth, trade and law. The UK in the EU has control, outside of it, it will have none over the EU but the idea that the EU will bend to the will of a former and increasingly hostile member, is not really worthy of serious consideration. The extent, to which the UK diverges from the EU, will only create a bigger trade, cooperation and logistical barrier. This would essentially mean that the UK will have far less control and will be treated as a rogue state and not only by the EU members.

It, also, ignores the reality that any emasculation of political controls in our society happened in Westminster and because of governments and policies there or domestic positioning. That institutions of our society have been enclosed beyond the political realm through deliberate constitutional or political positioning like the economy, land, infrastructure or public use facilities like energy or water for example through privatization, was due to domestic occurrences or lack of occurrences here. Then there has been the marketisation of natural monopolies of what should be democratically and politically controlled or at the very least heavily regulated by robust governmental bodies, all of these have happened through domestic politics and mainly to serve the interests of the elites, the rich and powerful.  

‘Take back control’ or slogans like this remove history. They erase or obscure historical context, alternative explanations or factors and play instead to primal emotions of fear or a lack of control, which is effective as a marketing and propaganda strategy, but countries cannot operate effectively for sustained periods on the language of marketing and propaganda, if people really want authentic control and clear evidence that their Parliament is serving its citizens primarily to make them secure, prosperous or healthy with generous amounts of liberty, rights, freedom and so forth: more is needed.

Why has there not been a concerted and obvious demand for some constitutional reform to demand that Parliament in a more conspicuous, evidence based and rational or reasoned way is constitutionally obliged to serve citizens? As that is far more likely to produce results for ‘control’, constitutional reform with clear designs within it to improve the lot of all in society, as a constitutional duty. That will be far more effective than some wishy washy slogan about control which could mean anything and control for only certain groups in our society.

Which has you returning to the strangely unanswered question to the ‘Take back control’ slogan, who or what is the control for and just what is that ‘control’ trying to achieve?

‘Brexit means Brexit’ a slogan introduced post the result as a kind of rallying call after the endorsement of the narrow Leave victory, is another slogan which removes critical reasoning, as it obscures the meaning of what Brexit is. Brexit could mean something small, non-intrusive, it could mean some huge monumental shift, change or epoch for the country.

What is it? What does it mean in real terms? Where is the detail? Customs Union, Single market and ECJ or EU laws aside, what does Brexit actually mean in real terms? As there is still to this day, no clear indication what that will mean, no clear real proposal or agreement with the EU as to what our relationship will be. What Brexit will mean for citizens, workers or communities and people cannot live off slogans or thrive on those. We need details, certainty, stability and a clear direction. There is no clear direction, other than vague talk of a US Trade deal. 

‘The undemocratic backstop’ referring to the Northern Ireland border concern on the Ireland of Ireland is another slogan, which ignores a number of things. Firstly, Northern Ireland voted to Remain by a ten percent margin. Remaining in the EU is a majority position in the country where a border may just be about to be installed, The Republic of Ireland is now very much pro EU and pro membership, so, the clear majority of the population on that island would effectively want the backstop, more than that. They want to Remain in the EU but that is undemocratic? Being in the EU is the majority opinion of the electorate voting on the island of Ireland. So, it would not be undemocratic for the Irish and British living there.

This would rather suggest that democracy in England and Wales, holds primacy over democracy elsewhere, more so than the democratic will of entire countries, Scotland too, within the union of The United Kingdom and a nearest neighbour country, that is a strange kind of ‘democracy’.

Secondly, the UK Government proposed the backstop and they are all elected. They proposed it as it would simply be necessary in one form or another for any transition period to a new relationship between the UK and the EU and the countries which form its members, the governments of which are all democratically elected.

Thirdly, and most importantly, calling it undemocratic is not a solution. It is not a practical solution to the problems on the island of Ireland which has deep and serious historical significance for the population living there and here. This is something those living in England may not have a full or meaningful appreciation of but for those people living there it means their lives and communities, it is very serious for them and that should matter to all in the union of the UK, if the UK is to remain a union, it should matter to all members of that union.

‘Leave means Leave’ is another slogan used to try to manipulate the mandate towards no deal by insisting that 2016 was a mandate to Leave the EU under any circumstances. This is clearly not true for reasons already outlined but what this slogan hides beneath is the clear ulterior motive this was always the real position for figures within Leave. That there was no real intention on behalf of a number of Brexit advocates to make ‘a deal’, the deal, all Leave advocates in 2016 proposed would happen.

Then there is the government response to The Benn Act, dubbed ‘ the surrender bill’ familiar war rhetoric but the reaction has been to state in a weird kind of doublespeak that government ministers would respect the law but will still leave on the 31^st October through ‘no deal’ if necessary because that was the law ‘The Brexit Bill’. When it was not the law, as the law has changed, ruling out no deal in this instance. How can the government say that it will respect the law, even write to the courts saying they will respect the law and then in the same breath say they will not respect the law? This is just an absurd and contradictory position, which does not stand up to any amount of critical thought or reasoning see 2, 3, 4 and 10.

Then there is the latest slogan ‘Get Brexit Done’ which is meaningless and ridiculous. It inspires again the question ‘done for what’? It, also, comes with no detail as Brexit is not defined and it cannot be completely defined by the UK Government alone. It is a fantasy and not based in reality at all, to suggest that there will be a date when Brexit or our relations with the EU will be done, they will be ongoing. The future relationship would take the best part of a decade to negotiate but that relationship would be constantly being negotiated and renegotiated forever, this is not going to stop at any point.

To present the idea that it will be is a gross oversimplification of the future relationship but what is more concerning is that the people repeating that slogan must know that too. There is just no way a half way intelligent person cannot know this, this is disingenuous. Slogans cannot resolve complex and multifaceted relationships between nations and this is a reduction of the debate to an infantile level, the slogans are instead just repeated to remove any critical or complex reasoning or debate.

Get Brexit Done, the real meaning of that slogan increasingly is becoming apparent in one respect as, privatize the NHS. Which, considering the use of the NHS in Leave propaganda should be deeply shameful and an abomination in its duplicity but is just accepted by millions, especially when the NHS is a popular institution among Tory Voters and the entire nation, many more than who voted Leave.

Then when it comes to Education there was Lance Forman demanding on Twitter that the ‘leftist culture from our schools, universities, civil service and media’ is rooted out. This is a policy remarkably similar to Gleichshaltung of the Nazis to make the country a totalitarian state, through removing any other opinions, criticisms or voices: other than ones which are deemed acceptable.

This does not stand up to the critical reasoning. That if the ‘leftist culture’ in education and society was so pervasive and influential, would there not be a left wing government permanently in Westminster? When there has been a more right leaning or right wing government of one kind of another in power since the 1970’s in the UK, arguably there has never been a substantially left wing government in the UK.

So, this seems to be a concern which is exaggerated to say the least and just how could this policy be implemented without huge changes in the rights of citizens or without new bodies set up to enforce it? Political bodies which would have to be along the lines of the Stasi or the Gestapo to identify and then sack people or worse, for having a different political view. Then what happens to those people after that? In a society where you are only allowed approved political views or you are not allowed to share your views with others or people are silenced in terms of what they think?  

This is fascism.

Conclusion

Is this really fascism? Are some of the thoughts and ideas expressed on this unnecessarily alarmist, hyperbolic or hysterical? That this is not fascism or emergent fascism? Are these unfounded concerns?

There is here a body of evidence which proves that it is or could become fascism, people can decide for themselves.

Brexit could be dismissed as a nationalist spasm, a misplaced, projecting reaction of a country or politics that is devoid of clear directions or solutions for society going forward or is having a crisis of what to do. A society or politics which is struggling to identify a new path and with ones chosen in the past.  A society who is mired in a generational division and conflict over what society should be, an electorate who looked for facile answers in what was dressed up as a panacea to the ills of society and as political solutions to just about everything. It was sold as a pill which would resolve issues in a refreshingly easy and convenient way, with no real complications to a new heroic chapter of independence.

Those notions of ease are superficial, that Brexit was even allowed to be discussed in these terms has shown how vulnerable our politics has become to demagoguery, populism and charlatanism. That within a very short time the EU became the cause of, and leaving it the solution to most of the problems of the UK, points to sophisticated propaganda, alongside, more traditional propaganda methods, that all of a sudden the EU became such big news, when it was hardly mentioned or never regarded as a cause of problems in UK political discourse, is scapegoating at the very least, outright manipulation of the electorate at the most. That the electorate can be manipulated in this way should be a real cause for concern. 

It could be argued that Brexit is more plainly and undramatic, a movement away from a closer political integration with the continent and what is perceived as an opaque and domineering political force.  A desire for the relationship to be more an economic one but this simply does not explain the current positioning on the economy from the current Government of leaving the Customs Union and the Single market; as there just is not a sound or unproblematic economic case for leaving those.

That this is an argument within the Conservative party of which UKIP and The Brexit Party are just an element, a Eurosceptic movement born out of a reaction to The Maastricht Treaty. Where Thatcher who was opposed to Maastricht is the rallying figure because after spending so much of her time in office dismantling, privatizing and emasculating the political realm, through following the policies of James Buchannan, who influenced President Reagan in the US, that she was concerned politics and democracy might re-establish at a European level, rather than the control in politics and the power in economics being mostly in private authoritarian hands, in the undemocratic corporate, business and economic elite realm. Thatcher was rather hoping Thatcherism would reign throughout Europe which may have had something more to do with her personality, ego, ideology and those who supported her, than with what was right to do constitutionally in domestic terms and internationally with the EU. Although, she is not the only major or minor political figure within the history of the EU or Europe who wanted things more on their terms or to serve them. 

That Nigel Farage, UKIP and the Brexit Party have no chance whatsoever of forming a Government in Westminster. He personally would never be Prime Minister, even though he has expressed the desire to be so, as he would simply never get the required support in the electorate and so, this is simply impossible, the sceptics up until recently, having low numbers in Parliament.

That if Brexit happens, The Conservative Party if it were to gain a majority, would in the negotiation process cave in on a hard no deal Brexit and will adopt a more Norwegian style arrangement with the EU to protect the economy because it could no longer be considered the party of sound economics and sensible government if it did not. That Brexit would just be a compromise, a political fudge would emerge and things would largely continue as normal and the political landscape would return pretty much back to what it was and Brexit and EU membership would continue as a debate and an issue but that would be mostly it.

No extreme government would emerge.

There has been talk from some of the UK as having a Weimar Republic 1930’s Germany moment right now: that the ground for a fascist takeover is being laid. This has been dismissed by others by counterarguments of that in Germany there were approximately four million armed Nazi paramilitaries on the streets of Germany in the SA, Mussolini had paramilitaries too. The economic, societal and political situations, domestic and worldwide, with fledgling democracies, were more extreme and entirely different.

Then there was the very ambitious, sociopathic and in many ways fortunate Hitler. Who had an effective supporting cast of elite support and figures operating within the political and state body in Himmler and Goering, so, the comparison is moot at the very least and could easily be argued to be incomparable or dismissed entirely.

To dismiss, however, that there is emergent fascism or fascism in this country is to not take that threat seriously and it should always be taken seriously or the emergence of extreme nationalism or politics as it tends to end badly or at the very least have terrible and very regrettable moments, as the history books prove undoubtedly. There is not a time when any country or society should not take these kinds of threats seriously.

People in the UK seem to think it could not happen here, the emergence of demagogues and fascists into the governing institutions of power and that democracy would never be removed in this country, this is something that happens to countries in Europe but not in Blighty.

Is Farage a fascist or others within the ERG or Tory Party, are people supporting Brexit fascists? People can draw their own conclusions. It is clear that the ERG would prefer a deal with the USA and a US style society, where there is more Elite and corporate control and a severely weakened or ineffectual democracy. 

There are definitely, in my opinion, elements of fascism within Brexit. The emergence of demagogues and the demagoguery in Brexit is dangerous, in that when the door is opened to demagogues and fascism you have no idea who or what might come through that door. Especially, if events take a turn for the worst, as people do not tend to act sensibly in those circumstances and can be easily persuaded into the hands of demagogues, fascists and dangerous types claiming to be strong men, who have very extreme proposals or solutions for dealing with those problems.  

Our constitutional conventions are fragile, the mains ones being that Parliament is sovereign as the law making body and MP’s are to act in ‘The national interest’. The national interest being a dubious thing because all sorts of things that have been voted in as ‘the national interest’ it could be argued with evidence, are against the interests of the nation or the citizens within it and future generations too. It is vulnerable to those who can claim they are serving the national interest, when in reality they are serving a narrower set of interests or a specific or ideological set of interests. Especially, if a burden of proof or evidence based approach is taken or an approach of assessing what is truly valuable or beneficial to citizens on a range of indices, not just questionable economic ones.

It could be argued to be in ‘the national interest’ to disenfranchise votes from the population or certain parts of the population, to militarize, to gerrymander and reduce the chances of serious political opposition. To remove constitutionally all sorts of things from being influenced by political and democratic institutions, a whole new constitution that favours certain groups, agents or movements within a society, for rights to be taken away or new restrictions to be imposed.

It may be argued that some leader coming into rule the UK in a fascist way would need an army and a military presence on the street, where is this military presence and millions of soldiers? Well, with modern weaponry a leader would not need an army. Relatively inexpensive flocks of drones can substitute that, they can heat seek in buildings, identify specific people or groups and eliminate them. There is technology in development for land robot soldiers too, there are chemical weapons, where a thimbleful of poison could wipe out hundreds of thousands, then there are of course nuclear weapons.

People might argue that no one would use any of these weapons or do these extreme things! They have in the past. If people can be manipulated through propaganda to support or consent to damaging and even violent things, including highly intelligent people, as they have been in the past. Then why will they not be manipulated to such extreme ends in the future, again, especially if things go awry? Why build these devastating robot armies if you are not intending to use them at some point?

Arguably with the total inaction on climate change and the very serious threats to human existence facing our societies we are in a dystopia now, where the threats which could consume humanity are being roundly ignored, people are being diverted or distracted from these threats and voices raising concerns are dismissed in a variety of ways and a selfish myopia is encouraged and fostered which serves sections of our society far better than others: whilst doing little to nothing about the destruction and the damage that is occurring. The dangerous myths that nothing can be done, it is too late or that there are other explanations or that most people do not care or are made not to care are encouraged and fostered too.

This is most dangerous element of Brexit and Fascism is what people can be persuaded of as an acceptable course of action, largely, through the employment of myths and myth making.

Since 2008, people have been persuaded in enough numbers that a gigantic fraud on subprime mortgages and other deeply fraudulent financial products in the USA or originating there was not the cause of the economic crash then, when with overwhelming evidence that is exactly what it is that caused it.

That not only should the taxpayers of the UK and Europe pay the institutions who were conspirators in this fraud, trillions of pounds to effectively make good the payment on those fraudulent activities but that the blame for this fraud should be placed on government spending and the public services that the overwhelming majority of the population use and they should be defunded as a result or blamed on immigrants or the poor. These austerity policies have led tragically to actual preventable and untimely deaths in the hundreds of thousands across the UK and Europe.

Many people have largely accepted this entirely false and evidence free myth of government spending causing this economic crisis and that the taxpayer should foot the bill for financial sector fraud as totally acceptable and there should be no proper investigation or prosecutions of those involved. 

People have then been persuaded that somehow leaving the EU will resolve things for the nation going forward and that the EU is the cause of all sorts of ills in our society, again, a large number of people have totally accepted this myth as a reality.

There have been a whole range of myths and lies accepted as real, to the point of alternative realities.

Where does this myth making with Brexit take the UK, where will it end? Myth making is the very stuff of fascist and totalitarian regimes. Some of the most terrible chapters of human history have been justified on the back of misleading and dangerous myths. What is the conclusion of a society that bases its policies in myths not evidence? It is not that everyone has to agree with them; just enough people do, as the last decade has proven. The population of the UK has been willing enough to believe in myths over the last ten years over evidence in very large numbers and as a direct consequence people have suffered and died.

What myths could enough people be convinced of in the future?

So, in my opinion, this threat of fascism is very real. The threat to our democracy is clear. Brexit and the dismantling of our democratic and societal institutions has to be stopped.   

I fear it might be too late as myths, falsehoods, propaganda, demagogues and elite manipulation will win out, as they often have before in a society on the road to collapse.

This is an example post, originally published as part of Blogging University. Enroll in one of our ten programs, and start your blog right.

You’re going to publish a post today. Don’t worry about how your blog looks. Don’t worry if you haven’t given it a name yet, or you’re feeling overwhelmed. Just click the “New Post” button, and tell us why you’re here.

Why do this?

• Because it gives new readers context. What are you about? Why should they read your blog?
• Because it will help you focus you own ideas about your blog and what you’d like to do with it.

The post can be short or long, a personal intro to your life or a bloggy mission statement, a manifesto for the future or a simple outline of your the types of things you hope to publish.

To help you get started, here are a few questions:

• Why are you blogging publicly, rather than keeping a personal journal?
• What topics do you think you’ll write about?
• Who would you love to connect with via your blog?
• If you blog successfully throughout the next year, what would you hope to have accomplished?

You’re not locked into any of this; one of the wonderful things about blogs is how they constantly evolve as we learn, grow, and interact with one another — but it’s good to know where and why you started, and articulating your goals may just give you a few other post ideas.

Can’t think how to get started? Just write the first thing that pops into your head. Anne Lamott, author of a book on writing we love, says that you need to give yourself permission to write a “crappy first draft”. Anne makes a great point — just start writing, and worry about editing it later.

When you’re ready to publish, give your post three to five tags that describe your blog’s focus — writing, photography, fiction, parenting, food, cars, movies, sports, whatever. These tags will help others who care about your topics find you in the Reader. Make sure one of the tags is “zerotohero,” so other new bloggers can find you, too.