Brexit: Ideology and Promise

Skip to first unread message

Florian Galler

Mar 25, 2019, 8:44:09 PM3/25/19
to realpsychohistory

Brexit: Ideology and Promise


The British prime-minister, Theresa May, probably will not be able to address reasonable members of parliament in order to achieve a solution with the EU without self-inflicted wounds and worldwide damage to EU and legitimation of Democracies. I also do not expect Jeremy Corbyn, the leader oft he Labnour Party to be willing or able to unite moderate, not ideological members of Parliament.



May seems to be preoccupied with the extreme Brexiteers in her own party and their ideology. These people direct a lot of feelings of hate and wishes of destruction toward the EU.  See for example the following group fantasies of destruction by prominent Brexiteer Nigel Farage in an interview with Italy’s Corriere della Sera two weeks before the Brexit vote, which was held on Jun 23, 2016:


“We can’t lose this referendum ... there will be a Big Bang of British politics: nothing will remain the same,” Farage said. He said he would “destroy the old EU”, together with 5-Star leader Beppe Grillo.


“On June 19 the 5-Star movement elects the mayor of the capital and changes Italy. On June 23 Britain leaves the EU and changes Europe. We will trigger a domino effect. After us, other northern European countries will leave, starting with Denmark,” he said. “The EU is about to collapse, disintegrating in several pieces.”


Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman in2011 called the European societies «the most decent in human history». I think he’s right. But that does not protect these societies from deep feelings of contempt, hate and rage which are projected on them by dissoiated personality parts of their inhabitants.


An objective truth is not strong enough to determine our political preferences.  Our sponteneous behavior reveals that feelings of weakness, rage, hate and contempt are connected with reasonable democratic institutions.  What is good in our real lives, is bad for the defense of our traumatic feelings from early trauma by national politics. The more adavanced our civilisations the less these early traumas will be acted out by our political systems. The more advanced, reasonable and  fair a democracy, the more feelings of contempt and hate are  directed at it. The Brexiteers hate the EU, and international integration in general, because they are connected with lots of rules designed to produce decent societies and prevent destructive reinactements of traumatic experiences of the inhabitants.

However, deep feelings of rage and anxiety are not warded off anymore by our states. Under the influence of our dissociated personality-parts, our alter egos,  we unconsciously  want to destroy the «most decent societies of mankind».


Identification with an ideology in state of collective madness enables a re-establishment of a prenatal relationship with a good, nurturant placenta accompanied with feelings of strength and purification. Governments as in Russia which are willing and able to act out our prenatal traumatic feelings in politics are spontaneously evoking feelings  and strength and purification and not of contempt and hate as in the case of real democracies.


Therefore identification with the alter ego and a destructive ideology induces spontaneous feelings of promise and purification in us.  So the  radical left in the USA  probably did not vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016, because they shared the feelings of contempt for  her and the so-called establishment without preoccupation and  regret. 


I think there is a considerable risk that neither May nor Corbyn will be able to distance themselves from vicious unconscious group wishes behind their mad politics.


James Sturges

Apr 7, 2019, 5:43:55 PM4/7/19
The EU needs to be destroyed. It is a little-disguised stalking horse for world tyranny.

Hence, Nigel Farage is a hero.

BTW, Paul Krugman is  complete idiot who said the stock market would crash if Trump were elected.

One of the ultra-STUPID market calls of all time.

Have a nice day.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "realpsychohistory" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
To post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Patrick McEvoy-Halston

Apr 7, 2019, 6:37:38 PM4/7/19
to realpsychohistory
Overall, I agree. I think the placenta bit misleads, because, ostensibly, the placenta is universal (though not really, for what gets communicated through the placenta will differ drastically depending on the emotional state of the mother), whereas the problem lies in a relationship with a particular sort of mother, the one shorn of love herself so is compelled to reject the child when s/he acts in ways which tell of, or foretell, their independence. I also don't know if the problem is with unconscious wishes. That is, if a young child realizes that their independence means their mother's repudiation of them, their brains may consciously associate self-growth with maternal rejection: their first association of it is as fun and exciting, but also very much of causing harm to the person who had been the whole of your environment and who remains essential to you. You can demonstrate, and they can feel, that a modernizing society is making the world better, and they will not draw on conscious remembrances of this phenomena shorn of it meaning making their mother feel unloved and abandoned, miserable. 
Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages