The rise of nationalist and populist rhetoric in Europe, particularly in the context of Brexit, has drawn historical comparisons to authoritarian dictators as Adolf Hitler. Among the most controversial figures in this movement is Nigel Farage, former leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) and a central architect of the Brexit campaign. Farage’s rhetoric—characterized by his disdain for the European Union (EU), his portrayal of immigrants as a threat, and accusations of pandering to racist and xenophobic sentiments—has prompted scholars and critics to draw parallels between his discourse and the demagoguery employed by Hitler.
Farage, Brexit and the Anti-European xenophobic propaganda
Nigel Farage’s political career took off largely on the basis of his strong opposition to the European Union. His central message was that the EU threatened the UK’s sovereignty and the cultural identity of the British people. Farage consistently framed his anti-EU arguments in nationalist terms, painting the EU as a faceless bureaucracy that imposed its will on the UK. During the Brexit referendum campaign, Farage’s rhetoric intensified, and many have argued that his speeches stoked fear and division, particularly around the issue of immigration. In several instances, Farage’s portrayal of immigrants as invaders bears resemblance to how Hitler depicted certain ethnic groups, particularly Jews, as responsible for the degradation of the German state. Hitler and the Nazi Party (NSDAP) often described Jewish people as a corrupting influence that undermined German values and traditions—similarly, Farage has portrayed migrants, especially those from Muslim-majority countries, as a cultural and economic threat.
Criminal Propaganda of Fear, Hatred and Xenophobia soaked in populist nationalism
Farage’s rhetoric lies in his portrayal of immigration as an existential threat to British society. One of the most infamous examples is Farage’s unveiling of the “Breaking Point” poster during the Brexit campaign, which depicted a long line of refugees, many of whom were from war-torn regions of the Middle East. The image evoked fears of uncontrolled immigration and a loss of British cultural identity, drawing heavy criticism for being xenophobic and inflammatory. This poster has been likened to Nazi-era propaganda that depicted Jewish people and other minorities as swarms overwhelming German society, playing on the same fears of cultural degradation. In addition to the “Breaking Point” poster, Farage has frequently warned of Britain becoming a “foreign territory” due to immigration. Statements such as these are designed to provoke anxiety about national identity and security—two themes that were also prominent in Hitler’s speeches. Hitler consistently used the rhetoric of cultural purity and the need for a homogeneous society to justify policies of exclusion and violence.
Farage has often styled himself as a voice for the “ordinary people” against an elite establishment, both at home and in Europe. This populist approach mirrors Hitler’s framing of the Nazi Party as a movement that represented the “true” German people against corrupt elites, communists, and international Jewry. Both Farage and Hitler use the technique of creating a dichotomy between an authentic, virtuous national identity and a corrupt, foreign enemy, which threatens that identity. For Farage, this enemy is the EU, and by extension, European citizens, refugees, and anyone seen as undermining British sovereignty. Farage’s repeated emphasis on the EU as an unelected, unaccountable body has drawn comparisons to how Hitler vilified international institutions and liberal democracies as part of a global conspiracy against Germany. While Farage may not openly promote violent exclusion, his rhetoric taps into the same anxieties about globalization and foreign influence that Hitler exploited during the 1930s. Farage’s rhetoric often invokes the principle of free speech as an excuse for his controversial statements in public speech propaganda, the same as Hitler did in 1922 while at the Bürgerbräukeller Beer Hall. The framing of “free speech” allows Farage to disseminate xenophobic and antisemitic ideas under the guise of defending freedoms. By presenting his views as a necessary counterbalance to political correctness or elite censorship, Farage appeals to those who feel marginalized or disenchanted with mainstream discourse. This strategy effectively normalizes and legitimizes harmful stereotypes and prejudices, making them subtle propaganda to the public.
This tactic is reminiscent of how Hitler used the rhetoric of free speech and anti-establishment sentiment to advance his antisemitic propaganda. Hitler framed his attacks on Jews and other minorities as a form of fight against the so-called “Elite” influence on the media and political institutions, presenting himself as a defender of German values against a corrupting foreign influence. Similarly, Farage’s use of rhetoric around free speech serves to mask the underlying xenophobia, racial hatred, and anti-European antisemitism in his arguments, subtly instilling these prejudices into the public debate. Both leaders exploited the concept of free speech to advance extremist views, effectively using it as a tool for spreading division and hate under the pretence of legitimate political discourse.
Allegations of Racism and Antisemitism
While Farage has denied being racist or antisemitic, his political alliances and public statements have often drawn allegations of both. For example, Farage has had a close association with far-right groups across Europe, many of whom have expressed racist and antisemitic views. During his tenure as a Member of the European Parliament (MEP), Farage worked alongside nationalist parties that were openly anti-immigrant, and his speeches sometimes echoed themes of racial hatred and exclusion. His denials of racism and claims that he is merely defending British culture are seen by many as a rhetorical tactic to mask the true implications of his language.
Antisemitism, in particular, is an issue where the comparison to Hitler becomes especially controversial. While Farage has not been overtly antisemitic in his public discourse, critics argue that his broader anti-immigration and anti-globalist rhetoric can veer into antisemitic territory. In several instances, Farage has railed against “globalist” elites, a term that, in certain far-right circles, is a coded reference to Jewish influence. This tactic is reminiscent of Hitler’s conspiracy theories about Jewish Elites’ control over global finance and politics.
The Case for Legal Accountability and the Threat of Propaganda
While Nigel Farage and Adolf Hitler operated in vastly different historical and political contexts, the parallels in their rhetoric are striking. Both leaders leveraged nationalist, xenophobic, and populist sentiments to mobilize support, framing certain groups—be they immigrants, European citizens, or foreigners—as scapegoats for the nation’s perceived decline. Farage’s anti-EU rhetoric, coupled with his inflammatory language about immigration, bears unsettling similarities to the tactics used by Hitler in his rise to power. Given the demonstrable increase in hate crimes and societal division in the wake of Farage’s rhetoric, it is imperative to consider the legal implications of his words. Farage’s dissemination of false narratives, such as exaggerated claims about population explosion due to immigration, serves to incite fear and hatred among the public. This kind of propaganda can be seen as part of a broader strategy to justify extreme measures for population control, potentially including harmful policies that echo historical instances of mass deportation and even worse crimes against humanity.
At the European level, EU legislation specifically addresses incitement to racial hatred. The EU Framework Decision on Combating Racism and Xenophobia (2008) mandates that all EU member states criminalize public incitement to violence or hatred based on race, colour, religion, descent, or national or ethnic origin. This legal framework holds individuals accountable for speech that could incite racial hatred, and Farage’s divisive rhetoric could be seen as a violation of these standards. While the UK is no longer a member of the European Union, Farage’s rhetoric still has significant implications for European nationals and could fall under scrutiny for promoting xenophobia and racial discrimination that breaches international norms. Additionally, international human rights law, under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), specifically Article 20, prohibits any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), particularly Article 10, recognizes freedom of expression but with necessary limitations when such speech is used to incite hatred or violence. Under these international frameworks, Farage’s speech promoting xenophobia and racial hatred could be subject to legal action, as these laws prioritize the protection of vulnerable populations from incitement and violence.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which addresses crimes against humanity, may also be relevant. While Farage may not be directly advocating for genocide, his incendiary rhetoric has the potential to fuel xenophobic policies that could lead to severe human rights violations, including forced deportations or persecution based on ethnicity or nationality. His speech can be viewed as contributing to a climate of hostility that might eventually lead to crimes of persecution or even population displacement.
European laws such as Council of Europe Recommendation 97(20) on “Hate Speech” emphasize that member states should take effective legal measures to criminalize and sanction hate speech. This includes the dissemination of xenophobic ideas or propaganda that can incite violence or hatred. Although the UK is not bound by EU law post-Brexit, Farage’s rhetoric still impacts European nationals and the broader international community, and could thus be challenged under relevant Council of Europe frameworks.
Evidence for legal action: Racial Hatred, Xenophobia, and Dangerous Propaganda
In light of this, there is a compelling argument that Farage could have been made, many times during the Brexit campaign and public figure speeches, legally accountable for his role in fostering racial hatred, xenophobia, and dangerous propaganda. Under UK law, the Public Order Act 1986 prohibits the use of threatening, abusive, or insulting words intended to stir up racial hatred. Farage’s rhetoric, especially his portrayal of immigrants as an existential threat to the UK, arguably breaches this legal standard. His use of fear-mongering and false claims about population surges contributes to a climate of hostility that can justify extreme and harmful policies, echoing the spectre of mass deportation and population reduction, comparable to the worst heinous crimes ever committed in the history of mankind. The propagation of false narratives about overpopulation and the supposed need for drastic measures to reduce it are particularly alarming. These tactics are reminiscent of how propaganda was used in the past to justify extreme measures against targeted groups. While Farage may not explicitly advocate for genocide, his rhetoric has the potential to instigate such extreme reactions by normalizing and justifying severe human rights breaching anti-immigrant policies. Additionally, while there are no laws specifically proscribing Anti-Europeanism as Antisemitism, Farage’s aggressive rhetoric against European nationals and his disdain for the European Union contribute to a divisive atmosphere that undermines European unity and peace. Prosecuting Farage for his rhetoric could help stem the spread of dangerous nationalist xenophobia and ensure that extremist ideologies do not gain further traction.
Farage’s rhetoric is not just dangerous in a historical sense, echoing some of the most harmful elements of Hitler’s speeches; it is also harmful in a contemporary sense, contributing to real-world divisions, violence, and the potential justification of extreme measures such as forced deportations and other heinous crimes against humanity. Prosecuting him for inciting racial hatred, xenophobia, and promoting dangerous propaganda would be a necessary step to uphold justice, protect vulnerable populations, and prevent further harm in British and European societies.
