I, for one, would hate that to happen.
MONEY & BELIEF
I don’t know whether God exists or not, but this is irrelevant regarding belief. All that is needed is the idea for God to exist. I base this on a simple sociological reality. I ask the question: what would society be like if people believed God existed?
Such a belief shapes everything a Christian does. Hence, everything a Christian does would be as if God existed. As such, everything in a Christian society would be how it would be if He did. So in social terms, a belief leads to a definite reality.
Sceptics would say this is not true.
But they would, wouldn’t they. But more than this, they say society is such, now, that such beliefs do not affect society in this way. Rather, we are rational beings, released from such stupidity. But is this really the case?
The overall western system, today, is not a belief in God, but an economic system that I call ‘super-capitalism’. This system appears to have produced great affluence, giving us the impression that we are rich (until the Downturn, of course). But a question:
What would happen if we all had to pay off our debts today?
The only answer is, we couldn’t. We couldn’t do so because super-capitalism is not based on real wealth, but ‘confidence’ in the system. Take away that confidence and there is nothing left.
Like the above appreciation of God, super-capitalism creates a society with nothing at its centre. In effect, it is based on a belief. So when sceptics say that God cannot exist, they must also come to the conclusion that neither does modern affluence.
Rather, it is the greatest confidence trick in history.
TOWARDS A GENERAL THEORY OF CRIME
The murderer and confidence trickster seem to have very different roles and psychologies, occupying, as they do, the extreme ends of the criminal spectrum. Between these two extremes we find the robber, kidnapper, blackmailer, gangster, delinquent and rapist. But could it be that all criminals are more alike than we think, allowing us to build a general theory of crime?
Looking at the extreme end of murder, the serial killer, and comparing their psychology to the more successful confidence tricksters can be illuminating. For rather than being supremely confident, the con man uses a facade of varying personalities, the inner person being a rather pathetic soul, so underconfidant that he has to continually prove his guile. Such under-confidence and frustration can equally be seen at the heart of the serial killer. So although seemingly different, the two come from the same mind-set.
Accepting the existence of such a shared criminal mentality, from where can a general theory come? One defining element of a criminal seems to be a lack of conscience, as if he has no morality to counter his wants and urges. There are two areas of life which seem to share these characteristics – the impulsive child and the survival mechanisms of the animal world. These two areas seem to share a non-moral world of urges.
In the successfully matured adult these traits are suppressed. And the obvious reason why is that he has learned a moral code. Hence, we could argue that criminality is, essentially, infantile instinctuality, and our best defence against crime is the existence of a veneer of morality to keep these characteristics in check.
This is an important social point to make. The liberal mindset is of the opinion that in his natural state, man is a peaceful, social animal. Philosophers such as Locke and Rousseau enshrined this idea in the western consciousness. Whether this was the case in the past is unimportant to the present. But I would argue it is not the case now. Rather, without a proper morality, we are barbarians.
During the 1950s, some American penologists noticed another important factor. It seemed that sociopaths had no understanding of the positive aspects of life such as ‘love’ or ‘responsibility’. The usual answer to such negativity is that they were brutalised in childhood. I find this explanation unacceptable. There are many instances of brutalised people leading full and rewarding lives. But one factor that does present itself is that sociopaths were rarely offered affection. Could it be this – the failure to be taught how to be affectionate – which lies at the heart of such negativity?
This inability to be positive became known as ‘negative blocking’, in that such people block out the existence of positivity in their lives and throughout the society they inhabit. In other words, everyone becomes an enemy. The usual term for this is ‘psychological distancing’, and in effect it de-humanises everyone in the eyes of the sufferer.
Once this state of mind is achieved, the ‘non-human’ prey of the criminal can have a host of psychological responses placed on them. At heart, the criminal knows that his failings are his own, but he can never accept this. Hence, a process of transference occurs, whereby he places on his victim the reasons for HIS failure. This allows him to say that what he does is not his fault. It is the fault of the victim; his whole society, even.
This is, of course, a fantasized reaction to his own failures. And such fantasy is at the heart of criminal activity. The philosopher, Sartre, invented the term, ‘magical thinking’, to describe how a person can ignore elements he doesn’t want to know and build a whole fantastic world view. In particular, the criminal builds a fantasy concerning his own invulnerability.
The science fiction writer, van Vogt, called this person the ‘Right Man’. So sure is he of his own rightness that he can call black white if required, and often resorts to violence. Inside, he is a psychological wreck, but this is rarely shown, unless his world totally collapses. Most people will know such a man – usually a wife beater – and when his wife finally leaves him, he becomes a whimpering wreck.
Such a fantasizing mind-set turns the criminal to crime to satisfy his needs, whether this is to kill, say, a wife instead of divorcing her, or actually manifest the fantasy as a character, as in the con man. But equally important is the fact that the fantasy of invulnerability makes the criminal commit the most basic mistakes whilst committing crime. This is an important point to make. The criminal is, by nature, incompetent. And a long criminal career is only achievable through luck, brutality, or police incompetence and judicial failure.
At its most depraved, criminality gives us the serial killer. And the idea of the criminal as fantasist can offer an understanding of this killer’s mentality. Almost always a frustrated loner with a large degree of negative blocking, he has a specific psychology. His very personal and barbaric way of killing suggests insanity, but few serial killers are declared insane. Rather, when not killing, they are innocuous and quiet, if single, or, if married, can produce a persona of sanity, leaving their wife shocked to discover what they are. Further, another element of their psychology is horrified at their deeds, as if they have a conscience. Just which of these contradictory elements is the real person?
Perhaps none of them. Psychology knows of an unsettling phenomenon called ‘multiple personality’. Almost certainly a fantasized response to a troubled life, the sufferer’s mind seems to fragment into a number of distinct personalities who take it in turn to invade the host. Seemingly based on specific emotions, the fantasized personalities take on roles of normality, hyper-conscience, and extreme emotional behaviour. Whilst I am not saying that the serial killer is a multiple personality sufferer per se, the contradictory aspects of the serial killer suggest a related phenomenon; a factor made more credible by the statements of many such killers that at times they were just taken over by this monster in their heads.
In the above I have attempted, albeit briefly, a general theory of crime. But in one sense I would argue we all have elements of the psychology involved. So could it be that this understanding of the criminal could give us a better understanding of society? Quite possibly. There are plenty of monsters out there.
WEST MIND
What is western culture? It is a question that has fascinated me over many years. Essentially, until modern times, I think it has been very much a patriarchy – a man’s world. But why is this?
I
think it began with geography. In the east, East-Mind developed in a prehistory where the geography and resources were plentiful. Hence, in tune with nature, a cyclical attitude of mind developed, best seen in Hinduism, in which Scriptures are layered right back to earliest times.
The west had a different geography.
What became West-Mind was etched out of the harshness of the Middle East. Life was hard, resources scarce, and there was a constant battle between, on the one hand, annual floods, and on the other, the need for irrigation.
This led to a need for better organization, from which a distinct leadership arose. Add constant migrations to the area, and it was a concoction that led to the rise of ultimate Ego, and the grandeur and power that went with it.
This was a man thing. And Patriarchy was born.
Unlike East-Mind, which existed in the cycles of the world, West-Mind lost its sense of balance and harmony. Ego demanded that things didn’t always work in cycles, but rather things must advance.
This placed West-Mind into a linear world, where things must constantly change as man works on his society and environment to make his mark.
Of course, this can be seen as an error. But it is sobering to note that, had West-Mind not existed, we would still be living within the cycles of nature and prehistory.
Maybe, with this understanding, we can learn to equalize west with east, and have the best of both worlds.
WEALTH THROUGH BIRTH OR MERIT
The aristocracy in the UK get a bad press today. For centuries they ruled Britain, lording it over the rest of us. But since the arrival of a new meritocracy, they have been kicked into touch. At least that is the official version. But it is wrong on both stances. Indeed, not only is it wrong. It deserves to be wrong, because the modern world lives by an incorrect idea of the worth of aristocracy.
The first area where it is wrong is in the idea that the aristocracy no longer rule Britain. They may have been virtually kicked out of the House of Lords, they may be laughed at with their plummy voice and privileged ways. But the aristocracy continues to hold much of the purse of Britain through land ownership, and continue to exist in high places by simply not using their title and appearing to be normal people. But the biggest error is to think that meritocracy is better than aristocracy.
Meritocracy is based on the idea of wealth and success through achievement rather than birth. And when someone achieves, we consider him a success in our society. But is achievement really the way the new rich are formed?
I don’t think so. Thousands and thousands of people can be as good as the successful, but don’t achieve to the same degree because they have not been lucky. This is not to say that hard work isn’t vital to a successful meritocracy. But something else is needed, such as being in the right place at the right time.
Such an idea discloses meritocracy as a process where success and wealth comes from luck. Hence, the wealthy are wealthy due to a discriminatory process every bit as unfair as aristocracy, or wealth by birth.
If we realised this simple fact, we might not be quite so anti-aristocracy. Don’t get me wrong. Most of them are just as vile and conceited as the lucky rich. But the aristocrats do have something the lucky rich tend to lack. First of all, they have a code of manners. And second, they have a sense of the past, of tradition.
I cannot help thinking that one of the major reasons Britain is facing a moral crisis is that wealth no longer has manners and tradition attached. Yes, it was often flaunted by the aristocracy, but as a way of life to aspire to, it played an important social function. With the new lucky rich, all we have is moral decline, and a failure to see further back in history than their own birth.
THE WEST OUT OF CONTROL
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, western culture is said to have gone from strength to strength. Capitalism is king, with affluence breaking out all over. Even the present Downturn will be reversed, with affluence returning. However, the reality may not be quite what it seems.
On the down side, multi-nationals are becoming more powerful than countries, and in commanding the economy, they also command governments. And you can add many other problems to this.
Where do we start?
We could start with individuality rising above community, leaving so many people alone. We could start with the environmental damage being done to the planet. We could start with wars due to other cultures fearing for their existence.
And this is before mentioning rising crime, psychological problems out of control, and the average person having debts many times his annual income. Indeed, the drawbacks seem far in excess of the advantages.
But why has it all gone so wrong?
One answer is to go back to a conference at Mont Pelerin, Switzerland, in 1947. At the time, collectivism was rampant, and a number of intellectuals, headed by FA Hayek, met to devise an economic strategy to destroy it.
Including the likes of Popper and Friedman, think tanks were formed throughout the west, their influence leading to Reaganomics and Thatcherism, and the eventual economic victory over Communism.
It worked well, and went on to create today’s super-Capitalism. But the reality is, it was a weapon. It was a weapon that won. But it was a weapon that was never turned off. And when a weapon goes out of control, it ends up turning on the user.
THE ENDURING STUDENT
So you’ve worked all your life. You’ve enjoyed it – or maybe not. You’ve expressed a sense of duty – or maybe not. It’s been worthwhile – or maybe not. But you’ve worked all your life, retirement is looming, and you’re looking forward to taking it easy staring at the archetypal, and usually non-existent, gold watch.
What? You must be joking. Get a life, wrinkly. I’m gonna have fun!
It won’t be long before that is the attitude of all the retired. As Status Quo head fast to being the new geriatric Rap, pensioners intend going on rocking all around the world, until they finally fall off the clock they rocked round through sheer exhaustion.
It’s good – in a way. Nothing increases age rather than the idea you’re old. Keep young in mind and you’ll be young at heart; and maybe even dem bones will keep on going longer. But the question is how far should we take perpetual youth? Should we really banish Peter Pan from fiction and place him in Always Always Land?
It can be quite embarrassing – and particularly annoying for the youth – to see presently middle aged morons pinch their fashions, music and lifestyles. Forget the argument that, in not showing them how to grow up, we can never expect the young to mature. It decrees that no one will ever grow up.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m no spoilsport. To me, maturity means taking your inner ‘child’ with you. It is always fun to be the ‘lad’, in a moderate kind of way. It adds spice to life, and helps take off the pressure. The adult with the child in him can be a much more social person, and happier.
But adulthood is all about knowing when to put the child away and act responsibly. Our eternal rockers, today, seem to have forgotten that. And constantly pinching the ways of the youth also means culture cannot really advance. The best cultures had always been produced by the more mature.
Eastern philosophy sees old age very differently. Upon retirement, you tend to become a student. And I don’t mean a student in the western sense. Rather, you have produced what you can materially, you have raised a family to allow continuance, and it is now time for real satisfaction. And that comes from contemplation of the spiritual. In the east, old age goes mystical. And in that way, elders provide the wisdom for the younger end of society.
In the west, we live so complete a material life that we have forgotten what the sublime, what the mystical, what the wise is. And that is why our ageing population is determined to ape the kid. It has nothing to do with having fun. It’s all to do with forgetting the important things in life. The perpetual rocker is quite simply running away from wisdom. And in society, it’s beginning to show.
THE PURSUIT OF FREEDOM
The word
‘freedom’ has become a mantra for the west. Everything we do seems to be geared to freedom, and the expression of individuality it allows. But just how important IS freedom, and do we really have it?
There is a saying that nothing takes away freedom more than the idea that we have it. Looking back at most ‘free’ societies, we can see they were not really free. Rather, they were a product of social engineering devised by people who were previously not free.
Take the rise of the middle classes.
We can see this as a definite grasping of freedom, with a new non-conformist kind of religion, politics grasped from aristocracy and made democratic, and a capitalist economy which empowers the individual.
Yet this was all a product of the 18th century Age of Enlightenment, and a single ethic that, seeing science had placed laws on the universe, could philosophy place laws on man’s society, thus usurping God.
As we can see, the idea behind it was not as noble as we think.
And to achieve this success, the middle classes had to have a power base not only in religion and politics, but in economic society itself.
This was achieved by the institutionalization of society, with philanthropists creating hospitals, schools and charities for the betterment of the poor. Yet these poor had been herded into cities to become institutionalized in the factory to raise the wealth to keep the middle classes supreme.
Of course, there was eventually great benefit in this for all. But the idea that it was all done for ‘freedom’ is incorrect. All that had changed was the nest that needed to be feathered.
STAT LIFE
There are many tools of oppression, but none have been more subtle than those imposed by western society on people who maintain stubbornly that they are free. Of those subtle tools, few are more pervasive than statistics. We are told there are lies, damned lies and statistics, and we find it funny, never realising just how true those words are.
I, Essayist Page 2
