Age of the Psychopath

Mental illness is an interesting concept - in more ways than one. The praises of the fastest, the brightest and the most attractive amongst us are sung loudly from social gatherings to newspaper headlines. Such extremes of human development are often idolized, worshipped and widely merchandised, and those who lie on the extreme of the social bell curve may expect great windfalls. Despite our pervading culture of affluence amongst the elite, all too frequently we watch in lurid fascination as the Britney Spears, Andrew Flintoffs, and George Bests of this world come off the rails, unable to maintain balance as they race through life’s sharp corners and over its little speed humps. Talented though they may be, they all too often seem to find the social demands of their leading lifestyles at odds with the monastic dedication they require to maintain their status as the greatest of their genre.

To some of us their lifestyles may appear a little extreme, as Naomi Campbell or Britney Spears depart yet another rehab clinic towards a waiting sedan. We do not really understand why Mike Tyson, Frank Bruno and Paul Gascoine (Gazza) attack their wives in frustrated rage. The issue of whether they are, or are not wholly sane we’ll leave to the media and the pop psychologists. Meanwhile, at the other end of the social spectrum, those who are unable to cope or to function with life at the bottom are on the receiving end of another barrage of acronyms which attempt to give scientific dignity to a broad range of social malaises. These include SAD (Seasonal Affective Disorder, a form of depression which strikes at certain times of the year), MPD (Multiple Personality Disorder, a 'disorder' where an individual who struggles through various conflicting social demands copes by creating a range of different personalities), AD/HD (or Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, for those who believe that 11 year old children who would rather be outside playing than learning maths are abnormal), OCD (Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, for those who need routines to stay sane), ODD (Oppositional Defiant Disorder, for those who still feel that they would like to assert their own independence and identity), RAD (Reactive Attachment Disorder - God only knows), and LFA (Low Functioning Autism, a term for those who really don’t want to tune in to hear the latest showbiz gossip), all of which are relatively recent entries to the Psychiatrist’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (or DSMIV). Whilst the rich may suffer from eccentricity and high spirits, only the poor can be truly mad…

Perhaps the reality is that our social environment is changing, and with it the selective pressures that individuals must overcome to survive, to cope and to prosper. Kids who once would have been scurrying around the markets as errand boys aged thirteen are now legally obliged to stay in school and are force-fed reading, writing and arithmetic, even though most of them will never have the opportunity or the entry grades for university, unless of course they demonstrate remarkable sporting aptitude. Once they would have gone out into the world to develop skills or to learn a trade with their hands, although now they are often labeled as autistic, retarded, or as having AD/HD. Those who once might have been functioning hunters or warriors with their heightened senses may fall into the category of schizophrenic, as they find it increasingly impossible to cope with the daily avalanche of information that bombards their senses, and those who were once regarded as loners and recluses now find that their autism gives them focus in a world of academia and computers.

As a leading artist once put it lyrically, ‘The lunatics have taken over the asylum’. Put more delicately, one wonders whether our rulers and leaders are really more sane than the rest of us. One interesting statistic that turned the eye was an estimate that around 1% of all individuals are believed to be ‘psychopathic’ – a dreaded word which has spawned an entire Hollywood film industry from Hitchcock to Hills with Eyes and Chainsaw Massacres. The popular image of the psychopath is one of an individual who is unreasonable, cunning (if educationally below par), and driven to satisfy their darkest and most bizarre desires. The biological reality is somewhat different. Psychopaths are defined as those who suffer from an inability to emotionally reason because those regions of their brains which process feelings of guilt, compassion and remorse (e.g. the amygdala) are either damaged or just not wired properly to that region of the brain which makes decisions (otherwise known as the prefrontal cortex). Psychopaths may be impulsive or cold and calculating, but they are often completely remorseless, and have no conscience or sense of guilt as we would define it. Unshackled by the rules of society and by the strictures of conscience, they are otherwise intellectually unimpaired and are often ruthless. Before you feel sorry for these individuals, please bear in mind that they are frequently amongst society’s most successful individuals. Most of us will have observed or have dealt with a top dog or an employer who bears the hallmarks of psychopathy at some time in our lives.

We usually think of mental illness as being a social handicap or as an unfortunate malaise that condemns the sufferer to the lower reaches of life’s social spectrum. However this is often not the case with psychopaths, and it is their victims who bear the brunt of the suffering. Psychopaths usually remain unattached and often prefer to live a ‘predatory’ lifestyle, social adaptations which are ideally suited to the modern city. They demonstrate no regrets or remorse, except perhaps when caught. Relationships are often seen as opportunities for exploitation, and others in their path are often manipulated and abused. Acquaintances are frequently used as a source of entertainment or sexual gratification, or as a tool through which to build their self-esteem. Colleagues and friends are invariably valued in terms of their intrinsic wealth or the social opportunity they offer. Psychopaths are often very intelligent, especially in terms of their verbal intelligence, and may be expert in manipulating others by playing to their emotions, although they themselves often appear shallow and to lack emotional ‘depth’. One classic case was of a young office manager who was so polite and charming that he created a cult personality for himself, which was then used to play rival colleagues off against one another until the entire department had to be disbanded and reorganized. Psychopaths are often anything but antisocial...

For those to whom all of this sounds strangely familiar, some of the key features by which to recognise the psychopathic personality are • superficial charm • constant need for stimulation • prone to boredom • cunning & manipulative • shallow emotional response • parasitic lifestyle • promiscuous sexual behavior • irresponsibility • many short term relationships • grandiose sense of self worth • pathological lying • lack of remorse or guilt • callous nature • lack of empathy • poor behavioral controls • impulsivity • failure to accept responsibility for their own actions & • criminal versatility. Recognize any one you know? Most of us will, and if they’ve already left school or college they may already be high-flying managers, solicitors, businessmen, politicians or company directors by now.

The truly worrying facet concerning psychopaths is that their deficit gives them an enormous competitive advantage in the cut and thrust of modern city life. Given that there is almost certainly an inherited component to their psychopathic tendencies, and that they are often highly successful in their careers and promiscuous in their private lives, many will bear children both inside and outside of marriage, and will likely have the wealth to afford their offspring every advantage in life. In short, psychopaths are more likely to succeed in life, and are therefore more likely to have children, who will in turn be more likely to ascend to positions of wealth, power and influence themselves. Looking at the rise of the modern culture of predatory corporations, commerce without conscience, and warlike dictators, this realization may be unsettling…

Money is the root of all madness

Money rules - a simple, yet essentially truthful reflection of the modern age. Almost all decisions, from the level of society to that of government, can be reasoned simply by distilling the heady brew of sound bites and politics down to the bottom line. Nostradamus would be useful of course - but here an accountant would trump an astrologer based both on average earnings and success rate. Let’s put our theory to the test with some recent and future questions.

Question 1. Why did the Labour government win the last election? At the time the result was surprising. After all, they had clearly lied over the reasons for going to war, got the country into a mess in doing so, had broken all of their key electoral pledges over education, health, and the abolition of poverty, and yet still they won - comfortably. The reason for this tour de force was simple - the Labour party had become better conservatives. More people had entered into the ‘middle’ income bracket, notably the self-employed, skilled manual and new entrepreneurs, creating an unprecedented blue collar enclave within the wealthy classes. Although the rich had still become richer, and the poor had become poorer since Labour took power, more people had nonetheless found themselves with new financial aspirations. The poor of Britain would simply never vote conservative by tradition, and Labour had retained the votes of the champagne socialists and of the new blue collar enclave. As their lot was good under New Labour, there was no need to fix the government when they weren’t broke. New Labour still owned the left (they have no other natural political affiliation) and had bought the electoral centre of the party political battlefield.

Question 2. Why do we allow the rapid exhaustion of fossil fuels when renewable green energy sources have been available (in a cost-effective form) for over thirty years? The answer is a hundred years old, and supports the thrones of many of the world’s leading power brokers. The Rockefellers, the Bush dynasty, the Sultan of Brunei, and the House of Saud all enjoy massive political and economic influence which today extends through arms, education, the arts and politics. The root of their power was of course the discovery of massive oil deposits, and although since that time their interests may have diversified considerably, the foundation of their prosperity remains oil. The oil industry generates massive margins and tax revenues and drives the automobile, aviation and military sectors. In short, there is simply too great a profit stream and far too much vested interest for these oil mandarins to allow a transition towards ‘free’ and sustainable forms of energy such as wind, solar or tidal power. The rational, healthy and sustainable decision would of course be to opt for the new technologies. However, it is the bottom line that drives our energy policy not our changing environment or social conscience.

Question 3. Will the US now attack Iran? Well let’s do the math. The US has a massive fiscal deficit, an ever widening trade deficit, and an enormous national debt. It’s headed for a major recession unless of course there is a boom in employment, industry and construction. Controlling Iraqi oil would boost construction, income from the ‘petrodollar cycle’ and the military-industrial complex, and that’s not going to happen as long as the shadow of Iran looms over the waters of the gulf. The ongoing occupation of Iraq has already cost trillions and will cost trillions more unless there is a resolution.

As with Hitler in 1939, Bush is left in a ‘war or bust’ dilemma. If he now leaves Iraq in its current state and loses control over a reliable flow of Iraqi oil, he will be at the mercy of Iranian, Venezuelan and Saudi Arabian supplies and will go home broke and powerless, all of his military investment wasted. However, if he believes that he can successfully attack Iran in the short term he may successfully create a war economy, boosting oil consumption and sales within his military industrial complex. In the longer term he aims to gain control of not only Iraqi oil production, but also that of Iran and Venezuela. In this position America will be able to print money from construction, arms sales and oil revenues. Having already deliberately spent so much in committing forces to create a potential pincer movement to attack Iran from his southern carrier force in the Gulf, from Iraq in the West and from Afghanistan in the East, he will fail at the international poker table if he doesn’t now go ‘all in’ with his chips.

The economics, politics and balance of forces all point towards a war to consolidate his Eastern campaign. If he succeeds, he will be the first Western leader since Alexander to prosecute a successful military campaign in the Middle East, although history is littered with the many failures of Roman, Napoleonic, British, Greek and Nazi campaigns. Perhaps he too has overextended himself, but for now he is economically obliged to place all his cards and chips on the table. Alea iacta est.

Money is not the root of all evil – it is the root of all madness.