Narcissism and politics/ the narcissist as politician

It is commonly-understood that a significant proportion of politicians are narcissists (at least partially). Elsewhere, the author has looked into the darker side of politics, where it could be argued that politics and psychopathy meet. But there are plenty of cases in history and the present day to support this widely-accepted phenomenon.

We need look no further than the UK for evidence.
The modern-day Conservative Party is led by David Cameron and George Osborne.  These are the "power duo" of the UK, in some ways the "successors" to the domination that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown had over British politics for fifteen years.
Like with Blair and Brown, Cameron and Osborne seem to have some kind of informal agreement about power-sharing: Cameron is the "front man", whereas Osborne is the "back-seat driver" or the "power behind the throne". In some ways, they could be called "amplified" or "alternate" versions of their respective predecessors.
Like Blair, Cameron possesses the charisma and statesmanlike gravitas necessary to appear as a convincing world leader; however, at the same time, Cameron appears less as the "heir to Blair" as the "Blair's bastard" - possessing many of the negative attributes that Blair was accused of having (but more amplified), and only a superficial smattering of the positives. Gordon Brown was accused by some of being dour and power-hungry; Osborne wields powers with supreme efficiency but absent of natural charm, and his ambition is nakedly plain to see. Everything he does is seen through the lens of amplifying power.

Whereas Osborne is an individual with apparent empathy issues, Cameron's personality displays an almost childish aspect to it at times. While the mask is in place, Cameron beams with bubbly charm; but when provoked by something, Cameron temper runs amok, turning into adolescent petulance. Cameron's personality has been analysed before, through the prism of his superficiality pointing to a  darker side. However, a second look at the evidence suggests that Cameron's narcissistic traits far outweigh anything else (what psychologists call the "anti-social" traits). He has no real values because he believes in nothing. He wanted to be Prime Minister simply because he thought he would be good at it - a definition of narcissism if ever there was one. His ideas are taken up suddenly, but because he lacks the will to see things through, will quickly lose interest and do something else. The "Green deal" is a great example of this: a policy announced with great fanfare, only to be quietly dropped when Cameron wanted to suddenly get rid of the "green crap". A large number of firms tied to the industry, and thousands of jobs, were cut loose as a result. In the same way, Cameron's ideas of ten years ago, such as "hug a hoodie" and sticking to Labour's spending plans, were instantly dropped when the socio-economic climate soured. It could similarly be argued that his government's key policy of "austerity" is nothing more than a moment of opportunism seen in 2008, which (fortunately for them) has worked out well for Cameron and Osborne since. Seen in this way, "austerity" is simply a tool to make Cameron and his government famous (or infamous) to posterity. All these examples point to the superficial nature of Cameron's personality: he will do or say anything to gain support. And all this goes without even mentioning the countless lies spoken from his mouth: there are too many to mention.

The God-figure

Adulation is obviously a key aspect of narcissists as politicians. The narcissist as politician sees himself as a "saviour", to his party and the country. But first of all, to his party and his army of followers. As we see with the example of David Cameron, he became the leader of his party in 2005, on the back of a third successive electoral defeat for the Conservatives. It was clear that when Cameron called himself the "heir to Blair" he was also aping Blair's ability to take a party that was on the ropes, channel their desperation and allow him to be their instrument. All that was necessary was loyalty and belief in his "vision". In this way, it can also be argued that "the party" in this psychological state sees its "visionary" leader as a manifestation of their own idealised self, discarded of its self-doubt and insecurities.
In this psychological state of affairs, it's easy to see how a narcissistic politician as party leader is able to channel that same energy to the nation at large. Thus when the narcissist politician does indeed attain the ultimate prize, he feels that his inflated sense of self-worth was in fact an accurate portrayal of his talents. The irony here is that this misguided psychology also results in him attracting others to his close circle who also wish to gain their own piece of the power; sycophants who will agree with and follow his ideas, or suggest only ideas that they think he will agree with. In short, this results in the leader promoting people who are incompetent but loyal over those who actually have better ideas. Cameron's governing circle is a case in point.

"Us and Them"

Thus in a court of yes-men, the narcissist politician sees anyone who criticises him as being an "enemy"; for this reason, we can see how narcissists suffer from irrational paranoia. It is in this state that we arrive at the point where the narcissistic leader sees himself as a victim, leading to a reliance on the tribal loyalty of his followers. In this way, there is a need for the narcissistic leader to create an "us and them" mentality. If an obvious enemy does not exist, one is created.
In the case of David Cameron, the creation of "austerity" as the government's effective religion is the way to assess how "loyal" segments of society are to the cause. Those who are against "austerity" are "deficit deniers", and not living in the real world. Society is divided into "strivers versus skivers", in George Osborne's infamous wording. This is the essence of the politics of "divide and rule" that narcissistic politicians always fall back on in the end. The sad truth is that it usually works.

At the end of the day, a narcissistic politician relies on the politics of low populism and base emotion to hold on to power. Cameron is no exception to this rule. Look at the themes that have occupied Conservative rule and their party conferences. While the attempt is made to make their theme hopeful, the "Nasty Party" once decried by Theresa May is back in full swing, even in her own terms. If not victimising young people or the unemployed, Cameron's Conservatives are blaming immigrants for social problems. Opponents are called "unpatriotic" or worse. It is in these national atmosphere that generates more violent dissent, as the cycle of division and hatred between opposing sides is fuelled by the rage of the narcissistic leader. This downward spiral of polarisation and ever harsher rhetoric has only one result in the end. The eventual end for the narcissistic politician is often a violent or dramatic removal from power.

That time has not arrived yet for David Cameron - and may not, as he has already indicated his "exit strategy". For others though, such as Turkey's President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, it is a different story: a man who seems intent to wielding ever greater degrees of power, come what may.

Narcissism, Consumerism and Capitalism

In recent years, more attention has focused on the apparent rise in narcissism in society, especially in the younger generation. Some have called this a "narcissism epidemic", and for good reason.

As mentioned in the lecture linked above, there has been a noted sharp increase in young people who identify themselves (or can be classified) as being narcissists. An article some months ago looked at the rise in narcissism in the so-called "Generation Y", the possible influence that parental guidance (or lack of) may have, and some of the wider social influences.
While these social factors may well certainly account for part of this apparent generational "attitude" changes, there has been a blind spot. We'll come to this in a moment. Elsewhere, the author has looked into the link between narcissism in modern society, and the role that economics (i.e. the type of economic system) can have.

Broadly-speaking, so-called "individualistic" societies seem to have higher levels of narcissism (and potentially psychopathy, too - more on that here). Arguably the two biggest socio-economic changes to have happened in industrialised society in the last forty years have been the rise in consumerism as a method to fund economic expansion, and the rise in narcissism in society in general. This is the blind spot referred to earlier. We'll look at the detail shortly.

Put into a historical context, consumerism as a method to grow national economies only really began to take off in the 1970s. While everyone thinks initially of the 1950s as the "Golden Age" of consumerism, the "baby boomer" generation were really the "infants" of consumerism; it only reached maturity as those born after the Second World War coincidentally began to mature themselves and begin to have more money to spend on consumer goods and property; in the UK this became known as the "Barber Boom" under the Heath government of the early 1970s. Richard Nixon's economic policies supported a similar tack. Both efforts lead to prices inexorably rising as people had more money to spend.
Wracked by a conflation of different economic factors, inflation continued soaring upwards throughout the rest of the decade, resulting in prices being massively higher by the end of 1970s compared to the start. The end of this decade also coincided with the Thatcher government coming to power in the UK, shortly followed by Reagan in the USA.
Under the policy of Monetarism enacted by both the British and American governments, the 1980s saw the restructuring of the economy away from (seemingly inefficient) manufacturing, and towards more service-based sectors (e.g. retail). At the same time, the economy was geared more towards finance, allowing banks to speculate far more easily (and with larger risks and potential profits). Credit became far easier to obtain, as banks encouraged its use as a way to extend their profits. Governments saw consumer spending as good for the economy, regardless of where the money spent actually came from. This policy has continued effectively in the same way ever since.

In short, we see the birth of credit on a mass scale being used in society, which in turn boosted the rise of consumer spending. Saving for the sake of it is seen as frumpy and old-fashioned. At the same time, even those who didn't indulge in credit were spending far more of their money on consumer goods compared to before. The same can be said for property investment, on an even grander scale.

Where does narcissism fit into all this?

A recent article looked at narcissistic personality traits. A narcissist is a fundamentally insecure person who is constantly in need of "narcissistic supply", and will do anything to get it, regardless of how he treats others and society at large. A narcissist is a child-like personality construction, in some ways comparable to a drug addict who is briefly bathed in the glow of his "fix" (i.e. a source of adulation), before quickly crashing and needing something else to fill the hole. This is an infantile, almost pathetic person who is unable to function independently without "narcissistic supply".
The psychology of the retail industry operates on the same premise towards its consumers. While what happens from the retailer's point of view is nothing innately evil, what happens towards society as a whole over time may well be. The point is this: marketing and advertising is privatized propaganda. There is no other way to describe this. Of course, this is perfectly normal in one way. The difference between society now and society sixty years ago is that ever more advanced communication methods allow companies to enhance their "exposure", targeting consumers more and more expertly. At the same time, the rise of credit  over the last thirty years has allowed individuals to easily access disposable income to spend. These two factors act as a "double pull". Advertising has created the famous phrase "Because you're worth it", which easily summarises the insidious nature of modern consumerism.

In other words, consumerism fuelled by easy credit nowadays has turned many people into "grown-up children". By creating a social environment where people are told they "are worth it", bombarded with endless messages about products they "must have", while also tempted by numerous methods to obtain credit, it is not surprising that a significant proportion of society develop the narcissistic traits mentioned earlier. By design or not, this is exactly the type of person who retailers want: an infantile and dependable "consumer" whose behaviour can be manipulated to improve retail profits.
There is plenty of anecdotal evidence for this, if we look at the change in narcissistic attitudes prevalent in "Generation Y", as mentioned earlier. It is more prevalent still if we look at the changes of today's young people (i.e. those under the age of 25), the feeling of "entitlement" that is far larger in young people today.
In darker terms, it could also be argued that the 2011 England riots - effectively an uncontrollable orgy of looting - were also a symptom of this narcissistic strain that has festered due to a rampant consumerist culture. At the risk of dismissing wider social issues, what is telling is that the spontaneous riots that occurred were used by many as an excuse for opportunistic looting. While it may have started on grounds of perceived racial prejudice, it almost instantly morphed into a chaotic orgy of consumerism. Compare this to riots in earlier years that were also triggered by race issues: looting was far less common an activity than simply "getting back" at the police. Likewise, the 2005 riots in France were characterised by an orgy of burning cars and nihilistic "revenge", not looting. This tells us a lot about the psychology of those involved, and the type of society that exists.
In this sense, we can argue that "consumerism" and the rise of narcissism are innately linked to the Anglo-Saxon economic model of Capitalism. The England riots of 2011 were distinct in the way they were an extreme manifestation of the divisive, ego-driven nature of the Anglo-Saxon economic model: after injecting its younger generation with a sense of "because you're worth it" entitlement one one hand, while divisive government policy took away their sense of control with another, the result was a build-up of narcissistic rage.

So this is the summation of modern Capitalist society: by creating the ingredients for narcissism, it "infantilises" individuals, with consequences for everybody. But also, the development of narcissism is fundamentally "useful" to an economy over-reliant on consumerism and the service sector, because it distracts people from the fundamental weaknesses in this economic model. It is a "natural by-product" of a consumerist society, and equally an essential ingredient to maintain the illusion.

For consumerism to function, consumer "need" must be created: this is where the advances in modern marketing and advertising techniques come in, using technology to make every form of consumer action appear as an "opportunity" on one hand, and a form of "individual empowerment" on the other. Thus by creating an environment where consumers are made to "need", they behave like narcissists always in search of the next source of narcissistic supply. On the one way, people are made to feel all-important and "entitled"; on the other they are equally made to feel emotionally-insecure and prone to repeated acts of "self-validation" (i.e. superficial sources of narcissistic supply, gained through consumption). This is how consumption occurs.

Indeed, it could well be argued that in a consumption-led economy, pathological levels of narcissism in society are thus necessary to ensure its continued existence and "growth": in order for consumer "need" to be guaranteed, the psychology of the consumer must be carefully calibrated - manipulated - in order to generate insecurity, dissatisfaction and entitlement. The most effective way to achieve this is to create a "consumer psychology" indistinguishable from the pathological narcissist.

By doing this, the creation of a consumer-led economy creates a self-perpetuating feedback loop, that nourishes on itself, and at the same time, becomes economically dependent on itself. A consumption-led economy quite literally eats itself. From an economic point of view, "growth" can only occur in this model if consumption occurs perpetually. Anything that causes consumption to reduce is a threat to a consumption-reliant economy. This also explains why interest rates are at historically-low levels. In this way, the creation of debt through cheap credit is in fact an essential aspect of the economic model: because debt creates dependence, and feeds the narcissistic delusion that consumers are "richer" through the possession of high-tech goods and other "must haves".
The irony is that in creating a consumption-led economy, individuals are - if anything - losing their individuality as a result of this. They are being manipulated - "infantilised" - much more insidiously in a consumer-led economy than one based on a more balanced perspective (e.g. where exports and manufacturing, rather than inward consumption, are the main sources of revenue).

Finally, it goes without saying that if a socio-economic model "infantalises" society, it also makes it easier to control.

Narcissists versus psychopaths: a comparative analysis

Psychologists have long-recognised the overlap that exists between aspects of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), and Psychopathy. Both are conditions that plague society in different ways. It is generally thought that these two conditions affect around one per cent of the general population; however, this changes markedly depending on which aspect of society you are looking at. For instance, a disproportionate number of the violent criminal population are psychopaths; likewise, a disproportionate number of adoptees are narcissists. Similarly, some professions seem to attract a disproportionate number of narcissists or psychopaths.

In general, narcissism can be called the "less serious" of the two, for the simple reason that the evidence seems to show how psychopaths are criminally far more dangerous (and criminally-prolific) than narcissists. Psychopathy as a syndrome is thought to be some combination of narcissistic traits and "anti-social" traits (a fuller description of psychopathic behaviour and its causes can be see here). Narcissism can be summarised as a dysfunctional self-centredness and over-evaluation of one's attributes, which uses society and other people to gain "narcissistic supply" i.e. a feeling of love and attention. We'll go into this in more detail shortly. Psychopaths share these narcissistic aspects to a greater or lesser degree, but more importantly, also have an "anti-social" personality i.e. they have no respect for society and social norms. It is this "anti-social" aspect that explains why psychopaths are, by definition, more dangerous to others and society in general. Narcissists can also be highly damaging to others around them, but is usually manifested in a different form.

One of key differences between narcissism and psychopathy is motivation. As said before, narcissists' motivation centres on finding sources of "narcissistic supply". A psychopath's motivation is more simply amoral convenience. Understanding this difference in motivation is key to understanding the differences between how narcissists and psychopaths think.
An interesting example of this is to compare the lives and motivations of two infamous serial killers. While these are "extreme" cases, the comparison in their motivations provides an intriguing insight. The serial killer, Ian Brady, killed a number of children in the 1960s in the Manchester area. There was no obvious motive for the crimes, and he said he carried out these crimes as an "existential experiment" - in other words, he did it to see what it would feel like. Once caught, he showed no remorse for the killings, and has lived his life out in comparative comfort (and living infamy) behind bars ever since. His thinking shows a complete disregard for social norms, or the acknowledgement of the seriousness of these acts. In this way, he is a fairly clear case of a psychopathic serial killer - although, some elements of narcissism were also there (as with all psychopaths). Furthermore, this psychopathic mentality displays the indifference that Brady had towards his acts: he felt like doing it, so he did it. He was indifferent to the consequences, to the victims as well as the consequences to his own life. In general, the coldness of Brady's personality (the "dead-eyed stare", a common characteristic of the psychopath) clearly demonstrated his inherent psychopathy.
This "indifference" (or "indifferent aspect") is common to psychopaths, but less so in narcissists. In the case of "psychopathic narcissists" or narcissists who take their motivation to the ultimate extreme (i.e. murder), the motivation here is more likely about "feeling like God", or a form of ultimate control over the victim. A famous example of this is Harold Shipman, AKA "Dr Death". People like this seek "narcissistic supply" from successfully committing the ultimate social taboo, and getting away with it. However, equally, their narcissism is often ultimately their undoing (as was ultimately the case with Shipman), as they "over-reach"- and may inwardly seek the public recognition they crave, that can only be gained through capture. A serial killer who was diagnosed has having Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Jack Unterweger, was an Austrian responsible for killing up to a dozen women, mostly prostitutes. An outgoing, larger-than-life minor "celebrity" at the time due to his published work on life in prison, his life was lived in the spotlight, first in infamy, then redemption, then fame and adulation, and finally once again in infamy. Narcissism was the driving force in his life, which ultimately led to his suicide once he had been sentenced to return to prison.

Similarities versus differences

Narcissists and psychopaths share the same perspective on society: they see society as something to be used, although they use it for different reasons. Narcissists and psychopaths use people as a leech does a host. They see people as objects. They are self-centred and lacking in empathy for others' feelings and point of view. They are entitled, feeling the right to special treatment, regardless of their lack of deserving it. Likewise, both narcissists and psychopaths are lazy in achieving goals, unable to commit to long-term plans, and quickly become bored. This attitude also overlaps into relationships and sex: they see partners as tools for their own self-enjoyment. They change their partner as soon as things start to get too "serious" or when their short attention span seeks another "conquest". Both narcissists and psychopaths have an essentially superficial view of the world.

However, there are also important differences. While both narcissists and psychopaths lack empathy and are both inherently self-centred, their behavioural aspect still bears striking differences. Lacking empathy and thus proper, in-depth emotions, both psychopaths and narcissists can also be susceptible to bursts of violent emotion. This has also been called "controlled emotion" i.e. with the appearance of a tantrum for effect.
The difference is that narcissists are more likely to show these traits more exuberantly, being prone to bouts of histrionics (interestingly, this can also be seen in homosexuals). Likewise, narcissists are more likely to outwardly display mood swings, both positive and negative, whereas psychopaths are much more likely to have the appearance of being emotionally dead. This emotional instability which is much more prevalent in narcissists stems from an inherent insecurity, which in turn stems from the root of the individual's narcissism: a traumatic or unloving childhood. Narcissism is thought to be a by-product of a lack of attention or emotionally-stunted early childhood, resulting in the child relying on its own self as a source of attention and love. For this reason, narcissists, as well as being emotionally unstable and insecure, are also likely to turn to alcohol and drug abuse, and may even - in the last resort - turn to suicide. These are all forms of "attention seeking", although to an outsider they may appear to be something quite different. At their heart, narcissists are insecure, child-like, almost pathetic, individuals, who have never truly adapted to adulthood. Being a narcissist is a fundamentally unhappy experience, where the individual is rarely - and only only fleetingly - "happy", always in search of the next source of narcissistic supply.

By contrast, psychopaths, are rarely "insecure": on the contrary, they usually have high levels of self-esteem, and are well in control of their "emotions" (if they have any); as said before, these are usually used as another tool as part of the psychopaths repertoire. Unlike the child-like narcissist, the psychopath is a true predator: lacking empathy and seeing human emotions as "weakness"; they can also be extremely adept at knowing how to manipulate others. This is what makes psychopaths so dangerous. Narcissists, being more self-obsessed, are (arguably) less so. Psychopaths are thought to be a by-product of a combination of biological and environmental factors, and thus for this reason, a different type of beast from a narcissist.

While the narcissist can be symbolised as an annoying, needy, infantile child, the psychopath is the "wolf in sheep's clothing", always on the prowl, while acting as the innocuous "Samaritan". In this sense, narcissists are also often much more easy to spot due to their overblown personalities; the psychopath is more skilled at hiding their true nature, making him even more dangerous.

The psychopathic narcissist as serial killer (2): Jack Unterweger

In my last article on the subject of psychopathic narcissists, we looked at the example of Harold Shipman, who was responsible for the deaths of over two hundred people. His narcissistic traits were arguably evident from his teenage years, and then transmuted into something altogether far more sinister and horrifying as he reached adulthood. His method of extracting "narcissistic supply" was feeling like God, by having the ultimate power over the life and death of his patients, whist simultaneously having the status as a well-respected doctor in the tight-knit local community.

Another serial killer, this time the Austrian Jack Unterweger, was an altogether different creature. As we shall see, his narcissism took more flamboyant and public form (and therefore shocking in a different way). Unterweger's story was one that appeared to belong in the realms of Hollywood crime thrillers and the tales of "glamour" crime writers; almost stranger than fiction.

Jack Unterweger

Unterweger was born as the (probably unwanted) child of his Viennese barmaid mother and an American soldier, in the years following the Second World War. It was said she was also a prostitute. His mother was an ineffective and unreliable figure for her son, who was quickly given to the protection of his grand-father. However, his grand-father was little better. The young Jack lived in his grand-father's cabin, which his grand-father regularly brought prostitutes to. There being no proper privacy, the young Jack was forced to see and hear everything. The grand-father was also an abusive alcoholic.

As an adolescent and young adult he was a petty offender, and a repeat sex offender, which involved long spells in prison. By his early twenties he was effectively a callous criminal and social parasite. In 1974, his crimes took an even darker turn. While in Germany, he killed a young German woman, and was extradited to Austria to serve his life sentence.

It was at this point, during his time in prison, that Jack appeared to undergo a transformative social change. Being able to effectively immerse himself into the world of literature and learning for the first time in his life, he sought to turn his life around, reform himself and go through a process of psychological re-birth. Like the infamous character "Alex" from "A Clockwork Orange", he had all the appearances of being a genuine case of the positive, powerful effect that social re-wiring and positive education can have on rehabilitation.
While in prison, he wrote and got published a biography of his life and his time in prison, that stood as a powerful telling of the effect that social conditions in prison have on the psyche. It was also made into a film, while Unterweger was still incarcerated. At the same time, he wrote and had published children's stories and poetry, and clearly sought to use his time in prison to re-educate and re-invent his life. His case and his rehabilitation were taken on board by influential figures in Austrian society, which, by early 1990, led to Unterweger being released from prison after the minimum term possible to be served for murder - fifteen years.

By this point, Unterweger had become a minor celebrity: he was forty years old; a well-dressed, handsome, larger-than-life figure, who had regular television appearances, discussing issues such a criminal rehabilitation, and had roles on national TV as a reporter and correspondent. He was a media darling and an object of fascination for many of Vienna's intelligensia. He lived in a well-to-do part of Vienna, with a smart flat and soon had a doting coterie of fans, many of them female. It was not long before he had a devoted girlfriend.

It was at this time that a spate of murders appeared in the Vienna area over the period of months, all of them prostitutes killed in the same way: strangulation, using the same type of knot. As an interested party, Unterweger took it upon himself to make some casual investigations into the case and its effect on that seedier side of society. Later, he went to Los Angeles and did similar work with the police to compare the differing vice cultures between countries. It happened that while Unterweger was in Los Angeles, three prostitutes were also murdered in the same way.

A detective who had known Unterweger since his murder case of fifteen years earlier recognised similarities between the way the prostitutes in Vienna had been killed, and the way that Unterweger had killed his female victim in 1974. Eventually, police put him under surveillance, given the apparent similarities in the M.O., in spite of the lack of clear motive, and Unterweger's "celebrity" profile.
When the police did then go to arrest Unterweger nearly two years after his first release from prison, he got wind of the police's plans, and fled the country, eventually ending up with his girlfriend in Florida, via Switzerland, Paris and New York. With the police investigation ongoing, Unterweger went to ground with his girlfriend in Florida. While he was trying to rally his supporters in Vienna against the (to his fans' minds, absurd) allegations, he cajoled his girlfriend to take up lap-dancing to support them both.
In fact, Unterweger's relationship with his partner was almost entirely parasitic. The money he had made from his career as "Jack the writer" was nowhere near as profitable as appeared, and he relied on his partner to help fund his larger-than-life existence. Indeed, his whole lifestyle was a sham, that had been financed on the moral support and wrangled pity of others.  Playing the charmer and the manipulator as he had successfully with his partner and Viennese high society, he was now trying to make himself appear as the wronged victim.

Eventually he was extradited back to Austria, where his trial took place in 1994. The evidence against him was compelling, and it was then that all the dots could finally be joined. Not long after his release from prison, Unterweger had gone to Prague. It was during this time that a prostitute was strangled, using the same knot that would be seen in the Austrian killings. The prostitutes killed in Los Angeles when Unterweger was there were also killed in the same way. Likewise, a woman who had been killed elsewhere in Austria was killed at the same time that Unterweger had been attending a public event in the area.

Now it was clear what kind of monster Austria was dealing with. Unterweger had never "rehabilitated" at all: he had simply used the time in prison to get smarter. He was manipulator and parasite, reveling in the attention he had been getting as a "celebrity" (a sign of cerebral narcissism), while at the same time no doubt getting further boosts to his ego that he was killing women undetected. The sojourn to Los Angeles was surely "the icing on the cake" for Unterweger's dark, twisted narcissism: enjoying the protection and attention of the LA police, while at the same time sharing time with them as they investigated the murders that he had committed himself.
The motive for his murders can never be known, but again the "God" complex may have been a factor, as well a probable deep-seated hatred of his mother, who had been in all likelihood a prostitute herself. The narcissist in Unterweger may have seen these murders as some kind of way to "get back" at her. As said elsewhere, psychopathic narcissists like Unterweger are also misogynists (in the same way that PUAs also rationalise their behaviour), seeing women as objects to be used - "toys" to play with, and discard at will. These are all signs of objectifying others, as the narcissist - and a psychopathic narcissist such Unterweger - is incapable of empathising with others.

While in custody, psychological testing confirmed that he met the criteria for NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder). After sentencing, Unterweger carried out another act that confirmed his ultimate narcissism: unable to tolerate the thought of going back to prison, he hung himself. Living the life of a "celebrity" serial killer, perhaps he also felt it would also fitting to go out in a final, unambiguous ending.

The psychopathic narcissist as serial killer: Harold Shipman

A small number of narcissists are so amorally-egocentric that they literally feel they can get away with murder. As said elsewhere, there a degree of overlap between those with narcissism (NPD) and psychopathy: in essence, all psychopaths are to a greater or lesser degree narcissistic. A very small number of psychopaths are also killers.
The difference here is one of motive: a narcissist primarily lives for the purpose of obtaining "narcissistic supply"; a psychopath lives according to amoral whim and convenience. Therefore, a narcissistic serial killer would kill for the purpose of "narcissistic supply" (e.g.. "to feel like God"); a purely psychopathic killer would do so simply for the enjoyment of the act itself, or for the amoral purpose of achieving a goal (e.g. imagine a crime boss eliminating a rival or witness to a crime). In this (and the following) article, we will look at examples of serial killers who who are either proven narcissists (through testing) or whose narcissism seems strongly indicated by their actions and behaviour. These are narcissists who go to the ultimate amoral length to obtain their "narcissistic supply".

Harold "Fred" Shipman

This man is perhaps the world's (and certainly Britain's) most prolific serial killer, suspected to have killed more than two hundred people over a twenty-year period. He has been informally called "Dr Death", for very good reason.

Harold Shipman was born in the late 1940's to a father who was a long-distance truck driver, and a mother who endured a long-term battle with cancer throughout Harold's formative years. Thus, he was raised in a home environment that may have engendered some aspects of a narcissistic personality from childhood: a father who was absent from home for long periods, and a mother who, due to her terminal illness, would probably have been a weak figure at home. In such an environment, the malignant germ of narcissism can find root. Indeed, when his mother did finally pass away when he was finishing high school, a former school friend at the time remembers talking to Harold at the start of a school week and asking him what he did that previous weekend. Harold mentioned that his mother had died. Shocked and saddened, the school friend asked Harold what he did and how he felt; a keen sportsman at school, Harold replied casually that he "went for a run". Harold did not seem emotionally affected by his mother's death at all.

After finishing college, Shipman, who was from Nottingham, went to study medicine at Leeds. After qualifying to become a GP, he first went to practise in the West Pennine town of Todmorden in the mid 1970s. It was here where his criminal activity began, and also another marker of possible malignant narcissism: he began fraudulently obtaining medicinal drugs to feed a growing drug habit. This was eventually discovered, and he was fined by a local court, but not dismissed from the profession. Then he moved elsewhere, to the town of Hyde on the eastern outskirts of Manchester.

After working in a local Hyde surgery with other doctors for more than ten years, in 1991, he decided to go out on his own, and set up his own independent GP surgery, barely a stone's throw from the place he had left. He also took all of his patients with him, creating a bitter acrimony with his former colleagues at the Hyde practice he had left.
Shipman engendered a strong loyalty and interpersonal relationship with his patients. Although some people found him at times cold, off-hand and arrogant, many others respected his aura of professionalism and attention to detail. Compared to other doctors, Shipman went out of his way to make house calls to elderly patients, typically elderly women who lived alone. It would only be later when the significance of this would become clearer.

By early 1998, some other doctors who worked at a nearby surgery began to ask questions about the seemingly high number of deaths of his patients that Dr Shipman had signed-off on. Many of these deaths were also cremations. The police were discreetly asked to investigate in April, but being unfamiliar with some of the practices and regulations involved in the medical field, they failed to ask the right questions or look in the right places. After a short investigation, the case was closed.
Later on that summer, the death of former mayoress of Hyde, Kathleen Grundy, was signed off by Shipman as "old age", even though she was a very active women in the community. Suspicious of the suddenness of the death, it was investigated by her daughter; this was also due to discovering her mother's will had been changed shortly before her death, and due to the suspicious nature of the will: it gave everything to Dr Shipman. Only now, with a full police investigation did the nightmarish truth eventually come out.

Harold Shipman, over a twenty-year period, had been killing his patients alone in their homes using a lethal injection of drugs. The majority of his victims were elderly women, although some were middle aged (and some men). The sudden deaths of the victims often shocked their families, as many of them were the apparent picture of health. But due to Shipman's respected status within the local community, the alarm was never raised. While we can't know his motive for certain, the narcissism suggestive in his personality points to Shipman "feeling like God", with his status as a doctor having the ultimate power of life and death. It was also later revealed that items of jewelry were often missing from the victims' houses after they had died; again, this may be another manifestation of his narcissism, seeking a "memento" of his exploits, and also a further display of what he was able to get away with. The fact that his innumerable crimes remained undetected for all those years can only have boosted his inflated ego even further, and raised his contempt of the intelligence of those around him. By the time of the death of Kathleen Grundy, it is not hard to imagine that Shipman felt he was able to get away with almost anything, leading to his (in fact amateurish) attempt to falsify her will. It was his narcissism that ultimately led to his capture.

After being sentenced in 2000, Shipman was sent to prison for the rest of his life. Ultimately, his inflated ego probably unable to tolerate living in prison until the end of his days, Harold Shipman hung himself in 2004. The victims' families said they felt "cheated" - a typical feeling expressed by any victim of a narcissist.

The next article will look at the serial killer, "Jack The Writer" who ultimately was positively tested for Narcissistic Personality Disorder. His narcissism displayed itself in an altogether more public light, however...

Narcissism and sexuality: LGBT psychology and the darker beyond

Narcissists have an entirely self-centred view towards sex. A narcissist sees their sexuality as a projection of their own sense of omnipotence. As discussed in another article written on the same topic, narcissists essentially objectify their partners or sexual conquests. At the same time, the narcissist is also in love with his own self-image and his own fantasies. He feels he is deserving of special treatment (entitlement), deserving of the perfection of his desires regardless of reality, and will resort to histrionics (tantrums and sudden bursts of emotion and anger) if he fails to get what he wants.

Narcissistic characteristics can also be found in many members of the gay and transgender community. What marks out the gay community from heterosexuals is their use of their sexuality in itself as a way to mark themselves as different. In other words, their sexuality is used as a way to express their narcissism (as described here) - their sexuality is the physical manifestation of their narcissism. However, this is not to say that they are inherently more narcissistic than a heterosexual narcissist - merely that the narcissistic manifestation is more distinctly expressed.
The link between homosexuality and narcissism is unclear, as there has been little proper scientific research into this area. It would be unfair to delve into any controversies about the origins of homosexuality per se. There is a plethora of evidence that homosexuality occurs naturally throughout the animal kingdom. That is not so say, though, that there may well some biological cross-over between homosexuality and narcissism. But due to a lack of actual scientific evidence thus far, this can only be conjecture. For this reason, what is said below is based on some element of supposition.

However, it can be said that due to the way that homosexuals define themselves by their body (and sexual identity), they may also be somatic narcissists (i.e. they are in love with their own body). Likewise, it could be argued that a homosexual may be in love with his own idealised image of himself, and that this is what he seeks when he seeks a sexual partner. He or she is attracted to the person that most correlates to the person he or she wishes to be, consciously or not. Therefore, having this person as a partner is the ultimate form of self-love as well as - in a manner of speaking - auto-erotica. In the same way that the heterosexual somatic narcissist uses a member of the opposite sex to essentially masturbate into, the homosexual narcissist enjoys his/her partner as a way to effectively achieve sexual pleasure from their idealised self in physical form.
The narcissism that exists in the homosexual may more generally manifest itself in other ways. Some homosexuals enjoy having a single long-term partner (which may mark them out as being a cerebral narcissist - see the link mentioned earlier), while others may repress their homosexuality for years and living with a sheltered secrecy to their sexuality, which is revealed only in carefully-orchestrated situations (this may also be a marker of cerebral narcissism of a kind). Yet again, many homosexuals will themselves openly admit to being promiscuous (justifying this by saying "it's a very promiscuous scene"), which is another sign of ingrained somatic narcissism: promiscuity is a symptom of narcissism as narcissists quickly bore of "routines", as it goes against his sense of uniqueness and entitlement. Homosexuals are often histrionic ("drama queens"), and some also indulge in other forms of outrageous showmanship, such as cross-dressing. These are all methods of achieving attention and limelight - forms of narcissistic supply, as true with any classic narcissist.

Bisexuality may also, in another way, be seen as a manifestation of narcissism. As a homosexual can be said to seek sex from an idealised image of himself, the bisexual could be said to literally want the best of both worlds - both male and female - and therefore wants to take their sexual omnipotence to the ultimate heights. By seducing and "conquering" both males and females, the bisexual narcissist boosts his self-image by feeling loved by both sexes, which makes him/her feel like God - in an almost literal sense. They may feel they have defied "nature" itself by being sexually-attractive to both sexes simultaneously

The psychology (and narcissism) of transsexuals is perhaps more contorted still. Transsexuals seek to change their gender as they reject their own sense of self. While there are various motivations for this, it can be said that this motivation shares characteristics with the same narcissistic motivations that can be seen in aspects of homosexuality i.e. as the homosexual is attracted to an idealised version of himself he sees in another person, the transsexual sees an idealised version of himself in a member of the opposite sex, and seeks to become that person. In other words, the transsexual rejects his own gender completely, in order be become another (idealised) version of himself in the opposite gender. This can also be called a narcissistic psychology due to the unrealistic nature of this fantasy or wish, as it involves such a drastic (and possible unobtainable) step. Also, this shows the objectification of the transsexual's own body, in a way far more pronounced than can be seen in a homosexual.
Some transsexuals (known as autogynephilic) even wish to change their gender in order to become the sexual object of their own desire. Thus, they may attract members of the opposite sex to themselves in order to fulfill the fantasy of somehow taking on both roles in the act of sex, the male and the female. It can then also be argued that transsexuals have a grandiose sense of entitlement, owing to the nature of their psychology. They feel they deserve to be taken care of by society and their fantastic (biologically-demanding) wishes to be fulfilled, and will go to extreme lengths to do so; in some cases being highly histrionic and even threatening self-harm if they fail to get what they want.

To summarise, the psychologies of the LGBT community seem to be skewed towards some form of expression of narcissism, but may simply be more contorted manifestations of narcissism; a variant on the heterosexual manifestation.


The last taboo

However, narcissism takes on an utterly amoral form when it is manifested in the form of child abuse. There have been numerous examples of this psychology laid bare in the UK, with the revelations regarding Jimmy Savile, as well as the former LostProphets' singer, Ian Watkins. This manifestation of amoral narcissism is ultimately psychopathic in nature, as well as highly-narcissistic - and has almost certainly nothing to do with sex. Along with the sexual sadist, these types of individuals' acts are simply a way of demonstrating their amoral omnipotence. As children are seen as something innocent and rightfully protected by law, therefore these individuals feel they wish to make a point by showing their disdain for moral values. This same type of pathology was evident in the psychology of the serial killer, Ian Brady. These individuals' enormous sense of entitlement, wishing to omnipotent and callously objectify their victims, is the ultimate expression of their deep, dark narcissism.
Along with those in positions of power, this form of sexual psychopathy and deep-rooted narcissism is perhaps the most frightening of all - barring serial killers.

Narcissists and sex: perfecting the art of self-gratification

Narcissists' relationship with sex is as empty and meaningless as many of their other pursuits in life. In general, being a narcissist is an endless loop of finding sources of "narcissistic supply": acting effectively as a psychological vampire on others in order to seek emotional nourishment. Except that the type of "nourishment" that a narcissist seeks is entirely in one direction - their own.

In this way, narcissists and (more socially dangerous) psychopaths share some common characteristics. Both these types of individuals lack empathy, and seek to use others in society solely for what they can get out of them. Psychopaths are also narcissists - some may well be called "psychopathic narcissists". A psychopath and a narcissist therefore share the same root perception of what "sex" means - more on the dangerous relationship that psychopaths have with sex can be found here. A psychopath, however, is much more dangerous to be around.

To be clear, though, a narcissist's relationship to sex can also be highly poisonous for anyone in a relationship with them. How that is manifested, depends on the type of narcissist.

One of the authorities on this subject is Sam Vaknin, a self-confessed narcissist who also has a large online presence that he uses to delve deeply into the intricacies of narcissistic behaviour. He has also published a book on the subject, which explores the area in similarly-intricate detail On the subject of sex, he has separated two distinct types of narcissist: the somatic narcissist, and the cerebral narcissist.

"My body is a temple"

The somatic narcissist represents, in some ways, the "classic" perception of what a sex-obsessed narcissist is like: to them, they enjoy the act of sex as a means of conquest and a way to demonstrate their psychological power over the other. The somatic narcissist fits the stereotype of a man (or woman, but most narcissists are men) who goes through members of the opposite sex like chattel, enjoying the act of seduction and "the game" as a way to gain narcissistic supply. Once the victim has been seduced and conquered, the purpose of the "relationship" is over: the somatic narcissist becomes instantly bored, and seeks another victim. This mentality was shown with chilling accuracy by Tom Cruise in the film "Magnolia".
It goes without saying that the somatic narcissist is a misogynist. He uses women as the physical source of narcissistic supply, enjoying the attention he gains from the seduced woman, enjoying the satisfaction of having sexual control over her, acting as "God" in the bedroom. At the same time, however, the sex act itself is meaningless. A sex partner of a somatic narcissist may well enjoy intense and highly-erotic sex, but this will only be part of fulfilling the narcissist's fantasy: the sex partner is a "toy" to be played with, an object to be used. When the narcissist bores of sex with their partner, they will discard them for another at a moment's notice - or simply seek to enhance the "game" through adultery. Both the somatic narcissist and the cerebral narcissist are "auto-erotic" i.e. they gain sexual self-gratification from either themselves or others. The somatic narcissist is the latter, essentially using sex with a partner as a way to masturbate into their partner's body. They do not engage in healthy, intimate sex, but empty, meaningless sex that is simply a method of achieving sexual climax. In this way, the partner of a somatic narcissist is truly "used" as a sex object.
More generally, the somatic narcissist is in love with his own body. For this reason, they will likely be fitness fanatics and gym enthusiasts, following the maxim that "my body is a temple". They are likely to be enthusiasts of cosmetic surgery, wishing to turn themselves into a physical manifestation of their own idealised self. This is all part of the strategy to make themselves (in their eyes) more appealing to the opposite sex, as well as boosting their own self-image. Likewise, a more psychopathic narcissist may also wish to seek to impose their own two-dimensional wishes onto their partner, cajoling them into having cosmetic alterations for the narcissists own pleasure and sense of power. Again, this is another method of gaining narcissistic supply, by treating their partner as an object to be altered and moulded to their desires.

Better than sex

By contrast, the cerebral narcissist sees sex primarily as a chore. While the somatic narcissist is in love with his own body, the cerebral narcissist in love with his mind. For this reason, sexual arousal is mainly an auto-erotic act - the cerebral narcissist usually prefers masturbation to actual sex. The physical act of sex simply doesn't achieve what the cerebral narcissist wants - what he wants is something more than can be found in the act itself. For this reason, cerebral narcissists tend to be porn addicts who look down at actual "sex" as being something beneath them: it may be seen as a "dirty" and base act, while they gain more pleasure from their "superior" minds and exotic sexual fantasies.
That being said, cerebral narcissists are not necessarily celibate. They are as likely to be the kind of person who may well have a long-term partner, and will maintain their physical relationship with them as a method of maintaining their hold on the partner. In this way, fulfilling conjugal duties is the price the cerebral narcissist pays for keeping hold of the narcissistic supply from their partner. At the same time, as the cerebral narcissist is the one who holds the "sex power", he may also enjoy withholding sex rights from their partner as a method of control: if the partner somehow fails to meets his expectations or frustrates him somehow, the cerebral narcissist denies sex to the partner as a form of punishment. Again, this is another way of gaining narcissistic supply, by demonstrating the all-powerful control over the relationship. Like the somatic narcissist, the act of sex itself is meaningless and impersonal: the difference is how these two types of narcissists gain narcissistic supply and sexual satisfaction.
More generally, the cerebral narcissist is likely to be less social and outgoing than the somatic narcissist. As the cerebral narcissist in love with his own mind, it follows that his method of gaining narcissistic supply will also have a more cerebral route: they will seek adulation and attention through their intellectual pursuits, and thus will hold their own intellect to be superior to others' - regardless of the actuality. In this way, while the somatic narcissist will seek to create a fantasy image from his own body, the cerebral narcissist will seek to create a fantasy image from his intellect: imagining himself to be worthy of academic or artistic praise for his work. However, as reality will eventually come to hit him in the face, the result will be a cycle of self-seclusion after meeting some inevitable disappointment. The cerebral narcissist will withdraw into his own self, become more solitary, and convince himself that, like how physical sex is "beneath" him, the outside world is also somehow "unworthy" of his attention. But after some time, like the somatic narcissist. the cerebral narcissist will be in need of another source of narcissistic supply, and thus will re-engage socially.
This is the cycle that the cerebral narcissist goes through; in the same way that the somatic narcissist goes through a cycle of "seduce and destroy", the cerebral narcissist goes through a cycle of engagement and disengagement, acting as leech that seeks the life-blood of attention, attaching to satiate his ego, then disengaging when he prefers the company of his favourite space - his own mind.

As we can see from these two descriptions, both these types of narcissists act as emotional vampires who see society as a vehicle for their own egos. In general, narcissists see their relationships in terms of possession and the need to control. There is also a case to be made for the link between narcissism and other forms of sexuality.


There is also the the social link between narcissism and psychopathy to consider, and what effect this has had on modern society.

Neo-liberalism and the Conservatives: using intellectual and moral bankruptcy to run the UK

Since the onset of neo-liberalism with the Thatcher government, successive governments of both main parties have followed fundamentally the same ideological and economic script.

Back in the 1970s, the British economy was struggling to adapt to the various crises that struck the world economy. The skyrocketing cost of living, loss of British companies' competitiveness, and inflation, all had the effect of bringing increasing demands from the unions, who sought to buffer their members from the worst of it. As we know now, the rise of Thatcherism created an "agreed consensus" that it was the unions that caused the crisis in the UK in the 1970s. Likewise, the same "agreed consensus" is at play with the Conservative government today, who successfully blamed the previous Labour government for "breaking the banks".

The "plan" that Thatcher and her successors have followed for the last thirty-five is simple: to "re-figure" the British economy from a manufacturing (production) based economy to a service (consumption) based economy. At the same time, this service-based economy has been supported by a massive expansion of the banking and financial sector, making the service-based economy - which has been designed to take up the slack of the loss of manufacturing - heavily reliant on the fate of the banking sector. Whereas a production-based economy is reliant on a competitive (i.e. relatively weak) pound to make British products attractive to buyers abroad, the kind of economy Thatcher introduced was reliant on a strong pound: this was what the financial sector was craving, and would also help consumerism (as it made imports cheap).
The result of this was the slow death of manufacturing in the UK, and a balance of payments that has been in a serious state of disrepair for years. Though no-one has seemed to care.
Following on from this, the Blair government took up the idea that young people in the UK were under-qualified for the modern world. For this reason, successive governments since then have promoted the idea that a much larger proportion of younger people should have degrees; the logic being that better-educated young people could get better-paid jobs.
The problem - as we now see plain today - is that these two plans are in many ways nonsensical, and also logically contradictory. But this is how those in government have been running the country.

Intellectually bankrupt

To the casual observer, the UK has done really quite well since the "neo-liberal" revolution has been introduced. GDP is up, and the country is self-evidently more prosperous. Except that it depends on who you are talking about.
Back in 1978, this was when "egalitarianism" was at its height: the gap between rich and poor was at its smallest. Things were only "bad" if you happened to be very rich and Conservative; for everyone else, things were - basically - fine. This all ended with Thatcher. Within a short time, unemployment had trebled. Since the "neo-liberal" revolution in Whitehall, the gap between rich and poor has successively widened, so that now while those at the top ten per cent are many times richer than they were, those at the bottom ten per cent are actually worse off. Yes, they may have some consumer goods that they can afford due to advancements in technology and cost-effectiveness. But they are still - financially - worse off than they were before. This is how this economic system works.

British governments since Thatcher have had plenty of time to make manufacturing more productive and competitive. The fundamental problem about British inefficiency stems back to the end of Empire. It may seem like a difficult point to deal with, but Britain's manufacturing and productive base was reliant on demand from the Empire to keep things afloat. This was surely shown during the Second World War, and going even further back. Once the Empire starting breaking apart, British governments never grasped the nettle about how to make British industry competitive in a real world economy, rather than in a "fake" Imperial economy. The "oil shock" of the 1970s brought that into stark relief, and the Thatcher government decided that it couldn't be bothered to try and make it work. The government would rather let the whole thing die.
As mentioned earlier, the UK has turned into a consumption-based economy, which ironically seems not far off how an Imperial Homeland would be run. Except that Britain no longer has an "empire" that can do its production for it. Instead of factories, the UK now runs on banks. Like in Switzerland. Instead of an "empire", it now runs the country like a PLC, where its citizens are treated like mere "employees", who can be hired and fired at will. Instead of colonies, the UK has "assets", which it sells off to the highest (foreign) bidder.

Which brings us to Germany.

Germany is the country that many others aspire to be, for the simple reason that it is perhaps one of the best-run countries in the world, in terms of productivity, efficiency of government, and the well-being of its people. In this sense, Germany is the "anti-Britain": a country which learned some very hard lessons before 1945 but also learned how to get the best out of its people. Germany is what Britain could have been, if the country were run intelligently.
Britain's economic system can be called intellectually bankrupt because it is a system that a con. By allowing Britain's productive assets to wither and die, though a combination of incompetence and recklessness, successive governments have put all the country's eggs in one basket. That was found out in 2008, when we suddenly realised how absurd the UK's "miracle" of banking really was.
Since then, the British government has decided to react to the greatest financial crisis since the Depression by doing...the exact same thing. Nothing has changed about how the UK economy is ran. The huge bubble that burst in 2008 is being re-inflated once more, except that this time the "recovery" is even more of an illusion than the growth that was created under New Labour. The economy now is growing only due to debt-fueled consumer spending, ever-worsening working conditions, a much greater number of low-skilled and low-paid jobs, and an out-of-control property bubble. The state of the economy is based on even more fragile foundations that before the crash, but George Osborne, the architect of this "long-term economic plan", is only motivated by short-term political gain and the harvesting of votes.
The governments of the past thirty years have all been complicit in the "asset-stripping" of the nation, leaving the taxpayer doubly worse off - in selling off national infrastructure at below-market value, and then allowing these privatised assets to fleece their customers. as mentioned earlier. For the private sector this is a win-win situation.

What has been created since the "neo-liberal" revolution has been a system of Corporate Socialism, where assets are privatised and those privatised companies are then subsidised and if need be bailed-out by the government - the worst outcome of all from the government's financial point of view. In the meantime, this amoral system creates a morally-bankrupt government as well as an intellectually-bankrupt ideology.

Morally bankrupt

The logical conclusion of this economic system is a moral system that has destroyed the essence of society.
On top of increasing inequality to levels now not seen since the Depression, those who have become the victims of this system are then demonised as the causes of its problems. This is where the idea of blaming those on welfare for the need for "austerity" comes from. Back in the 1980s, when the government started selling-off council housing, this meant that only those with the severe social and familial problems became entitled to state housing. The effect of this was creating "sink estates", and thus another "scapegoat" for the government's problems was formed.
This vicious circle is repeated time and time again: the government creates a problem, then blames the victims for the problem.

George Osborne is the architect of the current government's version of this system, where he has implemented a policy of "divide and rule" to a ruthlessly-effective degree. In reality, all his decisions are not based on what's best for the country, but what's best for his prospects. From "help-to-buy" to racking up tuition fees, Osborne implements policies that simply store up nightmares for the future. While David Cameron is the charmingly-affable front man to this game, it is Osborne who is the real "master in the shadows".

Dividing young against old, rich against poor, working poor against jobless poor, this is the morally bankrupt system that the Conservatives use to rule the UK.

The Jeremy Corbyn effect and the Labour leadership election: the death of New Labour?

A month from now, we'll know who the new leader of the Labour Party will be. The odds favour Jeremy Corbyn, given the massive groundswell of support from the party grassroots, which has left the three other "establishment" candidates struggling to come up with a plan. The latest one - involving all the "big beasts" - seems to be an all-out attack on Corbyn's values and what it would mean for the party electorally.
The surreal irony here is that the party hierarchy talk about Corbyn being someone who will have no resonance with the public mood, while he remains the only candidate of the five who has energised the party base and caused a massive rise in party numbers (more on that later). In other words, the hierarchy want someone who may have little in common with many of the actual party members, but will somehow resonate with the wider public. The surrealism of this point of view tells us what stage of absurdity the Labour party has now reached.

From party of government to political laughing-stock

In five years, the Labour party have gone through a seismic change in fortunes, at least as traumatic as that which they faced between 1979 and 1983 - arguably more so. The story of what happened in Scotland north of the border is highly educational. The party became complacent and relied on second and third-rate party hacks to run things on Scotland, while being dictated to from Westminster. The SNP took advantage of this ruthlessly, and took power in Holyrood with a majority. In 2015, Scottish Labour's MPs in Westminster found out when the same result is applied to a FPTP system: wipeout.

What we are seeing now is the accumulation of various factors, which have aligned together at one moment in time, bringing the spectacle of the current Labour party into full focus. Apart from the meltdown in Scotland highlighting an effective schism between the ideologies of the Scottish and English electorate, there are the changes that have happened within the Labour party itself over the last five years (and since the May election) that have contributed to this very public mess.

Ed Miliband's election as leader was due to the support of the unions. We can only guess now what might have happened if David had won instead; of all the possible candidates to lead the party after the 2010 election defeat, he was probably the best-qualified, having been Foreign Secretary, and being a figure who could easily articulate the "centrist" approach. As we now know, the grassroots of the party are currently much more leftist than many of its MPs, most of which have served through the years of New Labour. Ed Miliband has been seen as one reason for this realignment amongst the grassroots.
Then, after the Falkirk election scandal, the voting system within party was changed, with the intention of making it much more open to party members, making the process more obviously representative of members' views, and allowing for low barriers to entry to encourage increased party membership. Given that party membership is now more than 200,000, we can say that approach is a success. Unfortunately for the party hierarchy, the members are not looking to vote the way the party elite expected.  The horrible complacency of Labour's leadership has come home to roost. Having allowed a "token" leftist candidate on the leadership election, once more the Labour leadership took things for granted: their members would vote for one of the uninspiring, centrist candidates because there was "no other alternative". They had learned nothing from the debacle of Scottish Labour. In the same way that the SNP became the beneficiaries of Labour complacency, Jeremy Corbyn has become the beneficiary of this grassroots insurgency.

Having given the party base a weapon to democratise the election process, the party heads are appalled at how this has backfired on them. While those at the top of the party are New Labour veterans and stalwarts, the "Ed Effect", and the shattering loss of the 2015 election, seems to have galvanised the party base to "stick two fingers up" to the out-of-touch complacency shown by Labour in Westminster.
This is also partly a result of the lack of any inspiring new figures coming through the party. While the likes of Chuka Umunna and Liz Kendall are new MPs and can articulate the "New Labour" idea, the problem is that it is not what many of the grassroots want to hear. Worse, their generalisations and lack of a "common touch" make them out as being only a few shades to the left of the Tories. This is also partly the legacy of New Labour and Blair: selecting yes-men and party hacks as MPs, that have little real life experience outside of politics. Only Dan Jarvis of the "newbies" bucks this trend as being a former soldier with a genuine life story to tell; but for (understandable) family reasons doesn't wish to step up to the mantle.

Cavaliers and Roundheads

This is where the "Corbyn-,mania" comes from. Being cut from a different cloth to the many indistinguishable "New Labour" figures, he is the polar opposite, something that hasn't been seen in British politics for thirty years. A natural populist, he appears as a bearded prophet, who dresses in the style of puritan socialist. This is in marked contrast the "professional" look of the rest of the Westminster set, from the "New Labour" types to the ranks of the public school Tories.

In some ways, British politics these days seems to resemble the ideological contortions of the mid-17th century. Certainly, with the situation north of the border, relations between England and Scotland may be said to be almost as bad and distrustful as they were in the days of the Civil War. While no-one of course is suggesting violence, the political situation, and the complex political realignments across Britain, could be said to be as convoluted and as difficult to comprehend as they were at that time. There are factions and sub-factions now as there were then.

The Tories are certainly living up to their role as the party of the aristocracy (The "Cavaliers"), doing just enough to rule the country, but doing so in a highly-divisive and dangerously-reckless way. Like back then, the modern Tories - the party of the aristocracy - are unpopular in London. Like back then, the Tories had "lost Scotland" to a group of Scottish political insurgents.
But also like then, bizarre political groupings and alliances were formed. The modern Labour party (aka The "Roundheads") has factions of its own, as Cromwell's supporters did back in the 17th century. During the Civil War and up to the Restoration, Scotland changed allegiances a number of times. This was also the time of "The Levellers", whose values these days Jeremy Corbyn would be sympathetic towards. The "Corbyn insurgency" bears all the hallmarks of being a grassroots rebellion like that which was formed by The Levellers in days of the Civil War.

The current political situation within the Labour Party in Britain may soon become even more convoluted, if Jeremy Corbyn becomes the new leader. Corbyn's campaigning in Scotland has shown that he has drawn the support of many who had only just recently swapped their votes from Labour to the SNP in the general election. However, the new leader of Scottish Labour, Kezia Dugdale, is ardently against his values. So we may well have a situation where the leader of Labour in England is more popular in Scotland than England, and more popular than Scottish Labour's own leader, who disagrees with him. This would be beyond farcical, but also a reflection of how complicated British politics has become.

A Corbyn leadership may well be a "moment of madness" by the Labour grassroots, given the fact that they lost the general election on a platform more to the middle than anything proposed by Corbyn. A mass movement of Corbyn support would almost certainly face a bloodbath in the face of the "Cavalier" Tories in 2020; but it would be an "honourable death", as seen by his supporters.

The problem is what state the Labour Party would be in afterwards - or after five years of Corbyn leadership.

Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" and John Galt: the allegory of The Fall Of Man

I wrote last month about Ayn Rand's magnum opus, "Atlas Shrugged" and the role of its enigmatic hero, John Galt. As said before, the thread of biblical symbolism runs deep in the story, which is made explicit in Chapter Seven of Book Three, when John Galt makes his "address to the world": an extraordinary monologue consisting of many thousands of words.

Galt's monologue is his "manifesto". In earlier threads on this topic, the author compared the role of Galt to that of Satan/ Lucifer in biblical symbolism - Galt and his followers as "fallen angels" who have rebelled against the rule of God/"government" and been forced to flee, so that they can live according to their free-will. In the same way that Satan would rather be "a lord in hell that a slave in heaven", Galt and his followers would rather be free and in "exile" than be a slave to government.

Galt's monologue explains that he equates God and faith with slavery and irrationality. As Lucifer from the Old Testament was the angel that challenged God's unquestioned power, Galt is the doing the same here. As Lucifer is the "agent of free-will" and the seeker of knowledge, Galt is the same here. John Galt sees the morality of God and the "social" morality of government as the essence of the same "evil": the idea that people should submit their will to another and should live for the sake of another. To Galt, this is anathema, and is innately against the interests of man, ultimately bringing about the death of humanity.

"Original Sin" and The Tree Of Knowledge

Galt talks in some detail about the concept of "Original Sin", and how this permeates the morality of "government" as much as that of God. As God labels man as innately irrational and evil, so, by implication, does government: that men are irrational, evil beings that can only be controlled by government. But as Galt says:
"A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice and outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can neither be good nor evil; a robot is amoral. To hold, as man's sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality. To hold man's nature as his sin is a mockery of nature. To punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence exists is a mockery of reason. To destroy morality, nature, justice and reason by means of a single concept is a feat of evil hardly to be matched"
So creating the idea of "Original Sin" is an act that Galt/ Satan opposes for its immorality; it demonstrates the innate evil of God and "government".

Galt continues, by explicitly talking about the Tree Of Knowledge:
"What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declared that he ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge - he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil - he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor - he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire - he acquired the capacity for sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy - all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man's fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was - that robot in the Garden Of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love - he was not man. Man's fall...was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives"

Galt, then, is "the serpent", who wishes for Adam and Eve to become "like God", a rational being. God's "evil" is that he punished Adam and Eve for becoming free-thinking, "moral" beings. God wanted them to remain in the Garden Of Eden as his unthinking, helpless slaves: God would look after them, giving them all they needed, provided they did not question his authority. Galt sees "government" in the same light: an entity that exists to prevent man from bettering himself, an entity that preaches - in Galt''s words - a "Morality Of Death".

"The Morality Of Death"

This "Morality Of Death", according to Galt, has two types of teacher:
"The mystics of spirit and the mystics of muscle, whom you call the spiritualists and the materialists; those who believe in consciousness without existence and those who believe in existence without consciousness. Both demand the surrender of your mind; one to their revelations, the other to their reflexes. Their moral codes are alike, and so are their aims: in matter - the enslavement of man's body, in spirit -  the destruction of his mind.
"The good, say the mystics of the spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man's power to conceive - a definition that invalidates man's consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. The good, say the mystics of muscle, is Society - a thing which they define as an organism that possesses no physical form, a super-being embodied in no-one in particular and everyone in general except yourself. Man's mind, say the mystics of the spirit, should be subordinated to the will of God. Man's mind, say the mystics of muscle, must be subordinated to the will of Society. The purpose of man's life, say both, is to become an abject zombie, who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question. His reward, say the mystics of the spirit, will be given to him beyond the grave. His reward, say the mystics of muscle, will be given....to his great-grandchildren"

Man's life is therefore sacrificial, either to God or society. This is what Galt finds "evil": man is not destined to live, but to die; not to think, but to serve. As the old adage goes, the only two certainties in life are death and taxes. Galt finds these values as the opposite to man's nature; by following these values, man's only outcome will be his own death.

Man can therefore only prosper without God and government: this is the conclusion to be reached. Man can only be moral without these two entities clouding his values, forcing him to work against his own self-interest.
According to Galt, "Selfishness" is not the "evil" that brings down man to his basest vices, but conversely, the thing which helps him see what is clearly rational for his own benefit. Galt sees the idea of "sacrifice" having been subverted by the "Morality of Death". Sacrifice  - as Galts defines it, "the surrender of a value" - has become the justification for creating a more "moral" society, where people work for each other. But as Galt sees it, sacrifice is "a morality for the immoral", telling people to renounce the material world and to divorce your values from matter. This is ultimately contradictory and hypocritical, according to Galt.

Galt's morality is for selfishness and independence, loving only those things worthy of respect. In the Garden Of Eden, Lucifer, as the serpent, was showing Adam and Eve the way to become "like God". In "Atlas Shrugged", John Galt is showing the way to become "a man", instead of a slave.
Galt subverts the common telling of The Fall Of Man, into the opposite, man's evolution to a rational being, which God then "punishes".

It is telling that "God-fearing" people always fear the future and long for the simple certainties of the past: a time before modern technology and industrialisation, the "Satanic mills" and "dog-eat-dog capitalism". "God-fearing" people see modern life as immoral and unforgiving, whereas people like John Galt see modern developments as a sign of man's progress. Ayn Rand saw Capitalism as the only "moral" system of development. The "Satanic mills" and the metal foundries of the industrialised world look a great deal like the biblical descriptions of Hell; fitting then that someone like John Galt would belong there.

The Labour Party in crisis: Jeremy Corbyn, the leadership election and identity politics

Two and a half months on from the general election, the Labour Party is in the middle of a leadership election. The shock of the leadership election has been the surge of grassroots support for Jeremy Corbyn, the candidate who had been supported by a handful of MPs as a sop the traditional left. Originally backed by MPs to promote the notion of the leadership election being about a real choice of values and ideas, it looks to have possibly turned around and bit those "useful idiot" MPs on the behind. He may actually, god forbid, win the vote.

Corbyn is an unlikely-looking insurgent leader, even to his own supporters. He's been an MP since 1983, as one of the "suicide note" intake, and his politics look like old-fashioned '70s socialism. Bearded, over sixty, and dressed like a Marxist academic, he is the antithesis to the modern idea of  the "professional politician".  He also has a record as being a perpetual rebel during the Blair government. "New Labour" he ain't.
These characteristics are somewhat reminiscent of another "old Labour" politician who was (to Blair and his allies) inexplicably popular: Ken Livingstone. Like Ken, Corbyn speaks his mind, and speaks from the heart. He does not equivocate. He does not mind making enemies. He does not mind appearing "controversial". He appears to have the same energy and sense of purpose that Ken was blessed with so that, compared to the other candidates, he is a breath of fresh air (albeit circa 1983). He makes "Red Ed" Miliband seem positively Blairite by comparison.

The "change" candidate 

Speaking of Ed Miliband, some people blame Ed for the rise of Corbyn. The argument is that, because Ed was so keen to distance himself from Blair, it meant that those who joined the party post 2010 were drawn to Ed's anti-Blairite message. In the space of a few years, the makeup of Labour's grassroots had gone from being Blairite-supporting, to being anti-austerity Blair-haters. Miliband had thought that the "political centre" had moved left with the onset of austerity, but the 2015 election proved that, if anything, it had moved to the right. The rise of fads such as "Milifandom" have shown that while Labour has much greater appeal to the younger voter, it has likewise much less appeal to people who actually are more likely to vote. This is something that George Osborne, the Tories' master tactician, figured out a while ago.

This tactical error of judgement has led to the fundamental reshaping of the party's grassroots, in a way that makes it more difficult for a "neo-Blairite" candidate to succeed in the leadership election. While Corbyn has the backing of many unions, and a significant chunk of the grassroots, he also has another unlikely supporter from another party: David Cameron. It was reported recently that in parliament, Cameron took Corbyn to one side to give him a kind of "pep talk". He reminded Corbyn that like him, in 2005 Cameron was initially thought of as an outsider with little chance of becoming leader, but he marked himself as the "change candidate", who offered something different. It was unreported what Corbyn's reaction was to Cameron's cheeky little interjection. Its purpose can only been to cause greater mischief.
Corbyn as the "change" candidate seems like a bad joke, given the man's age, but this is also a symptom of the wider context. Further afield, the rise of SYRIZA in Greece, and "Podemos" in Spain, seem to act as beacons for those in the Labour grassroots who would believe that the impossible is possible in the UK. Also, as the grassroots under Ed Miliband have been replenished with a batch of younger members. this means there are also a whole cohort of activists who have no memory of life before Blair. It is scary to realise that there are Labour members now who were only two years old when Blair became Prime Minister in 1997. Because of this, they have no memory of the splits in the party in the eighties (which Corbyn would have played a part of); splits that saw the Labour party in opposition for eighteen years. Indeed, anyone under the age of thirty would have no direct memory of life under Thatcher and Labour's dark years; to them, it would be a part of folk lore that their parents might have talked about.

Political schizophrenia

Of course, the biggest inspiration for Labour's potential lurch to the left lies north of the border. The SNP has thrived not because it is nationalistic, but because its sense of identity is crystal-clear to its supporters (even if they are being mislead). Conversely, the Scottish Labour party has died because of its lack of coherent identity, plus a combination of complacency and poor management over many years. 2015 was simply the culmination and inevitable result of that. Furthermore, the SNP has benefitted from having two successive leaders blessed with intelligence and charisma. By comparison, the Labour party in Scotland has been ran by second-rate (even third-rate) party hacks, who were then dependent on having major decisions approved by the political heavyweights in Westminster. It was as bad as anything seen in the internal politics of Soviet Russia.

Staying on the idea of identity politics, the situation in the Labour party in general - let alone in Scotland - is pretty dire. While Jeremy Corbyn's "identity politics" is clear, the other three candidates offer "more of the same", albeit in different doses.
Of those, Liz Kendall is the most "neo-Blairite", who seems to most grasp the scale of the job facing the party, and the scale of the changes needed (and realities faced) before it can stand a chance of winning an election any time soon. The problem is that the starkness of her message, and its similarity to the politics of Blair, is deeply off-putting to the "Milifandom"-loving grassroots. Right now, many of them seek succour in the righteousness of opposition. This is why Corbyn message is so appealing, like the barman pouring you another of your favourite tipple after the acrimonious break-up. Corbyn's politics does nothing to help the party get back into government; it simply helps the party to better understand the face that it sees in the mirror. If the party sees its self-inflicted wounds as scars of pride, that is where the real problems start. Seen in this way, Corbyn becoming leader wouldn't even be the nadir: that would only be achieved with an even more cataclysmic defeat in 2020. It would only be after reaching that nadir, could the "demons" in the Labour party finally be purged.

Corbyn is not yet favourite to win. That honour goes to Andy Burnham, who is the most middling of the candidates. While a likable man, he and Yvette Cooper, the last of the four candidates, are former ministers who seem to be treading water politically. They are competent politicians, but lack any obvious charisma or drive that gives any real hope of the Labour party being anything other than a second-rate oppostion party for years to come. As long as Labour is led by people with no clear idea where to take the party or who the party stands for, the electorate will look at them with scepticism.

Politics is marked out by the personalities that dominate it. Thatcher dominated the eighties; the dull interregnum of Major's premiership was quickly overshadowed by the drive of Tony Blair, who went on to dominate British politics for ten years. The Tories struggled with Blair's drive until Cameron came along with the intention of matching it, which then saw him into Downing Street in 2010, by which time Labour's personalities were a fading force. While Blair and Brown dominated the last Labour administration, setting the marker for everyone else, Cameron and Osborne have done the same since then.
This is why of the four candidates for the leadership, Liz Kendall, as a newly-elected MP, offers the most legitimate claim as a real "change" candidate. Dan Jarvis, who was a name mentioned early on but quickly dismissed calls to stand, is another person of note; alas, like Alan Johnson before him, he has the personality but (for whatever reason) lacks the willpower to take on the mantle.

What is certain is that Labour face a task even more challenging than after the 1983 election. Faced with a war on several political fronts, the rise of multi-party politics has landed a hammer-blow to the long-term prospects of the Labour Party. Like their sister parties PASOK in Greece and PSOE in Spain, they face a long, hard slog. By 2020, no-one can even be sure what the UK will look like.