Pornography, narcissism and society

Like it or not, pornography is part of human society. As long as there has been a demand for it, it has existed in human society. The "morality" of this is always up for question, and is an ongoing argument.
An article about the recent surge in sexual violence in India talked about the role that pornography has in seeming to encourage sexual violence against women. In the case of India, its highly patriarchal, male-dominated society is far more conservative in behaviour and perspective than in the West; in some ways, shockingly so. Indian society - and other highly-traditional societies like it - seem to give free rein to male urges and behaviour. In a culture where arranged (as well as underage) marriage is the norm, and where many women are expected to follow a man's wishes almost without question, we see the attributes of a highly-narcissistic male-led society. On the one hand, sex before marriage is illegal in their traditional culture and interaction between genders can be highly-ritualized; on the other, women are expected to give in to men's personal whim. The result is what the psychologist Oliver James once called "Gender Rancour", leading to a male frustration at the contradictory messages - of both omnipotence and impotence - from their culture.
Then comes the question of pornography. In a culture where men are, in many cases, treated as a "superior being" to woman, the injection of modern pornography is, as the writer in the article says, a recipe for disaster. However, the issue is not necessarily with the pornography in itself, but with the already inherent malignant male narcissism in society.

Is pornography "immoral" and therefore a malign influence on society? To some extent, it could be argued so, but if the logical conclusion of this thinking is to criminalize the depiction of "immoral" acts, then where is the line drawn? The judgement then becomes a highly-subjective (and prejudicial) act. If sexual imagery is banned, then why not all violent imagery?
The argument was once put that violent films generated violent behaviour in children (which was one reason for film classification). But it is a question of degree. The problem is that a logical argument could be made that films and books that enact criminal behaviour encourage that same behaviour, and therefore should be banned. The obvious difficulty with that is it would result in a large portion of all film, TV and literature being banned. Likewise, when "prohibition" of alcohol was put into force in the USA, it was quickly shown to be as ineffective as it was nonsensical.

The author of the article mentioned above seems to suggest that banning pornography in India could be a possible solution. But as seen from the highly-narcissistic male-dominated society that India already is, the accessing of pornography by men in India seems far more to be a result of the problem, not the cause. Indian men seem to react in such an anti-social way towards women because of the ingrained culture of impunity; accessing pornography is more likely to make them violent towards women because their impulse control is already very low, thanks to the male narcissism ingrained in their culture. The real solution is to re-educate male society so that it is less narcissistic and anti-social towards women, but that would require decades of work. And few people in authority are going to suggest that their own culture is really to blame; much easier to blame pornography.

That same culture of male narcissism exists in parts of the West, although to a lower degree. It is true that Western culture is more "sexualised" than it was in the past, and this is something which this author wrote about several years ago. But the real question is about instilling behavioral controls. Going back to the example of violent films, there have been cases of mass murderers who have been said to have been "inspired" by watching ultra-violent films. As a result, there are always periodic "moral panics" about banning them, or other "extreme content". The British government has already cynically caved-in to such "moral panics" in the past, for the sake of a few electoral votes. Besides, they might well rationalise, who would argue the case in favour of them in court?

But the purpose of these films, and others like it, is to titillate, and to make a "moral" judgement over this is to miss the point. All forms of art are subjective, and some are bound to be "offensive" - with some being intentionally "offensive" for the purpose of titillation. The real issue, as said earlier is about behavioural controls. Any rational person should be able to look at a sexual or violent image without instantly wanting to imitate it. The problem is that if society itself makes people (or men in particular) more narcissistic, then those behavioural controls become less effective.
As we have seen, many highly-traditional cultures - such as in the example of India, above - create a society that instills malignant male narcissism. This is where behavioural controls among men are lower than in an "average" society. Likewise, there is good evidence that modern societies with high levels of both  consumption and inequality (e.g. Russia, South Africa and in the "Anglosphere", in particular the USA, UK and Australia) also generate high levels of narcissistic behaviour. The correlation with this behaviour, violence towards women and pornography use is therefore not surprising.

While there may be calls to ban pornography in India in the light of the issues raised above, in traditional Islamic cultures, there seems to have long been an assumption that men are, by their nature, poorer at controlling their behavioural impulses than women. Going back to the issue of "Gender Rancour" talked about by Oliver James, it could be argued that the traditional form of highly-controlled gender separation seen in strict Islamic societies creates the same form of malignant male narcissism seemingly prevalent in India. On the one hand, men have more greater legal rights than women, but on the other, the many social boundaries that physically separate men from women are bound to create a form of sexual tension; the result is a vicious circle, where women feel obliged to cover their bodies from brooding male gaze, making male resentment even worse.
Given the sensitivity of the issue, there is alas little real data on hand to research this; the closest we have in the West is the (highly-sensitive) issue of the various "sex ring" scandals that have appeared in the UK, which implicate the highly-traditional (and often self-segregated) cultures of South Asian community. Unfortunately, the "malignant male narcissism" mentioned before is all too evident in the behaviour of the (usually Muslim) men involved in these cases. Given their limited ability to interact with women from their own community, it seems they have turned to more easily available (and persuadable) women from the "white working class", who they have then effectively used as sex slaves: acts of pathological narcissism.

To sum up, there is not enough clear evidence to say that pornography it itself causes narcissistic (and anti-social) behaviour. The above evidence shows that it is the malignant male narcissism that already exists in society - which may come from different sources - that plays a more important role in the anti-social behaviour shown by these men towards women. If men who use pornography are more likely to carry out anti-social behaviour towards women, it is much more likely because they already lack the behavioural controls, due to their culture, or other social factors. Their use of (or addiction to) pornography is more a result of their existing narcissism, not a cause of it.

Personality politics, the media and extremism: Brexit, Trump, and the rise of Populism in the 21st century

There have long been complaints that the world has been getting more superficial, and in the case of media (and its coverage of politics) the complaint seems to be well-deserved.

The problem boils down to issues like "ratings". In essence, its about making television "entertaining", and newspapers making their coverage popular. Political coverage therefore has to fit into the same lens in order to be accessible to the general public. Equally, however, the media operate in an environment shared by their political masters, meaning that overt criticism of some figures can lead to negative consequences for a media outlet (such as losing "access"); so a fine line is often taken by the fourth estate. Both these factors together explain how media coverage of politics has gradually become more superficial and less informative (and informed). The degree of that superficiality has only become truly clear with the rise of Trump in the USA and the cause of "Brexit" in the UK.

"Personality politics" has its roots in the political campaigns for people like Reagan in the USA, continued by the likes of Bill Clinton, which was then copied by Tony Blair. Following from Blair in the UK, we had David Cameron, who molded the Conservative Party in his own image.
The personality politics that these figures harnessed was about capturing the "centre ground". While much of Reagan's rhetoric was Libertarian in its outlook, in office he was often more pragmatic - and more "centrist" - than some people realized at the time. This explained why he won successive elections. Clinton and Blair achieved the same, using the same centrist platform, albeit coming from the other side of the political spectrum.
However, personality politics doesn't work in a vacuum, and it needs a media platform in order to thrive. That media platform has been intertwined with the political sphere for decades, as those in politics and the media often share the same background, educational ties and peer groups. In short, media coverage of politics occupied its own bubble: in the USA it was all about life inside "The Beltway", while in the UK it was all about Westminster gossip.
That superficial fascination with "gossip" was another facet of the entertainment factor in politics. As much of politics is dry and technical to the layman, it requires titillation and personality to bring it alive. This explains why the most famous politicians in Capitol Hill or Westminster were always the ones who were used acts of showmanship. In Ronald Reagan, a former actor, the USA had someone who understood this very well. Donald Trump today has his own exaggerated (but very successful) form of showmanship, clearly modeled on that of Reagan.

A wit might say that politics is the realm of the failed actor. The politicians that have been successful have all used these skills in order to gain the limelight; the politicians that naturally have these skills can rise all the more quickly, along with the movement attached to them.
In the UK, the rise of UKIP is matched with the rise of the politician, Nigel Farage. Here is a figure who has had far more media coverage over the years - going back twenty years - than has merited the popularity of his party. And yet, it was only after the financial crisis (more on that later) that he came to dominate the political sphere so disproportionately.
On one hand, politics became more "professional" during the tenure of Clinton and Blair, so that by the end of the 1990s, there seemed to exist a kind of "conventional wisdom" in society, supported by the media and the political class, that made some issues seem "taboo" to talk about. This was the flip side to centrism. The political class and the media seemed complicit to those on the ideological fringes in shutting-down debate, so that the number of issues that came to be reported on and discussed dwindled. Social issues like racism and homophobia were tackled by government for he first time in living memory, leaving those on the ideological fringe to claim that they themselves were becoming a "persecuted minority". Thus were sown the seeds of the far-right claiming that they were fighting for "free speech", against a complicit media and centrist agenda.

Changes in technology and the rise of internet media have also seen a hollowing-out of traditional news media, like local newspapers. National news agencies have also had to rethink their priorities in the face of falling revenues thanks to these structural shifts in the media industry. What this has meant is that the kind of in-depth reporting that was once common (think how "Watergate" became exposed) has become increasingly difficult to finance. This has meant tough choices, and the result is that the level of reportage and knowledge of issues is not as thorough or as deep as it used to be.
This explains, for example, how the media in the UK have been so poor at grasping the many issues surrounding the implications for Brexit for the country. Apart from how these issues are reported (i.e. the degree of superficiality already mentioned), and the issue of media slant (i.e. not wanting to go against "established opinion") is the issue of how well it is reported in the first place. Simply, the lack of technical knowledge apparent in those working for the media means that they often don't even know what are the right questions to ask to begin with, let alone whether they choose to ask them or not.
In this way, dissemination and lies by politicians pass by unchecked, assumed as fact by media figures who often simply don't know what they're talking about. There is the facade of media interrogation when politicians are interviewed or asked questions after their public appearances, but this lack of technical knowledge, along with the media's own reasons for not wanting to "upset" politicians (as this could damage future "access") means that the public only ever get a "version" of the truth. This is one reason why, if you want to understand a story in any real detail, you need to read it from several media sources, and find the balance somewhere between them all.

This is where "fake news" gets its fuel from, and why Donald Trump's press office talked of "alternative facts". In a time when the media has been under financial pressures due to the structural changes talked of earlier, this allows the more unscrupulous parts of the media (i.e. those with overt ideological agendas) to claim that there is no "real" truth, only many different forms of it. Because the media have been attacked as being too "establishment" for before seeming to favor "centrist" candidates, this leaves them vulnerable to attack from those who have an agenda against centrism i.e. Populists.
Populism and personality politics have found the perfect environment to gestate in since the financial crisis. While prior to the financial crisis, personality politics usually favored centrist politics (thanks to a like-minded media), since then it has been the Populists that have gone from strength to strength.


The rise of Populism

The media were as blindsided by the financial crisis as the politicians were. In some ways, the financial crisis saw the end of unchallenged rule of "centrism". With the ideological walls of the establishment being shook by the financial crisis (let's not forget that only government bailouts prevented a second "Great Depression"), it forced the media to reassess the fluid political landscape. In the USA, the rise of the "TEA Party", a hard-right faction of the Republicans, matched the concurrent rise of UKIP in the UK, itself effectively a hard-right faction of the Conservative Party.

While the TEA Party lacked one unifying, charismatic figure (with several personalities vying for preeminence), UKIP had Nigel Farage. In the years after the financial crisis, Farage's brand of British Populism (which like the TEA Party, had a Libertarian agenda) captured the media's attention. With Westminster seeming to represent all that was tired and out-of-touch since the financial crisis, most of the political "excitement" seemed to come from Farage. 
The media superficiality during the long period of centrist dominance before the financial crisis, along with earlier accusations of bias of "political correctness", meant that the pendulum swung the other way: disproportionate (and flattering) coverage was then given to Farage, allowing him to be seen as someone on the side of "the people" against the "the establishment". His background in The City was something that was easily brushed under the carpet. Meanwhile, those media outlets that did criticize his agenda were labelled as part of "the establishment" themselves, and so in the now-antagonistic atmosphere after the financial crisis, they couldn't win either way.

The only person in the political establishment in the UK that matched this new form of "personality politics" was Boris Johnson. After being Mayor of London for eight years, he had become the "king across the water" as far as David Cameron was concerned. Conveniently entering parliament in 2015 during his last year of tenure as London Mayor, he was able to use his position in Westminster as well as his media coverage to great effect during the EU referendum in 2016. Along with Farage, these two figures were largely responsible for the success of the "leave" campaign - the most obvious indication of the success of Populist "personality politics" over a centrist establishment.

And of course, at the same time across in the USA, we had the rise of Donald Trump. While the EU referendum was in full flow in the UK, the USA was in the presidential primaries, which allowed Trump to take advantage of the same anti-establishment agenda. Using the same skepticism that the "leave" campaign had towards "experts", Trump attacked "fake news" by the established media. And now with both "Brexit" as an unstoppable force, and Trump as an immovable object, we've entered an age when media outlets can be called "enemies of the people", and it all seem completely normal.

Populist "personality politics" could only have come to prominence due to the financial crisis, and the media's close connection with the political establishment. This allowed the media to be tarnished with the label of complicity. The superficiality of the media that gradually seeped into its culture led to its own decline, leaving it completely exposed, as the political establishment was, when the financial crisis came along. Since then, the political culture had become dominated by the rhetoric of Populism, supported by a media culture that has either lost its way, or is part of the same corrupt bargain.
As Populists generate greater "ratings", this means they get more coverage. It might make for good entertainment, but it leaves the media destroying its own integrity, to help the agenda of people who only see them as their puppets.

Brexit Britain: the psychology (and pathology) of "Leavers" and "Remainers"

Brexit is one of those topics that people in Britain don't mention in polite conversation. Unless you know you're in safe, like-minded company it's better to avoid it for the sake of your sanity.
This observation makes for a worrying absence in the national discourse. While Brexit is reported in the media, the slant that comes with it is always dependent on which part of the media is reporting on it: those in the media that support Brexit; those against; and those (like the BBC) who painfully sit on the fence, which helps only the status quo i.e. the incumbent Brexit-supporting government. Much of the British media have long lost the ability to be considered a reliable source of information when in comes to matters on the EU (and much else), having their own agendas to plug.

As a result, many people switched off from this discourse a long time ago, tiring of hearing the same repeated mantras by both sides. And who can blame them? Brexit is "boring" for the average person who lacks the time and inclination to follow the technical details. The problem with this, though, is that this indifference from much of the population plays into the hands of those guiding events, leading to a discourse that becomes static, like a record player on repeat. All the evidence shows that Britain has become "stuck" in a frozen political discourse, where all other issues outside of Brexit have become either forgotten, or somehow shoehorned into that narrative.
This "Year Zero" atmosphere of permanent revolution makes Britain seem an unreal place, where the natural laws of physics no longer seem to apply. "Magical thinking" abounds in government on one hand, while blinkered, autocratic talk of "the will of the people" answers any talk of compromise on the other.
Meanwhile, those "remainers" trying to make others see the folly of what the government is doing, and making people change their minds before it's too late, are in a pathology of their own (this author included...?); there are those (mostly younger voters) who are trying to channel their anger at what is happening into something productive, while others seem to have fallen into a kind of forlorn despair about it all. Then there are the those who seem to have given up completely on Britain - stuck in a fog of fatalism - and are either making plans to escape (for the sake of their sanity), or those incapable to doing so, and have psychologically surrendered to the futility of it all, ready to embrace (and prepare for) whatever comes. It has been said that the rates of depression and PTSD in the general population have increased noticeably since the referendum; one can see where the evidence for this comes from if we look at the psychology of "remainers".

Let's look closer at the pathology of both these sides.


Cheery ignorance/ Defensive hostility

"Leavers" seem to have a psychology of their own.

The phrase "swivel-eyed loons" was a famous moniker attached to UKIP voters several years ago, but this "wilder" right-wing segment of the electorate was always around, long before UKIP came to prominence.
Those of the (typically) older generation who adhere to this perspective usually can be described as "nostalgia" obsessives. The nostalgia they have is, at its base level, one for the era of the British Empire. In other words, these people are misty-eyed nationalists who secretly despise how Britain has become "stained" with the races from the former colonies, how women have become full-time workers and have muddled once-clear gender roles, and how homosexuality has become legitimized in wider society. Their distrust for the EU comes from their historical and cultural antipathy to all things "foreign" and all things continental. And, of course, there is "the war".
Their desire to leave the EU comes with a nostalgia for the days when things were simpler, thus leading to a pithy dismissing of the very practical dangers of leaving the EU with "no deal". As they see it, Britain would be more than capable of managing (even thriving) on its own, because that's what happened during the Second World War and so on. The willful ignorance of how completely different Britain is today compared to 1940 is necessary for this astonishing state of delusion. In short, to have this state of mind is to be completely in denial about the reality of Britain and the world in the 21st century.

Meanwhile, apart from those old-fashioned "imperialists" in a pathological state of nostalgia, there are those who are closer to the Libertarian school of thought. These are ideologues who see Brexit not through the lens of nostalgia for the British Empire, but as a method to radically reshape Britain into something unrecognizable. While "imperialists" look back regressively to the past glories of empire, the Libertarian vision is more revolutionary and - superficially, at least - forward-thinking. The problem is that this "vision" is as fantastical as that of the "nostalgics", just in a different way. While some mock the Libertarian post-Brexit vision as "Empire 2.0", a more accurate description would be to to mock it as simply wanting to turn Britain into a US economic satellite; from EU "vassalage" to American "vassalage".
The government's strategy is heavily influenced by outside actors like the IEA and the Legatum Institute, and held hostage by the same hard-right economic agenda of Jacob Rees-Mogg's ERG grouping in parliament. The Libertarian vision they all share is to remake Britain as an socio-economic clone of the USA, and while they claim this would make the country freer than ever before, the reality would be very different: it is about removing wholesale the human rights that many Britons take for granted.
Apart from a hidden desire by many of these people to align Britain with NAFTA, all their talk of "five-star" FTAs outside of the EU is pure fantasy, given the plethora of economic and legal reasons other countries would have against going along with this. At the same time, more "magical thinking" is required to understand how the logistics with more far-flung countries across the ocean are meant to make it more economic than trading freely with the EU as Britain does currently as a member-state. Outside the EU, Britain's only strategic option would then to be closely economically-aligned with the USA, as many of the Libertarians secretly desire.

The authoritarian "defensive hostility" raises its head when their world-view is challenged in the calm light of reason. The nostalgic "imperialists" ignorance stems from being out-of-touch and living in their own historical fantasy world; the Libertarians' ignorance stems from a zealot's ideology blinding them the reality of how the world works, coupled with an arrogance in their own ideas.
Those then raising perfectly reasonable objections to this are seen in the light of Brexiters' own skewed interpretation of the world. Doubters are "doing down the country" while equally, in the minds of Brexiters, they are also siding with the "other side"(i.e. the EU). This hostility and divisiveness in the face of opposition is the talk of those who are unable to defend their ideas rationally, and have to resort to emotion and belief as the core tenets to hold their world-view together. The desire to then close down and ignore talk that contradicts their world-view betrays their innate insecurity, from which their desire to believe in a fantastical vision, unmolested from reality, may come.

In short, the psychology of "leavers" is the one of pathological insecurity. Their desire to either a) recreate the British Empire, or b) transform Britain through ideological revolution, mirrors the pathology of the perpetual "loser" who needs to prove his manhood through actions of bravado: the archetypal "power fantasy". This explains the nostalgia for the glories of the past by some, and the ideological obsession by others with copying the economic model of the American giant across the sea. At the same time, that chronic insecurity manifests itself as autocratic desires and hostile designs on those perceived as being a threat to that "vision". It is this unpleasant pathology that can be seen from Britain's government.


Anger/ Despair/ Fatalism - Remainers' "five stages of grief"

Turning to "remainers", the psychology of this portion of the electorate seems to be in various stages of trauma. As will be expanded on below, this trauma could be seen as a variation on the "five stages of grief".
As mentioned earlier,  there is a mixture of anger, despair and fatalism evident. Given that for those "remainers" under fifty, they have no living memory of Britain outside of the EU (or EEC), having rights they have always taken for granted (e.g. the right to freely travel, live and work across Europe) removed from them is bound to be difficult to accept. Especially, given that this comes with all the other uncertainty yet to come thanks to government mismanagement of the whole process (and as Britain has not yet even left!), the sense of bewilderment and disorientation is unsurprising.

The sense of anger is not hard to fathom. The circumstances surrounding the EU referendum were complex, where the plebiscite only came about due to a conflation of David Cameron's whim to decide an internal party issue (Europe) and the exploitation by UKIP of the political landscape after 2010. Europe was a peripheral issue, until it was used as an excuse for the various problems that Britain's governments have inflicted on the country over the years.
The anger since the referendum seems to stems from a combination of loss (of rights, of control), and a feeling of injustice. The injustice many "remainers" seem to feel now appears a role-reversal of the "injustice" that many "leavers" felt prior to the referendum. If the sense of injustice felt by "leavers" was well-placed (or misdirected) is a moot point now; the sense of injustice felt by "remainers" now is real and is based on how the referendum was hijacked by narrow partisan interests (such as the Libertarians), to the detriment of social cohesion. The country is divided into two "cultures", with the opinions of "remainers" feeling ignored and belittled.
The anger has been channeled by some into campaigns, such as by political parties and wider social movements. The problem is that it all seems for nothing. There is no chance of the result being reversed or, even, of some sort of compromise (i.e. a "soft" Brexit). That creates the sense that the country is heading for "no deal", regardless of the cost to the country.

In this situation, if the futility of channeling that anger into campaigning becomes overwhelming, what is the psychological response likely to be? Mirroring the "five stages of grief" mentioned before, some have moved on from anger to "bargaining": after trying initially to turn over the result of the referendum, they have turned to seeking a compromise, where they have tried to work with those ideologues in charge to find a form of "Brexit" that at least takes into account the close nature of the result.
Alas, those attempts at finding a reasonable solution have equally been dashed at every turn, as the hard-right has been able to hijack events in government and the votes in parliament. Those seeking a compromise, after seeing that their anger has been unproductive, sought a rational answer, forgetting that they are against forces that are inherently unreasonable and irrational. So those efforts have equally been in vain.

After anger and "bargaining", we can see the onset of despair and depression in many "remainers". All their efforts are futile; nothing can be done to reverse the referendum, and nothing can be done to lessen the blow. They can see that the country is being led into a path of seeming self-destruction, with the days counting down to "Brexit day" seeming more like the countdown to an oncoming apocalypse.
What can they do? Nothing it seems. Eventually, the fatalism of this leads to one conclusion: to prepare as best they can. If the possibility is there, "remainers" would be wise to make plans to emigrate, at least until things become clearer, and wait for the time when the political situation is more favorable to rational thought. If that option is unavailable, then the best thing would be to prepare as best they can: acceptance of events being out of their hands.
The difficulty here is the sheer uncertainty; no-one as yet knows what the situation will be like, as things are still undecided. While a "no deal" Brexit seems very likely - and many companies are trying to make some kind of plan for this eventuality - the fact that they hope for some kind of more practical outcome tempers those preparations with hope as well as distraction. Also, how can one sensibly prepare for an unknown outcome? It is the uncertainty that breeds yet more anger, daresay leading some back into the whole cycle of "trauma" yet again.

Therefore, we see that on one hand we have events being controlled by "leavers" who are irrational and delusional; and on the other hand we have "remainers", who are at the mercy of events, psychologically traumatized and trying vainly to understand and deal with an unknowable and destructive situation.

Narcissism, Capitalism and Crime: how Libertarians create anti-social behaviour

A few years ago, this author wrote an article looking at the rise of (clinical) narcissism over the last thirty years or so, and the concurrent development in the rise of consumerist culture in the world. Last year, the author wrote a piece on how crime developed in human society over time, looking at the effect that changes in industrialisation and modern Capitalist society have had on how humans interact (and become more anti-social).

About five years ago was when the author first looked at how changes in modern society have made people more individualistic and narcissistic; linked to this is anti-social behaviour and, at the extreme end, psychopathy.
In this article, I want to try and bring some of these threads closer together.

Any criminologist knows that the majority of crime is carried out by those who are uneducated, from unstable backgrounds, and are impoverished. This is just a fact. Gang members, for example, exist as a coherent social unit as an indirect result of the lack of cohesive community and family identity. From a social point of view, "gang culture" exists due to a failure elsewhere. The recent spike in violent crime in Britain, and in London in particular, is a sign of that failure.
Socially-conservative voices will talk of the failure of the family unit in creating the moral vacuum that allows gang culture to flourish; but at the same time, these voices will talk of a collapse in "individual responsibility", while promoting a social view that emphasizes individualism. But these voices are trying to have it both ways. If the family unit is to be promoted then this is, by definition, against the individualism they also want to promote. From a social point of view, you can either be pro-family (and pro-community), or pro-individual. Logically, you can't be both - pro-social on one hand, but anti-social on the other.

This hypocrisy is typical of the right-wing since the rise of Libertarian values with Reagan in the USA and Thatcher in the UK, both ideological disciples of Ayn Rand. This ideology took control of conservative politics in the Anglo-sphere around forty years ago, and has been able to maintain the loyalty of more traditional "pro-social" conservatives due to a kind of "devil's bargain": Libertarians would make all conservatives rich, while peddling a fiction that the lower classes could also get rich quick in a deregulated market economy.
The reality of their ideology was that it massively widens inequalities (the statistics support this), creating a "dog eat dog" society which makes it more and more difficult for those on lower incomes to manage. In short, the poorest ten per cent are now poorer in real terms than they were forty years ago, while the top ten per cent are massively richer. And yet, the peddled fiction of more wealth for all is maintained because GDP has increased.

What this means for the poorest in social terms is that the community and family bonds are stretched to breaking point. The Libertarian outlook on society is one where society is atomized.
At the family "micro" level, the kind of insecurity created by a deregulated market leads to insecure working conditions. This leads to numerous side effects on the family such as deprivation, families being encouraged to drift apart through the need to look further afield for work opportunities, which thus increases family breakdown (see: adoption, and its often under-examined social impact). Other related factors are the insecurity and deprivation creating relationship and marriage break-up (with the obvious negative psychological consequences on any children), with the more general human knock-on effects of insecurity such as abuse of alcohol and drugs, psychological and physical violence in the home etc. etc. which are all heightened when all these factors are grouped together in the lowest segments of society.
At the community "macro" level, the need for workers to work further afield, and in more unstable working conditions, leads to a breakdown in community cohesion. Neighbours no longer see each other regularly; it becomes more difficult for a sense of social community to develop; small animosities develop between neighbours of different circumstances, and so on. In this environment, crime and "gang culture" become more difficult to combat, as crime becomes an expression of selfish, anti-social narcissism, and "gang culture" becomes the replacement of community and family for those anti-social misfits that have lost their connection to society. They commit crime because they no longer give a damn about anyone else, except perhaps their gang, if they are in one.
Looking through these two perspectives - micro and macro - it is easy to see how society becomes atomized, how the bonds that hold society together fall apart, and how Libertarian values engender anti-social behaviour. When the social bonds that hold people together are broken down, the result is crime.

The England riots of 2011 were an example of selfish anti-social behaviour out of control. The Conservative government's instinctive reply to blame it on them as individuals, which was as predictable as it was depressing. While there was some blame passed on to the parents of those involved (which itself was not exactly helpful), there was no serious attempt to look at the underlying causes, and to think about why England, and why not elsewhere, such as in other European countries? What marks England different from other countries of similar levels of development, for example, are the levels of much higher inequality, itself a result of the Libertarian ideology that had been at the heart of government since Thatcher.
Also in the UK, the Conservative government's policy of "austerity" is part of the wider Libertarian agenda. The soaring levels of violent crime, homelessness and mental health issues can all be pinned - either directly or indirectly - on the government's policy of "austerity", which has seen police and prisons funding slashed and local government funding (which is responsible for community and social care issues) cut drastically. When these agencies no longer have the funds available to police or care for society as they once did, the result isn't hard to predict.
The simultaneous "reforms" being carried out to welfare provision (i.e. to reduce spending) have the same effect on a "micro" and "macro" level. More families are destitute, child poverty has more than doubled thanks to "austerity", while the effects on mental health are similarly predictable. The family unit becomes more and more strained, with the effects on the wider community that have already been mentioned. Crime, again, is the predictable result, one way or the other.

Libertarian ideology is bad for society's health because it is fundamentally "anti-social" in its perspective.

"No Deal" Brexit, "emergency powers" and blaming the EU: Britain's "Reichstag Fire" moment?

With the negotiations with the EU heading in ever more certainty towards a "no deal" situation, talk is now how Britain would be governed after leaving the EU in this event. All the evidence points towards an unprecedented situation where legal barriers would automatically be raised to Britain after its government deciding to leave the single market and customs union. Britain would be an island of itself, in a very literal sense, in large part cut off from the legal connections to its neighbours.

What this would mean in practical terms has been discussed in great detail elsewhere (see eureferendum.com for example). The day-to-day running of the country's industry and services would be hugely affected, akin to a time of war. 

The fact that Theresa May assembled what has been termed a "war cabinet" tells us a lot about the mentality of those in government; to instinctively see the EU as an adversary now that we're leaving. And the government's behaviour during the negotiations has been nothing less than mendacious; from recently going back on previous commitments agreed last December (like over Northern Ireland, and now even threatening to go back on its previous commitment over the "divorce bill"), to now demanding that the EU show more "flexibility" when it has been the UK with its "red lines" that has been the one causing all the hold-ups. What should also not be forgotten is that the December agreement was put in place to avoid a collapse of talks completely at such an early stage; the EU was compromising where possible in order to prevent the potential unseating of May in London. And now, six months on, they realise that she is an untrustworthy figure, who goes back on agreements when it suits her. What does that say about Britain's status as a reliable power?

 From the start, the EU was clear and transparent about what was and wasn't possible through the negotiations and as a potential end-state between the two sides, given the legal consequences (and impossibility of the UK's "magical thinking"). By contrast, the UK government's strategy has been opaque and involved obfuscation at every turn in order to mask the chaos behind the scenes at home.

And now, the chaos of a potential "no deal" outcome is, as predicted, being blamed on the EU. In the UK, the only side that is promoting the feasibility (or even desirability) of "no deal" are the "Brextremists"; the hard-right Libertarians that make up perhaps 20% of the parliamentary Conservative Party.

It's telling that British politics is being guided by a faction of one party; a faction whose views represent not much more than perhaps 10% of the entire electorate, if that. The "Brexit Agenda" has long been a Libertarian project, dismissed for years as the wild fantasy of a bunch of cranks. The Maastricht Treaty was the moment that brought that to the surface, with then-Prime Minister John Major calling them the "bastards".

Major's view, looked at in the current situation, can only be even more true today. As their views were only ever really held by a small faction of their party, and even less well-represented in the electorate, where could their mandate come from? It was the work of UKIP, who were always a Libertarian party at heart - in spite of purposely-misleading talk otherwise - that allowed the "Brexit Agenda" real oxygen in the public sphere. A combination of the financial crisis, exploited worries of immigration, and a peculiar political situation after 2010 that made UKIP seem like an unofficial "opposition", gave that party the space to promote their agenda, with the charisma of Nigel Farage helping the project along. It was David Cameron's combination of insecurity and arrogance that was the final factor in the EU referendum taking place.

Extremist views, such as those held by the Libertarian faction guiding "no deal" Brexit, could only ever come to dominate the political sphere in unusual times. What we are seeing in Britain is, under the circumstances, little better than a quiet "coup" by a group of political extremists. Using "legitimate" means by usurping parliament and blackmailing the government, they are the ones in charge. Any voices of dissent at their actions are dismissed as against the "will of the people", as these Libertarians choose to dictate how Britain should be transformed into a Libertarian "utopia" after leaving the EU. By holding key government ministries, and holding influential positions outside government as "independent advisers", Libertarians maintain their grip on power over a paralyzed government. Thus they ensure that there is no way to reverse their agenda.

Meanwhile, they also ensure that any government attempts at negotiation with the EU are sabotaged from their own side, by submitting proposals to the EU that are bound to be rejected. This is then followed up by them blaming the EU for the lack of progress in the talks, claiming that the EU are untrustworthy, intransigent, and had an agenda designed to "punish" Britain into leaving without a deal.

"Emergency Powers"

It is at this point that we can see how any chaos in Britain after Brexit next year will be blamed on the EU. And, given a compliant (and supportive) media, many in Britain would accept it. 

Using a dark historical parallel, this could be Britain's "Reichstag Fire" moment - when a calamity instigated by one side is blamed on the other, in order to create a specific controlled narrative. While the EU would in that situation be accused of "stabbing Britain in the back" for its behaviour, those Brits still be in favour of rejoining the EU might well be branded "traitors" for siding with a foreign power. Foreigners themselves in Britain during this chaotic time might well (justifiably) fear for their safety. In the meantime, given the potential for widespread disruption to infrastructure and so on in the case of "no deal", the government might well be forced to use "emergency powers" to keep the country running, as in a time of war. Being effectively cut off from much of the rest of the world (even if for only a short while) would make this even easier to implement. Such self-imposed isolation would then allow those in power to take control of the narrative even more completely.

This is the kind of "creative destruction" that Libertarians talk about, where they hope to make a killing on the carcass of Britain's anarchic economy as vulture capitalists. In times of chaos, people look to order and authority, and are willing to suspend their usual common values like democracy and free speech. While Libertarians might look to make a mint in the meantime, deals could well be sought with more unscrupulous far-right authoritarians to create a kind of cultural "revivalism" to bring the nation together, where long-repressed ideas of power and identity are re-invented, at the expense of the "other", and at the expense of diversity.

Such talk has already been seen in Britain and America, with the rise of the unashamed bigotry of the far-right. In a "No Deal" Brexit, Britain could quickly descend; first into chaos, and afterwards, into a kind of "dark alliance" between opportunistic Libertarian vulture capitalists and the neo-Fascism of the alt-right. 

It could happen.

Theresa May as Prime Minister: Two years on

Two years on from May's beginning her premiership, there is nothing positive to say about her tenure, and nothing positive to say about her personality.

Going through things chronologically, her time in office is just a catalogue of dysfunctional misrule and doddering mismanagement, in which Britain has suffered through one crisis, scandal or humiliation after another.
The general mood of the country, outside of the wealthy and unencumbered Tory shires, feels like one of weary resignation, where the nation's fate - as "no deal Brexit" - is sliding towards economic, social and moral oblivion. Some people seem to actively welcome it, as a cathartic release. There is a feeling that Britain's social connections are breaking in a thousand small ways every single day; from the collapse of public service provision due to the government's "austerity" drive, to the many disproportionate side-effects this has on vulnerable segments of society such as the poor, disabled, and so on. The knock-on effects to issues like crime are clear.
And much of this rests squarely in the hands of Theresa May, as she is the one who has the power to change this, but chooses not to.

The author has written before about how May's psyche seems to embody many of the pathological neuroses that can be found in Britain's inner world. Autocratic, secretive, paranoid, untrustworthy: these are the words that can summarise Theresa May's style of government. Not to mention the poor judgement and the incompetence.

This catalogue of failure begins with her opening gambit in how she decided to interpret the EU referendum result. While the vote was won by a very narrow margin (4%), she decided to completely embrace the world-view of "leave". In the party conference, "remainers" were derided, and the agenda of UKIP was embraced almost wholesale. In effect, the Conservative Party under Theresa May was transformed into UKIP, leaving the moderate side of the party ignored. For those Conservatives against this lurch to the hard right, it was a case of "like it or or lump it"; as was explained to those in any doubt, it was either support the hard-right vision, or be considered a turncoat. And the ultimate threat used was existential: it was either this way, or allow Jeremy Corbyn to become Prime Minister.
This autocratic atmosphere was clear from the very beginning, when the decision by Theresa May and her "Rasputin" advisor, Nick Timothy to leave the single market and customs union was made, without any consultation with the cabinet. In effect, this course of action set in motion a chain of events that left to the long road of "Hard Brexit", where a deal with the EU was effectively impossible. Her Lancaster House speech in January 2017 cemented that perception, leaving the "Brextremists" delighted, and the moderates in despair.

After already discarding the views of one half of the electorate, and secretively deciding on a course of "Hard Brexit", this was followed up by the decision to invoke Article 50 in March, setting in motion the two-year timeline for exit negotiations.
This error of judgement had already been warned against by the UK's "man in Brussels", Ivan Rogers, who had resigned in the New Year due to his well-sourced advice being ignored. Starting the stopwatch before the government had even had a chance to decide on a proper strategy (let alone before deciding what the government's actual aim outside the EU was) made no sense. It would automatically give the advantage to the EU, as the onus would be on the UK government to decide things with Brussels in that two-year period, or face leaving the EU with no deal. By doing so, Britain's government was shooting itself in the foot, while any threats later made to leave without a deal would be little more than threatening to shoot itself in the head.

But "politics" came first, and May and her advisors decided they knew better. After invoking Article 50, the next judgement that proved to be strategically-calamitous was to call for an early election.
After running the country in the style of an autocratic and secretive "personal rule", May allowed her advisors to create a kind of personality cult around her image.
In hindsight, what was baffling about this was that May was PR-phobic and had no obvious personal charisma - or even, it would appear any real "personality". It would create a personality cult around someone with no personality.
Her advisors, policy head Nick "Rasputin" Timothy and communications head Fiona Hill, had followed her from the Home Office, and ran Downing Street in the same manner. As many critics alleged, it was really these two who were making the key decisions; May seemed to have few ideas of her own, and went along with their judgments, as well as allowing these two abrasive personalities dominate the day-to-day running of the country. Their defenders would argue that as their world-view matched closely with May's, their dominance was simply another manifestation of May's own philosophy; but their detractors could also argue that as their abrasive personal conduct was condoned, it damaged May's own integrity to be so closely connected to them. May also allowed them to make key decisions like writing the upcoming election's manifesto, so it was also May's error to allow such a poorly-conceived manifesto to destroy the trust that people had had in her judgment to that date. Not to mention the fact that she had already ruled out any opportunism in calling an early election on numerous times, so going back on her word while claiming it was somehow the opposition's fault was as bad a piece of dissemination as seen by the worst politicians.

The 2017 election campaign revealed to the public how poorly May was personally equipped to deal with modern politics. In short, her role up to that time had been to be an "anti-modern" politician; essentially a technocrat who was given the trust to "get on with the job", and didn't need to be seen in public. In this way, May's aversion to the personality politics of Cameron was shared by her two advisors, and it was this workmanlike "image" that had been presented for those first ten months as Prime Minister.
As everyone learned during that campaign, May didn't like being seen in public because she didn't know how to deal with the public. She was also intellectually-incapable of thinking on her feet, and that "workmanlike" image that had worked for her before became then satirized as the "Maybot".
In the aftermath of the election, her judgment suffered twice in quick succession, over two different issues. First, losing the party's majority (itself an unprecedented blunder in a snap election) meant that the party relied on the DUP to get votes through parliament. May allowed her government to become allied to a party with its own murky links as well as social views that were anathema on the British mainland; worse, the "deal" with the DUP was effectively "cash for votes", which was the kind of corrupt bargain more usually associated with third world dictatorships (and "pork-barrel" USA).
Second, was her response to the Grenfell disaster, where her cack-handed manner of dealing with the event led even some of her supporters into throes of yet more despair.

Before the 2017 election, May's government had been ruled in large part by the autocratic pairing of Timothy and Hill. After her two key advisors were fired as the condition for her party allowing May to continue, May's government has been ruled in large part by stasis.
The Grenfell disaster was simply the first of many physical signs of the malaise that seemed to embody May's administration and her personal style. By the autumn, the "MeToo" movement reached Westminster, revealing to the public the chauvinistic and boorish culture that had been prevalent since time immemorial. Then sackings of two ministers over their sexist conduct seemed to open the floodgates to other sackings or resignations for various reasons that have gone on since then, with a rate of political attrition since last autumn that is more common to that found in unstable Latin American administrations. Meanwhile, the "optics" of seeing the Palace Of Westminster in scaffolding seems to mirror the shambolic internal goings-on, where the facade of functioning government is only just barely maintained.
The collapse of Carillion highlighted the "Ponzi scheme" structure that seems typical in public sector service providers, while the fate of the "Windrush generation" highlighted the immorality at the heart of Theresa May's "hostile environment". And while ministers might be changed, the policies themselves are barely touched. This is without even mentioning "austerity", whose effects are so vast on the public sector it's barely possible to know where to begin. Just to give one example, many local councils have had their budgets cut by 40%, while other services like the police, prisons, and others have had similarly life-changing cuts to their budgets.
With May, there is a facade of humanity where she pretends to show empathy for the plight of those her government's policies have affected, but once attention has turned, to use one of May's famous quotes, "nothing has changed". There is no sign that she's affected by the innumerable anecdotes of what her government's policies are doing to society, as her government's strategy is unchanged.

The sense of stasis under May's watch is caused in part by her (mis)handling of Brexit, which it seems has consumed the government's attention from almost any other issue, so the feeling of the country literally going to rack and ruin is very real. But what's even worse is that May's strategy since invoking Article 50 has been to avoid making any kind of coherent government plan, as this might provoke a crisis in the parliamentary party. The only offering of any substance until the Chequers white paper the other week was May's Florence speech last September, which, beyond saying what it ruled out (such reiterating leaving the single market and customs union), offered nothing coherent and instead presented yet more nonsensical "cakism".
The latest offering - the Chequers white paper - neatly embodies all that is wrong with May's style of government, and how she has learned nothing in her two years as Prime Minister. She is still in "dictatorial" mode, like she was from the very beginning with her unilateral decision over leaving the single market and customs union. This "white paper" was an incoherent "compromise" between the wishes of both sides of the party, that was created unilaterally by her and her close advisors in secret, thrust on to the cabinet without warning, were lied to about its contents beforehand, and were all then blackmailed in agreeing to it. What's not to like, eh? This behaviour soon caused the resignation of three ministers, has since been decried by both wings of the party, with the white paper being rejected by the EU in any case. The "Brextremists" then forced the government into accepting several amendments to the white paper that make a "no deal" scenario all the more likely than ever.

Two years on, Theresa May's premiership has achieved precisely nothing. Her time in government, and in regards to Brexit, has achieved as much as if there had been no government in charge at all. The only "achievements" she could point to are invoking article 50 and declaring Britain's objective to leave the single market and the customs union, and anyone with a pulse could have done that. The fact that both those decisions actually were strategically idiotic tells you everything.

Brexit and the Iraq War: "The Shock Doctrine" applied to The UK

Perhaps one of the most persuasive arguments that the EU referendum was a historic mistake is how much political discourse and British society has been poisoned by it since. David Cameron called the referendum in order to resolve the poison that "Europe" had caused to the Conservative Party for the last thirty years. Instead, that poison spread like a cancer across the fabric of British society, dividing communities and segments of society in a "culture war" that continues to this day, with every sign that these divisions may be there for the long-term.
To the objective eye, Britain has been transformed into a nation at war with its own identity, with "Leavers" and "Remainers" marking the new ideological and cultural divide. On the one hand, Brexit is the issue that is the "elephant in the room" at social gatherings, that few people will dare raise in unfamiliar company, for the risk of causing open argument and hostility. On the other hand, this form of "self-censorship" of debate on the issue makes it a "fait accompli" where the most important event in Britain's post-war history becomes a closed issue, where talking about it only provokes talk of trying to reverse a democratic decision.

Brexit is the most contentious issue that Britain has faced since the Iraq War, which itself brought about the million-man march. The crossover of controversy of the two events is hard to miss: the "false prospectus" used to justify the war in Iraq is mirrored by the lies over the threat of Turkey joining the EU, the "Brexit bus" NHS pledge, and so on; the lack of planning over the Iraq war is matched by the lack of planning by the government over Brexit; the complacency that the coalition would be greeted in open arms in Iraq is matched by the complacency that post-Brexit Britain will somehow be a paradise. And all behind this is the same Libertarian agenda; the same agenda that Naomi Klein spoke long about in "The Shock Doctrine".
In this way, it can be argued that the "Neocons" in the Bush administration that led the call to war in Iraq (for the purpose of profiteering) are matched by those Libertarians in Britain and outside who see Brexit as the opportunity to make money from post-Brexit "disaster capitalism". These are the people who are advising the British government.
This is one reason why the negotiations have been going so badly. There are those with vested interests who need the negotiations to fail in order for their plan to come to fruition, by making sure that any proposal that the British government sends to Brussels is bound to be unacceptable. This way, they simply have to continue this farce until the time runs out, and then they can blame the EU for being "uncompromising". This was evident as long ago as during May's Florence speech, and it was even clear from her Lancaster House speech eighteen months ago, before she invoked article 50, that she saw Britain's course as separate from European institutions like the single market, ECJ and customs union. The course for Britain of the "Hard Brexit" of Libertarians' dreams has been the plan since almost the very beginning, as soon as May became Prime Minister. All the talk of compromise from Britain has simply been to keep the Euro-friendly MPs in the Conservative Party from rebelling, and it should now be clear to them they've been played for fools. The rebels' ultimate loyalty to their party was always the trump card that the "Brexiteers" had over any real concern for the country's future; the rebels' ultimate "weakness" was the hold that the Libertarian far-right in the party had over them, whose demands (also called the Brexit "Taliban") could never be reasoned with.

Going back to Iraq, we know now that the Iraq War was a humanitarian disaster for the country. Regardless of where you stand on the Saddam Hussein regime (which was unquestionably awful for many Iraqis), the real thing that matters is the opinion of Iraqis themselves. The opinions of those that are old enough to remember living as adults during Saddam's time vary of course, depending on who you talk to. Of the various groups in the country, arguably the Kurds have done the best out of post-invasion Iraq, but all those that have benefited have done so due to the anarchic and corrupt situation and/or loss of control from the centre.
"Anarchy" and "loss of central control" are two things that can also be found when the Libertarian lobby take control of a society. Those Iraqis that do have nostalgia for Saddam's time (Sunnis, mostly) talk of the stability, which is something that is easily taken for granted and only appreciated when it is lost. If the Libertarian agenda represents one thing, it is economic and social instability (also known as "creative destruction"); precisely what has happened to Iraq since the invasion.

The "creative destruction" analogy - transplanted from the Middle East to the Anglo-sphere - also holds true for post-Brexit Britain.  And the comparison that is valid has already been made - about those behind the drive to the war in Iraq and those in the "Brexit Agenda" i.e. Libertarians. As mentioned at the start, Brexit has poisoned British society, in a way that may well be irreversible. The cultural fractures that have been created seem impossible to reconcile. Meanwhile, the status of the country itself is in flux, with things only becoming clearer next year, when Britain leaves the EU. When that happens, it is difficult to predict what the result will be. While the EU referendum brought to the surface the many injustices present in British society, it seems that the government in Edinburgh, after initially threatening another independence referendum after the Brexit vote, is keeping its powder dry for the moment. Sensibly, they want to wait until it is clear what path Britain will take before deciding its next step.
What Brexit makes clear is how fragile the bonds that hold British society together really are. Holyrood is waiting; it is hard to believe that they would not respond themselves if they see their future as tied to an "English corpse", destroying itself due to the machinations of a self-centred and amoral right-wing clique, its infrastructure gobbled up by "vulture capitalists".
In such a situation, optimism about Britain's immediate future is difficult to summon. There is no chance that the government will reverse course, partly because it is seen as politically-impossible, but more importantly, because the vested interests guiding the government are too powerful to resist. The "bandwagon" cannot be turned around. Like how the coalition's armies preparing for war in Iraq were impossible send back home without fighting, Theresa May cannot do a U-turn on Brexit, regardless of how bad it might be. The dye is cast.

The "apocalyptic" scenario would involve the break-up of the UK. As mentioned, Scotland would see no reason to remain tied to an "English corpse".
Culturally-speaking, this author has found some unerring parallels to British society and the former Yugoslavia. While no-one in their right mind would make direct comparisons with Britain's future and the break-up of Yugoslavia (!), more general cultural comparisons may be possible. Like how Serbia dominated Yugoslavia economically and culturally, so does England in the UK. Likewise, Serbia's own sense of identity is tied to its history and cultural dominance over its immediate neighbours (e.g. Croats, Bosnians and so on) is matched by England's innate sense of cultural superiority over the other nations of the UK. Brexit can also be ultimately seen as an expression of pathological English nationalism, especially when surveys show how many English people would prefer Brexit even at the expense of the integrity of the UK. Looking at Yugoslavia, it could be argued that it was Serbian resentment at devolving more powers to the constituent assembles of Federal Yugoslavia that created the tensions that led to the country's break-up. The same tensions have been evident, and gradually rising, in the UK for nearly twenty years.
The fact that Scotland's independence referendum preceded the EU referendum by two years cannot have been a coincidence in stoking English nationalist sentiment. All that was needed was the added factor of economic woes and financial inequality (also present in Federal Yugoslavia in the 1980s, it should be added), and - hey presto! - you have the perfect ingredients for an "English backlash". Given how it was England that voted by a comfortable margin for Brexit, while in either Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, there was only a narrow vote to leave, or sizable votes to remain, this puts a clear "nationalist" complexion on events.

This is all the result of the poison of Brexit, stoked by a Libertarian agenda.