Tuesday, September 29, 2015

Embrace Your Inner Dexter

 One of my readers (thanks Valerie) asked me if I had read Dutton’s The Wisdom of Psychopaths.  Yes, I have.  It’s a popular book, with a simple idea – you can be more successful if you don’t give a fuck about other people.

Takes one to know one

  Is Everyone A Predator?

The Fuck You Generation and the Fuck You Very Much Generation are shaped by the neoliberal worldview -- in which compassion is nothing but a faux, feel-good gesture. Liberals and conservatives both stand for dog-eat-dog, bunny rabbit-eat-bunny rabbit monopoly capitalism. Everyone is a predator.
A bunny-eat-bunny world
I want to think Dutton is wrong, wrong, wrong.  I want to think people are better than that. And I am neither liberal nor conservative.

Now Dutton is clearly misguided about some things.  He clearly confuses the kind of  psychopathy that we associate with serial killers -- which is a matter of neurological abnormality -- with what I would call situational psychopathy -- which depends on social perception and indoctrination (what used to be called "education") -- something we all have the capacity for.  The fact is that we cannot always care about others.  Not from the standpoint of species behavior. Not the from standpoint of social adaptation. Not from the standpoint of commonsense

But....while I would really like to dismiss Dutton as a total idiot, I can't -- not completely -- for I  must remember that what I want to see as idiocy may hide uncomfortable facts that bear examination.  

For example, it is obvious that almost all modern industrial or "post-industrial societies  are to some degree psychopathically driven by conscience-less neoliberalism and corporatism.  Yes, fellow Bunny Rabbits, even Sweden.

To fit in -- to survive --most of us have to be able to suppress our capacity to care, at least some of the time.  It's a greased slide -- and at the bottom?  The  bottom line:  Me and Mine.  And fuck you Jack.  What to do?  "Situational" psychopathy has been normalized.

After all, I work in PR and branding. What could be more soul-less than that?

Now Dutton says that we need psychopaths to get stuff done – because not caring let's them  focus on the job at hand.   He implies that all the top people -- in every field -- the "one percent" of achievers -- are really psychopaths    

Steve Jobs.  Check.  
Sociopath or psychopath? 
Six of one, half a dozen of another

All geniuses.  Check.

Almost all....

The surgeon cutting into your chest cavity.  Check.  

That doctor is as oblivious to your pain – as Ted Bundy was when torturing a victim, thinks Dutton (more about Bundy later).   

We need  these guys, right?   Like we need running water and flush toilets and iPhones.  And maybe we should try to be more like them if we want to get ahead, right?  Superman as Psychopath.

 Superman as Psychopath.

We saw this point of view once upon a time with Ayn Rand.

What did Rand admire so much about Hickman? His sociopathic qualities: “Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should,” she wrote, gushing that Hickman had “no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel ‘other people.'”

Have You Cut Up Any Kids Today?
Psychopathy Is Not Creativity

But there is a fallacy here in Dutton's implied argument.    

Creativity and genius do not require psychopathy -- in fact, they are limited by it.  By and large, both are enhanced by altruism -- which promotes authentic social connection and retarded by psychopathy, which inhibits it.  Both creativity and genius generate their own kind of flow and focus.
 A self that is only differentiated - not integrated - may attain great individual accomplishments, but risks being mired in self-centered egotism. By the same token, a person who self is based exclusively on integration will be well connected and secure, but lack autonomous individuality. Only when a person invests equal amounts of psychic energy in these two processes and avoids both selfishness and conformity is the self likely to select complexity.
 Mihaly Csikszentmihaly
So creative people and genius's have flow and focus. 

Flow and Focus
Psychopaths have obsession.

Andy liked Marilyn -- a lot!

Returning to Dutton and doctors --  most surgeons really do care about human suffering. Under the knife you are not in pain -- that's why they use anesthetic. And believe me -- morphine is fun!

Now back toTed Bundy -- he was as professional in his way as any guy at Goldman Sachs -- -and also really, really empathetic with a high EQ -- truly feeling his victims pain  (and enjoying it mightily).  He looked "integrated" socially -- but eventually the pretense broke down.  He made mistakes. 

If he hadn't forgotten the wrench he could have
been CEO of Goldman Sachs
Of course, you must keep in mind that empathy and EQ are not really the same as caring -- although caring people necessarily exhibit both.

This psychopathy stuff is complicated.
The Point Repeated

Just to beat you over head with my the point -- embracing my inner psychopath-- 99% of  surgeons do not start by cutting up puppies and kittens and move on to people.  Manual dexterity, yes. Dexter, no.

High EQ Guy Relaxing

 Surgeons learn to focus only on the operation to avoid mistakes and do it right – just as a concert pianist focuses only the piece he is playing and not on the audience. The surgeon concentrates on cutting and sewing -- he cares about his patient -- after the fact, yes, but he cares 

Surgery is art
 The concert pianist cares about his work – and he cares about his audience – which is why he plays for them.  But the emotional connection has to come later. 

 "Care" is like a light.  You have to have it. But you can't leave it "on" all the time.
Save energy

 For creative people and genius's,  the reward is intrinsic – in the doing itself, play. 
Creative people have fun

To the extent that they are also altruists, like, say, Einstein:  their  extrinsic satisfaction comes from  saving a life or improving quality of life for another or just doing the right thing -- that is, from altruism. 
"nuff said

Of course, such talented people can also be  egotists or have other personality problems -- but inflated self-regard should not be confused with psychopathy.    Bipolar people, for example, can be very creative -- and do care about others -- just not all the time, which can make them a pain the ass -- but still worthwhile people .  

The "focus" and "flow" which is characteristic of talented people has little to do with any psychopathic obsession with cutting off heads or sex with the dead-- or getting ahead,as with CEOs, who rape entire populations and practice economic necrophilia. 

 As Mihaly Csikszentmihaly points out creativity is limited by social solipsism.  

Psychopaths as narcissists

As mentioned, real or genetic psychopaths do not lack empathy – they know what others are feeling.  And they have lots of EQ-- knowing how to work with people -- and most importantly, work them.   For them, you're just an object.

As natural "objectivists" in the Ayn Rand sense , people are just things-- either an obstacle or a resource in achieving goals that are generally  immediate and extrinsic, narrowly defined in terms of personal gratification.

Situational Psychopathy -- Switching Off Care

Genetic psychopaths lack  altruism -- completely -- because the part of the brain that looks after this function is just not there, perhaps as a result of  different brain chemistry.   Everything they do is subordinate to self –aggrandizement.  Fuck you very much.   But if you do not care for others -- you are socially disconnected -- you cannot integrate on any level with any community, however small.
So you need to pretend really well.  

Are conservatives psychopaths?

As I said, however, we all have the capacity to turn off "caring".  And sometimes trauma and other factors can impair our natural ability to care, whatever the situation.  Call it what is.  An impairment of the ability to love.      

Andy Warhol was an emotionally damaged, sociopathic sissy who, by his own admission, “stopped caring” after several of his cats died in the 60s, and subsequently showed virtually no emotion or empathy for anyone or anything after that trauma 

Warhol Or Just Asshole?
Warhol would have been a better artist if he had been less fucked up.  As it was,  he tended to be obsessively repetitive and shallow -- although this has made him a favorite of advertising people.

The unfortunate truth is that we are all Andy to some extent.  Shit happens.  And the emotional scars often don't heal.

At best, we are temporarily Situational (normalized)  Psychopaths -- when circumstances call for it.  

I had a Grand Uncle who was an RAF bomber pilot -- a nice man, a good father and husband who went to church -- but also a mass murderer who had no remorse for the thousands of women and children and innocent people who he had killed.  "It had to be done", he would say.

The Other

The Germans were "other".   But imagine if my Grand Uncle had owned his guilt. Could he have survived psychologically?  

A lot of people are just lazy.  They are selectively psychopathic because their family and friends are --"othering" all sorts of people -- the rich or the poor, black, white, or brown.  Women or men.  People in other countries.  Jews, Christians, Muslims.  

Or even sentient beings like dolphins and whales and chimps. 

By their fruits, ye shall know them

The Japanese are an insular people.  And their is a link between their "othering" of groups like the burakumin, the Chinese during WWII...and now dolphins and whales (fuck you world). 

 Hah! "One of those crazy Enviro's", you say. "Why connect People with animals?"  

Remember what Einstein said about the "circle of compassion" and embracing "all living creatures" -- that's a pretty good definition of altruism.

Remember too the well-established link between mistreatment of animals and psychopathy. 

So it's Japanese culture.  So Japanese culture, like most is psychopathic.  So fucking what?

Mindless cruelty is also part of our evolutionary heritage, and, as I will explain later. mob behavior.

Still, until recently, most people weren't proud of it.   Nobody wanted to be seen as a callous bastard or selfish bigot.   Nobody wanted to be Dexter.

Now, since Dutton's book, you have lots of people on the Internet boasting about being psychopaths -- when in fact they are just shallow, insecure and narcissistic.
Do they?

As mentioned, real genetic psychopaths of course are at pains to pretend to care -- and look sincere and empathetic -- "I feel your pain".  They want to do what they do and not to be stopped.

 But ultimately genetic psychopaths are tribes of One. They are exceptionalists -- just like that most psychopathic of cultures -- the US of A.     Every other  is  alien -- to be used or destroyed as is convenient.    And material success if the only thing that matters.

Are you getting yours?

That brings us back to evolution.

Of course, like our primate cousins we evolved as hunting and gathering creatures, living in small, eusocial tribal groups.  

Other tribes existed --we tried to keep our distance --  and if we had to compete for resources, we would first try to negotiate, as with Bonobo's fuck parties.   If  Make Love Not War didn't work, we would fight savagely.   In that case,  We were Us. And They were Other . Kill, kill, kill.

Modern societies exceed the Dunbar Limit (mentioned in previous posts) by many times.  They are huge hives, composed of many tribes or communities, each no more than 200 people, in inter-meshed symbiotic relationships.  

Early industrial societies tried to break simplify and systematize internal complexity by breaking the bonds that connected communities -- alienating individuals from one another.   all human groups, organizations, and institutions prioritize their own survival, above that of others – this is basic human behavior, which we share with other primates, not that chimpanzees, however badass, have a Chimp Microsoft-- they are not that degraded.  

Groups are inherently selfish. They have no conscience.  

Our Moral Superiors

And neither do their members, when they act out their roles within the group.

In our paleolithic past, we belonged to tribes.  Other tribes existed --we tried to keep our distance --  and if we had to compete for resources, we would first try to negotiate -- preferably to our own advantage, of course.  If that didn't work, we would fight savagely.   We were Us. And They were Other.   Let us remember that the oldest participatory democracies were tribal, including the Six Nations confederacy, which politically at least was  in most respects was far advanced over what we have today. 

When the first Europeans came to the Americas, the natives were friendly -- they tried to talk --  until we started taking their lands and raping and killing and enslaving them. Then they fought. 

Europeans civilizing the savages

Psychopathy is part of human nature, yes-- and not a very pleasant part.

Think of all those lynch mobs in the American South --  otherwise nice white middle class people collecting the body parts of dead or dying black people as souvenirs.  

Are you a Christian?

Think of drone pilots, bombing rescue and medical teams after a strike.  Think of anyone who works for Monsanto or Goldman Sachs.  "I'm just doing my job", they say.  Many of them praying to  Gentle Jesus every Sunday.    Think of Barack Obama unctuously signing off on the death of women and children before a round of golf.  Think of the Hillary, speaking of Gaddafi:  "We came, we saw, he died" -- as she reduced the most prosperous and best functioning nation in Africa to a failed state, at the cost of thousands of innocent lives. She giggled as she said that -- thinking it ever so clever.

Sorta like the first Europeans in the Americas.  "We can, we saw, they died".

This kind of psychopathy can be understood as natural tribal behavior -- situational suspension of conscience and individual choice. But tribal groups had ways of maintaining balance: we do not.

  Who did you kill today?

The social philosopher Hannah Arendt is famous for her concept : the banality of evil, which owes much to her mentor and sometime lover Martin Heidegger who argued that human communities maintain consistency by "forgetfulness" of  individual being and non-being (, being, death).  Whatever the ontological argument, the fact is that ordinary people commit the worst crimes.  And if they do not commit them directly -- they permit them.  

You were right all along.  Your boss is a psychopath.  So is your mother-in law.  So, we are all accessories.  All guilty.

Think of that the next time you vote for a mainstream political party.     Do you really want your kid to get an MBA from Princeton?  Do you want him to go for work for, say,  Exxon?

Most of us make choices. in our best interest -- and and in the interests of those closest to us-- but - in that case, we should not  pretend there is any altruism involved -- it's all about us.   

If you are going to be selfish -- take responsibility for it --but don't pretend, not to yourself anyway. 

The Last Word

Of course, some people are just forgetful -- of everything. Just lazy.  They get their information about the world from Fox News or CNN -- and they don't bother to vote.  Don't be a thing. Be a person.

Sunday, September 13, 2015

The Politics of Genuine

Last time, we talked about the Hive Mind.  All very abstract – you might think.  A bit of intellectual fun.  This time we look at relevance of this to what is happening today – in particular, to the Politics of Genuine.

Authenticity is relative

For people  in my field – PR, advertising, “public diplomacy” – and similar institutionalized charlatanism -- the question is always: why do attempts to persuade the public fail as much as they succeed?  It is easy for us to sit back  and think "shit in -- shit out" and charge the clients big bucks. In fact, there is an answer -- and with the answer comes solutions.

PR Flow Chart

That answer has do with the unique aspects of  human “eusociality”-- mentioned in my previous post.   

On one level we are very much the same as that of ants and bees with their simple  primary imperatives – food, reproduction and group survival. On the other hand, we are much more complex. 

Every drone in our human hive has something different from say insect drones – identity -- rather than just roles.

All eusocial societies are greater than the sum total of their members.  But human societies represent a constantly adapting and  changing synthesis of  individual minds -- their identities, memories, imaginings and consciousnesses.  Since the mind each individual member within any human group also incorporates the collective mind of the primary group to which it belongs --at least in part--and that primary group incorporates -- also in part--the minds of the groups to which it belongs --human socities are the most complicated of reflexive social entities.

Yes, your society is you -- and your wife and kids -- and your extended family -- not to mention your friends, your workmates, and everybody in your clubs -- even your Facebook friends.   The chain of relationship goes all the way up to the Government, which somehow thinks that it rationalize and control all this through "public diplomacy".

It's one big mess!  And people like Simple.

Is it any wonder people say, "Fuck Politics" and vote for Somebody In Charge, Somebody To Sort the Mess -- the Bulldog, maybe?
The English Hitler?

In the UK, those who fought WWII war did so led by Winston Churchill.  The reasons for the war were ever so mind-boggling -- a lot more than an failed artist from Austria with a funny mustache.  The English peopled needed a simple narrative...and bulldog.  


Churchill was eccentric, jowly and smoked foul cigars.  He wore a bowler hat and drank a lot.  His wonderful speeches –which appealed to long standing memes – freedom, democracy, the essential decency of the British people -- and were marvellously simple.  He made it all so clear -- Us versus Them.

You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. 

Churchill  looked genuine.   So people could identify with him.  But really he was more an icon than a man.

After the war, the English dumped the old dog out on the street to fend for himself. 
Things Change

Now, Churchill was the same person before he took office..  And he was the same person after WWII.  What changed?

The public mind did.  War's over -- time to party! Conservative are not really good pub partiers.

Time to Party

It didn’t matter what the media  said --the Times or the BBC.  Churchill was yesterday’s breakfast -- digested and passing out of the body.  

Or to put it another way –old dogs poop.  And who wants poop at a part.     

Crap Matters
The public is definitely big and woolly -- but it wasn't going to blame itself for any poop found after the party inevitably ended.

Of course, “genuineness” or “character” is so often a matter of perception.  Churchill got off easy.  

Churchill, the man, was an unrepentant imperialist – if not a fascist and war criminal.  He was responsible for the deaths of millions -- not only the British terror bombings of civilians in World War II -- but for atrocities like the great Bengal Famine of 1943.  In the postwar period, he advocated the nuclear bombing of the USSR just to put the pesky socialists in their place. He was also a racist.

People didn't reject the Story --Churchill as Defender of Democracy, a narrative with more of what philosophers call     "Facticity" than truth, they just rejected his personal relevance.  

Churchill's Famine

Many politicians are sociopaths who understand that the public mind evolves along with society -- and they "play" the public, exploiting its need for both genuineness and relevance. 

Obama, for example, campaigned on “change you can believe in”.  The message was relevant. And Obama looked sincere.  Time quickly proved him to be one the most regressive presidents ever – just another conscience-less opportunist. But despite that he is loved by many.
So “Genuineness” -- in politics -- as in personal life is sadly, often fake.  But political sociopaths, like Obama, rarely get caught out.

Is This You?

Tony Blair  was an exception. He looked like the real thing  – until the facts of the Iraq War and his personal get-rich schemes blew up in his face. Nowadays he is almost universally despised, except by the Blairite orcs and trolls of Labour.   

Social consciousness evolves.

At the end of WWII, the British people wanted more rights, more freedom, more opportunity – which lead to Clement Atlee’s government – and eventually the abolition of the draft, national healthcare, privatization of the railways, and the improvement of public education.  This progress was in fact was a long standing trend: starting as early as  1918 to 1974, the Rich in the UK, became gradually poorer.  The UK was becoming more egalitarian -- and it flourished.
Reversing a Trend

In such an environment there was less room for Darwinian Predators like Tony Blair.

Then came a sea change in the public mind -- from  1974 to this day.  

In the 70’s you had a new generation of young people who had resources their parents never dreamed of --supported by a coherent youth culture, a mix of adolescent narcissism and idealism. It was the age of Personality, of the Individual.  The Sexual Revolution made possible the first true Fuck Generation – the first generation in which good, fun Sex was cultural goal, if not the greatest spectator sport of all time. 

Sex Is Just Two (or Three) People of Two or Three Sexes

Now sex is a very individual thing .

Wanna get laid?   Looking good helps.  Personality and Power help.  Getting laid is very much about competition and survival of the fittest.  It's the most basic human transaction.

Young people turned from that brief flirtation with communitarianism that was the Summer of Love – the Hippies and the Diggers and son – and went into investment banking, which buys expensive cars and cosmetic surgery. "Never trust anyone over 30",  the Baby Boomers said, but when they turned 30?  They needed some Fuck You Money.

Freedom = Fuck You

Alas, however,  the Fuck Generation -- the Baby Boomers -- quickly became Baby Makers and spawned the Fuck You Generation who beget the Fuck You Very Much Generation.  That eventually led to the today's  Just Plain Fucked Generation, with the Royally Fucked Generation on the horizon. .  

When Margaret Thatcher appeared with her neoliberal economics she appealed to the individual – and also to all the Seven Deadly Sins -- greed and envy and pride – oh, and sloth – doing less and less for more and more – all that stuff characteristic of those at the top of pile, the people that the young pretended to despise.  She was the Real Thing--a greengrocer's daughter who had overcome the Tory elite.  She was Fuck You incarnate.     

Fuck You = Money

Thatcher's message was persuasive because she believed her own bullshit. .  She had risen against all odds, after all.  Although it was helpful that Dennis had money.  "Why can't I do the same," people thought.  Answer: because odds are -- you can't.  Just as odds are you won't win the lottery.The Rich get richer in a Thatcherite world -- not you.  Unless you too marry a millionaire.
Maggy Had An Idea....

Maggie was followed eventually by "Tony", that classic sociopath and a narcissistic opportunist, with no real beliefs or values.  

Tony Got His Fuck You Money

Tony promised a lot.  And he accomplished a lot – for himself.   He got his Fuck You Money.  So -- fuck you.Very, very much!

The public suffered -- struggling with unemployment, social problems and austerity.    Yes, the Poor get poorer -- and middle class too.  

But public had invested in neoliberalism.  They still hoped they could win the lottery.

Naturally, they went for the REAL neoliberals – who were more open about their opportunism and elitism -- the Tories.   Cameron was clearly an asshole.  But he was more open about it than Blair.  

Sociopaths -- Always The Right Mood

People rejected Labour’s very unsexy “Red Ed” Miliband, who was forced by the Blairites in his party to sit on the fence--which no doubt accounted for his dreadful eating habits.  It's tough chewing with  a sharp picket up your ass.

Stepping down, however, freed “Red Ed” from the Neoliberal Labour "mind".   By losing the election, he won.

He had an opportunity  to change the way Labour elected its leaders –  democratizing the process so ordinary people could get involved – accessing the many tribes of Britain, rather than serving the few at the top – in other words, drawing on the power of the public, or at least a substantial part of it. 

Did he really know what was going to happen?  Or was it just an accident?  It doesn’t matter.  I would prefer to think he knew – maybe because I have messy eating habits too.

In any case, the result was the rise of Jeremy Corbyn -- a truly genuine politician. .  

The emergence of an outlier like Corbyn in these circumstances   tells us a lot about the tribal nature of that eusocial species known as the British. 

Corbyn was for years a backbencher and never served in Government. He's an individualist.

He is a man of principle – certainly NOT a neoliberal who does not really make speeches – preferring to  talk  to people.  This simple, commonsense man  wears comfortable clothes – no stiff collars for him, thank you – and rides a bicycle -- a minimalist, yes, but practical.   

He is also believes that the Labour Party must express the views of its members and – beyond that – of the public. I think it's called "democracy", a from of tribalism thought to have died out in the Paleolithic period.  Simply put Corbyn has the humility to accept that within the Man there are Many -- which makes him a clear and present danger to all we hold dear. .
He is the very antithesis of the negative caricature of an MP: he’s defined by his principles and beliefs, uninterested in personal self-advancement, and determined to use his platform to further the interests of people and causes that are otherwise ignored.
          -- Owen Jones

The Blairites who opposed Corbyn were confounded by their own elitism.  They  believed that Smart People from Oxbridge must decide policy for the public, and persuade them to accept it using “public diplomacy” – the media, who, of course, represent the same Oxbridge tribe.   But the vast coalition of groups that make up the public only accept this neo-feudalism when they see personal benefit here and now..Without a job or home -- there is little to hope for.   The primal imperative -- survival --drives change.

The Man Who Took Labour Over the Edge

Fortunately Labour was desperate -- it leaped..

 Surprise, surprise -- Corbyn make sense.

Don't have money?  Cut Trident -- it's useless anyway.  Withdraw from NATO -- it's obsolescent -- just sucking up cash.  Renegotiate with the EU -- it needs reform.  Invest in education and infrastructure.  Return to public ownership that which the public owns. Stimulate innovation and entrepreneurship.

The media hates commonsense. Earlier I mentioned "facticity' -- things that look like facts but actually aren't.  "Factitious" is almost the same was "fictitious".  

Factitious or Fictitious?

What is interesting about Corbyn is that no public figure in memory -- other than Vladimir Putin -- has been so viciously attacked by the media – even supposedly “liberal” media like the Guardian and the Independent.   

And yet these attacks – which involve a great deal of misinformation and disinformation -- have only solidified support for him, drawing attention to his history and his positions – which resonate with the public.  The public, it seems, have learned to distrust the media as much as government.

As I said, in the beginning, propaganda, PR, advertising -- crash as much as they fly.

Simply put:  the media can only influence the public when 
a.) the public sees no tangible, personal interest involved, as in, for example, GMO labeling or Middle Eastern politics or the Ukraine  b.) an essentially disinterested  public is mostly “on the fence”.

People Matter

In the UK, austerity matters.  People are beginning to hurt.  So, suddenly politics is personal.   And a significant part of the public – those being hurt by government policies – are off the fence.  You will see this consciousness spread.

Fences Are Not For Sitting

So Fuck You, media hacks. 

Oh…that includes me!

Congratulations Jeremy Corbyn. The biggest win for anyone in a Labour Leadership contest -- ever.

Jez Wins -- For Now

But now the fun starts.  If Corbyn does what Syriza did -- compromise -- he's screwed.  Last time, Labour lost Scotland.  Next time, if it goes all milquetoast, it will be decimated in England, replaced by an English version of the SNP perhaps.  Ultimately Corbyn ultimately is just a face -- but the face of the collective will -- and if he is undermined, forced out, or otherwise defeated, someone will pay. .

If Corbyn sticks to his principles, he might see some of his members defect to the Liberal Democrats.

Good riddance.

Nobody is indispensable.  Political personalities are commodities like i Phones. In today, out tomorrow.

Remember the 90s?

 What lasts is quality.

Those MPs who follow Corbyn get the benefits of power and position as Labour advances over time.  Neoliberalism has failed -- worldwide. It is the Ancien Regime and awaits the fate of the Bourbons.

French Downsizing Government

Once the collective mind has been made up -- it invents a new Public Self.  And in the UK, you have a new Self replacing one now 30 years old.   Never to trust anyone over 30 ?   The Old Public Self is now over 30.  The Baby Boomers and the generations that came after Wanted It All -- and mostly got nothing.  Their theme song below.

The Center has moved from Right ... commonsense