Categories
All in the Mind Power Dynamics

The Trouble with the NHS

How disease-mongering turns patients into customers

The closest thing modern Britain has to a unifying state religion is universal admiration of the beloved National Health Service or NHS for short, although its remit has expanded considerably since its early days when it aimed to provide essential healthcare to all irrespective of income. As a proportion of national wealth NHS spending has risen from 3.5% in 1960 to over 9% now, that's over 18% of government spending. The fastest rise occurred in the frenetic spending spree of the early years of the new millennium, indeed as recently as 2000 it accounted for just 5% of a smaller GDP, see UK Public Spending . And yet perversely many attribute the failings of the NHS to cutbacks rather than misplaced priorities, crippling bureaucracy and an obsession with targets. As a result of the pervasice tickbox culture millions of older and vulnerable patients are given immune-system-suppressing flu vaccines whether or not they want them or address any of the real medical issues a patient may have, while many real life-threatening diseases are either misdiagnosed or go undetected. It must seem ironic that elderly patients are left in death pathways, while younger NHS customers receive cosmetic surgery such as breast enhancements to combat the perceived curses of low self-esteem and depression. The growing number of clinically obese adults may be entitled to expensive gastric bands because their addiction to high-fat foods is allegedly beyond their self-control, while old people die in freezing homes because their neighbours could not be bothered to check. We have the technology to keep people technically alive in a semi-vegetative state until they are brain dead and to appease any perceived physiological inadequacy. Gender realignment treatment used to be a rather extreme measure, eligible for public funding only in rare cases of genuine hermaphroditism. Nonetheless, as surgical techniques improved many, clearly unhappy with their anatomical gender, opted for private sex change surgery. One Iraqi-born millionaire even underwent two gender reassignment operations, and many others have suffered from greater emotional turmoil because of dissatisfaction with the outcome of their life-changing surgery than they ever had when they felt trapped in the wrong body. Yet despite widespread public scepticism of its effectiveness, this invasive surgery is now available on the NHS and to suggest otherwise is now deemed transphobic, a term coined on the back of homophobic. Another growth sector is the murky domain of mental health. According a Nuffield Trust report, mental disorders cost the English NHS £12 billion in 2010, more than double the total spend on cancer. A longer term but welcome trend since mid 20th century has been longer life expectancy and a greater survival rate from diseases that would until recently have been irredeemably terminal, so one way or another health spending has risen in most wealthy countries.

The last European elections even saw the emergence of a new party, the National Health Action Party (NHA), which fielded candidates only in the London region. It has a very active campaigning team both online and among London-based NHS staff. They not only oppose privatisation, but also all cutbacks in NHS spending. This stance appeals to a large cross-section of left-leaning public opinion. However, their simplistic analysis has one small flaw. Government spending on healthcare has increased dramatically since 2001 and has continued to grow even under Conservative and Liberal Democrat alliance. The figures are publicly available. In real terms UK healthcare spending doubled from 2000 to 2010 and has continued to grow very modestly since, currently some £130 billion or 18% of public expenditure or 9.1% of GDP. To be honest this is largely in line with healthcare spending in countries with comparable living standards. But mileage or rather value for money varies. The USA has the highest level of healthcare spending in the world, but yet many much poorer countries have a higher life expectancy. Most notably Cuba and the US have the same mean life expectancy, but in US dollar terms US healthcare spending is astronomically higher. In the US an estimated 100,000 people die every year of inappropriate prescription medication, competing with Unintentional Injuries and Alzheimer's disease for the fifth most common cause of death.

Clearly if we expect our health service not only to cope with the challenges of an ageing population, but also to meet growing demand for lifestyle medicine (cosmetic or performance-enhancing treatment), we must be prepared to pay for it. The recent rise in lifestyle medicine, especially cosmetic surgery, has transformed beauty and wellbeing from gifts of nature into commodities. As a result fairly average imperfections, from misaligned noses and teeth, undersized breasts, balding hair, erectile dysfunction, once considered just unfortunate facts of life, are now treated as major causes of depression and prime targets for medical intervention.

That means we need to decide as a society which categories of healthcare we should socialise and which categories are best left to personal discretion (or in my humble opinion actively discouraged as they destroy social cohesion by emphasising the power of money to transform one's body beyond essential medical need). Certainly if someone endures a tragic accident or succumbs to a debilitating disease, it seems very unfair for their prognosis to depend on their bank balance or ability to pay into a generous health insurance scheme. Socialised healthcare means if you fall victim to injuries or illness beyond your reasonable control, then society as a whole will pick up the bill. However, by redefining physiological imperfections and emotional distress as illnesses, the multibillion pound medicalisation business has significantly boosted healthcare costs. As these costs spiral out of control, we risk throwing the proverbial baby away with the bath water. We all need essential medical care at times in our life. If we are generally healthy, this may mean just regular checkups with the odd vaccination (another controversial topic) and for women a short stay in hospital to give birth. Natural human diversity means we are not all blessed with perfect bodies or physical performance potential.

However, socialised medicine also requires social cohesion and solidarity among the different groups within society. While we delegate responsibility to medical professionals, at all times they must serve our needs, not those of disease-mongering pharmaceutical multinationals or invasive state apparatuses. We should not become mere customers or guinea pigs for medical experiments, but be empowered patients, who just want an honest diagnosis and impartial evaluation of medical options. If we expect others to subsidise our healthcare, then we have a responsibility to look after ourselves as best we can. If I decide to engage in a high risk activity for my own pleasure, it seems reasonable that I take out additional insurance. Why should others foot the bill for expensive restorative surgery, if some daredevil motorcyclist decides to jump over 10 double decker buses ? The point is as medical technology evolves, we must clearly define genuine medical needs, otherwise we will just sleepwalk into the collapse of the National Health Service as we knew it and healthcare will be just a profit-making business. Indeed this is already happening albeit underwritten by taxpayers and banks. As Professor Allyson Pollock reminds us "Virgin landed a £630 million contract for community mental healthcare, with no previous experience, while RBS, Serco and Carillion, to name but a few, are raking in billions in taxpayer funds for leasing out and part-operating PFI hospitals, community clinics and GP surgeries. A private company now runs an NHS hospital. US private medical companies are now involved in the privatisation process, such as HCA and United Health. HCA is in a joint venture with University College Hospital London, where it provides cancer treatment, but only for those who can pay. Both New Labour and the current Conservative/Lib-Dem coalition have turned the NHS into a front for a rapacious biomedical business.

Categories
Power Dynamics

Propaganda Wars

For too long an unholy alliance of North American and European media outlets, principally BBC, CNN, Fox News, but also their French, Spanish, Portuguese and German-language equivalents, ensured coverage of evolving world events reflected the message that NATO, the EU and the leading global corporations wanted us to hear.

Not only do they set the agenda, i.e. decide which news stories are worthy of our attention, they can choose how to present complex regional conflicts, exclude inconvenient voices and promote opinion leaders who support their version of events. Resource wars are portrayed as battles between outmoded dictatorships and enlightened progressives willing to participate in our globalised utopia.

The trouble is their changing stories have failed to convince everyone. Not all Europeans actually believed the Afghan and Iraq wars were really about women's rights or deposing evil dictators. Some politicians publicly disagreed with the US/UK occupation of Iraq, but then still did business with the same multinationals, banks and military alliances that pushed for war in the first place. The sad fact is to keep the illusion of democracy alive, the mass media could only convince the US and UK electorate to vote for parties that supported the war. As it happens opinion polls in the run up to the 2003 invasion show a clear majority of British voters opposed to military action, but this changed as Parliament approved military intervention. France and Germany stayed out, but only a few years later the French happily intervened in Haiti, Libya and Mali.

Now the European Union and NATO have set their eyes on further eastward expansion and have backed a coup in Ukraine, some of us are not quite buying the latest outburst of self-righteous propaganda. Why should we trust the same media pundits who sold us the Iraq occupation to promote freedom and democracy in a country whose tortuous history remains a mystery to outside observers. Why do they loathe Russia, yet fail to criticise Saudi Arabia or China responsible for human rights abuses on an infinitely greater scale? Did any BBC pundit explain how the oil-rich Saudi Arabian regime now has the world's 4th largest military budget (USD 67 billion a year ahead of the UK at 57.9 billion) and is the biggest client of UK-based arms dealer BAE Systems ?

The apparent evilness of Putin's Russia allegedly has something to do with limited free speech and gay rights. But despite a deceptively vast range of media outlets in the West, they all seem to promote the same basic set of ideas, i.e. we need more free trade, more economic growth and more social engineering to uproot us from our traditional mores.

However, the Russian Federation is now reasserting its independence, and learning to play the West's game. They have studied the techniques deployed by the BBC, CNN at al for decades and launched their own channel, Russia Today, to challenge BBC propaganda head-on. So whom should we trust? Neither, but now the BBC / CNN cabal have lost their monopoly on English-language news. On some issues Russia Today seems more balanced, but on the others as biased as the BBC. the global balance of power is clearly shifting away from the North Atlantic to vast expanses of resource rich Siberia and resource-hungry hyperactive China. I will be watching, but will trust no-one.

Categories
Power Dynamics

11 million empty homes, in the wrong places

The Guardian newspaper has just revealed to its credulous readers that EU-wide no fewer than 11 million dwellings stand empty. This apparent news has been endlessly recycled by various well-funded lobbies and think-tanks to suggest there is no housing crisis in the regions that have recently attracted most inward migration. Meanwhile to accommodate 4 million new UK residents, the government has relaxed planning laws to allow the building of 3 million new homes, many on prime agricultural land. At the same time it has sanctioned hydraulic fracturing across England, which will pollute the groundwater in much of the remaining farmland. So presumably news of 11 million empty homes could not come at a better time. We may be able to house everyone and keep our farmland to cope with rising global fuel and food prices, or can we ?

The trouble is most of these empty homes are far from where most jobs are. Indeed many millions are the direct result of international commuting as young people vacate their home towns and villages in Eastern and Southern Europe and head to the wealthier climes of Northern Europe and the British Isles. Many millions more are second homes built for ex-pats in Mediterranean or Black Seas tourist resorts. Just 700,000 of these empty homes are in the UK, most of which are in rundown post-industrial wastelands. At the other end of the scale are prime pieces of real estate in overpriced neighbourhoods bought as investment by international gangsters, so just as many London-based workers have to commute several hours a day or make do with substandard accommodation, sumptuous properties lie empty in Hampstead and Mayfair.

However, what would happen if we could force the government to seize these properties and allocate them to those more in need? For starters demand would greatly exceed supply. There are nowhere near 11 million des-res Hampstead villas waiting for minimum wage workers to take up residence, there are at best a few hundred. London-wide there may be several thousands of empty properties, but many would require renovation and would only temporarily ease an artificial housing shortage. I say artificial because without mass migration, there would be enough houses for all without destroying valuable farmland. Forced repossession of empty luxury properties would have one very positive side effect, it would discourage property speculators (mainly foreign) from distorting the London market and thus deflate the economy and diminish the need for so-many temporary service workers. Like it or not, the whole London economy thrives on recycling wealth generated somewhere else, so once again you either support corporate globalisation and live with its many consequences, or you support more viable alternatives, that inevitably means economic shrinkage in overheating economies.

Few seem prepared to admit the obvious. With huge economic imbalances between regions, a growing rich-poor divide, shrinking middle classes and open labour markets, globalisation has succeeded in simultaneously creating chronic overcrowding and unbearable congestion while leaving other areas in a state of abandon and social decline.

In addition the environmental impact of housing depends very much on habitation. Abandoned properties may decay, but they pollute very little. Inhabited properties inevitably consume water, electricity, produce sewage, add to local retail consumption and traffic (especially if their owners insist on driving everywhere). For every inhabited house we need to provide more shops, schools, hospitals and roads.

Europe's empty properties fall into 4 categories:

  1. Too expensive, only suitable for wealthy property investors
  2. Holiday homes by the sea or on the slopes, not suitable for young city workers
  3. In areas of high unemployment and mass emigration
  4. Substandard, in a state of disrepair

Of these only the fourth could be easily repurposed to cope temporarily with Europe's large population movements, but long-term we should look at smarter solutions. Rather than moving to where big business offers more lucrative employment opportunities, how about restructuring the economy so jobs are more evenly spread. It really makes little sense for more Eastern Europeans to abandon underpopulated regions to add to environmental problems in London, Frankfurt or Stockholm.

Categories
Power Dynamics

The Sheer Arrogance of Tony Blair’s Clone

"But let me be clear - Britain may be a small island, but I would challenge anyone to find a country with a prouder history, a bigger heart or greater resilience."

David Cameron

So presumably thousands of years of Chinese, Indian or Middle Eastem history, literature, innovations count for little, and Britain's neighbours have little to teach us. Britain may have had its heyday in the 18th and 19th centuries, but today just builds on its past glory as a marketing tool.

"Britain is an island that has helped to clear the European continent of fascism and was resolute in doing that throughout the Second World War."

Such gross simplifications open up a can of worms. Broadly speaking in the 1920s and 30s more stable countries with relatively tame and malleable populations retained some form of consultative democracy, while those that underwent greater economic instability and had a more rebellious and free-thinking populace fell under the control of more authoritarian regimes. Moreover, Britain and France relied on resources from their empires to placate workers at home. The British government and UK businesses were happy to do business with a wide range of dictatorships. Indeed in much of the non-white British Empire, natives were only consulted through their leaders. In the first world war Bismarck's Germany and David LLoyd George's Colonial Britain had similar democratic credentials.

Britain is an island that helped to abolish slavery, that has invented most of the things worth inventing, including every sport currently played around the world, that still today is responsible for art, literature and music that delights the entire world."

The new capitalist ruling class only sought to abolish slavery after it had become an obsolete means of exploitation, replaced by wage slavery and the uprooting of traditional rural communities to make way for a new era of industrialisation and later mass consumerism. Child labour (exploitation of preteen boys snd girls)continued in the UK well in the 20th century, e.g. as late as 1911 over 18% of Lancashire boys between 10 and 14 had to work.

Reportedly at the G20 St Petersburg Summit a Russian official, close to Vladimir Putin, dismissed Britain as just a small country that nobody really pays much attention to. That may seem rather undiplomatic, but for over 15 years the government of this small island has been busy promoting military intervention under false humanitarian pretexts, while lecturing everyone else on free trade, democracy and human rights. Such an attitude presumes the UK government and its favoured NGOs know better than the rest of the world, eagerly awaiting Anglo-American emancipation.

All countries can cite their heroes and achievements. Without the agricultural revolution that spread from the Fertile Crescent of Mesopotamia via Anatolia to Europe and North Africa, few of the subsequent technological advances in later European empires would have been possible. To put things in perspective, the Sumerians had mastered the art of writing 5000 years ago, yet before the Roman Conquest there is little evidence of any writing besides isolated ideographs in ancient Britain or Ireland. Without literacy and an understanding of mathematics, developed by various civilisations over thousands of years, the famous scientists and inventors of the early industrial period would have lacked the intellectual building blocks that underly many ubiquitous objects like ball bearings, pistons, camshafts or electric motors that make our modern world possible.

Cameron's eulogy to the greatness of the small island he represents does have a modicum of truth. Beyond doubt between the early 18th century and the late 19th century, scientists and inventors flourished more in the British Isles than in many other larger countries. However, by the turn of the 20th century the US economy had overtaken Britain's while the centres of technical innovations had moved to US, Germany and Japan. Without its technological headstart, it is unlikely Britain would have conquered over 1/4 of the globe. Yet throughout its heyday of industrial power, the subjects of this blessed isle toiled away in factories, down mines and on ships for 12+ hours a day, were condemned to abject living conditions and had little say, if any, in the way their country was governed for the electorate was restricted to just a select group of male property owners. Infant mortality in the England of 1800 was much higher than in today's Malawi. Mine owners would willingly send 8 year old boys into dark and narrow coal shafts inaccessible to adults to gain a competitive advantage and drive their country's economic expansion.

If one's sole sources of current affairs news are the Anglo-American mainstream media (namely BBC, CNN, Fox News, Sky News, the Guardian, the Times of London, the Independent etc.) and one has failed to check their track record in the run-up to previous military interventions, one may be forgiven for believing, at least temporarily, that the head of the Syrian regime is a bad guy responsible for heinous crimes against his people, while the US and UK represent the forces for good. One can just imagine the spectre of multicoloured UN peace corps marching into Damascus greeted by thankful Syrians eager to join the global consumer frenzy. Indeed for some that is the end game, so all places just become provinces of a happy global empire of Latte-sipping Bohemian marketing executives debating the relative merits of Google Glasses, iPhones and Samsung Watches. In such a world regions would only differ in their climate, historical architecture and accent of World English. However, such a reality is unlikely to extend beyond an affluent elite. Behind the scenes the system's dependence on permanent economic growth in a finite world is causing greater tension over access to precious resources. The kind of free trade that successive British governments have championed have promoted not only greater interdependence and less food security, but have also enabled some financially rich regions to consume much more than their landmass and resources would otherwise allow. The UK may be a small collection islands, but through its reliance on imports it is a major offloader of pollution. All those inexpensive Chinese-made goods pollute China and depredate resources from the rest of the world to drive the UK economy. They do not somehow magically appear prepackaged in warehouses and retail outlets in wealthy countries, without undergoing multiple stages of industrial transformation and travelling thousands of miles.

Most ironically, the globalist neoliberal elite do not really care about ordinary British people. When employers spoke of a skills shortage in the debt-fuelled boom years of the early noughties (2000-2007), New Labour had a golden opportunity to reform the welfare system and encourage the millions of workless adults reclassified as disabled to get back into work. Instead they decided to allow recruitment agencies to bring in Eastern Europeans in bulk to do jobs that ordinary working class people used to do, but now reportedly refused to. The pseudo-left liberal intelligentsia looks down on ordinary English people, dismissing them either as unenlightened feckless layabouts if they do not work or Daily Mail-reading whingers if they do work, but complain about mass immigration and social engineering. So the country that gave birth to Isaac Newton, James Watt and Alan Turing, now has a severe shortage of home-grown engineers and scientists because the new generation entering the workforce is more interested in easy money in management, training, recruitment, advertising and consulting. Britain has become a country where most workers can talk the talk, but few walk the walk without the aid of foreign machinery and resources.

Categories
Computing Power Dynamics

Multinational Scroungers and Tax Dodgers

Just before Christmas the British media revealed some large up and coming multinational outfits had taken advantage of tax loopholes and the wonders of early 21st century globalised trade to evade taxes. Suddenly Labour supporters had a cause they could all rally behind and win support from hardworking voters rightly fed up with high taxes and shoddy services. Let's force evil Amazon and Starbucks to pay their taxes in the UK. For a fleeting second, I thought we had returned to the early 1970s when the Trade Unions and Labour activists advocated import controls and high tax rates for the rich. Then as my mind returned this century, I remembered the spectre of a New Labour-appointed EU commissioner, Peter Mandelson, urging other European countries to open up their markets to competition from the Far East and elsewhere, to deregulate big business and banking and cut corporation tax. Under New Labour, the financial services sector continued to grow as manufacturing shrunk even further.

While I sympathise with the various populist campaigns to force multinationals to pay more taxes (e.g. Ensure that international companies like Amazon UK, pay fair tax), much of the UK economy depends on tax evasion, money laundering and huge government handouts to myriad service sector agencies. Organisations like KPMG, Deloitte, Ernst & Young (EY) and PricewaterhouseCoopers specialise in corporate tax avoidance. Moreover, most contract workers have their own limited company, yet to you or me, they're just nurses, teachers, software developers, office workers etc. They would lose their competitive edge if they had to pay full UK income and corporation tax.

The trendy left's newfound enthusiasm for local independent retailers seems rather perplexing, given the previous and current governments' track record. Retail chains and large agribusinesses have expanded to the detriment of independent traders and small farms as detailed in Joanna Blythman's excellent book Shopped. Small book shops are only a very small part of a much larger picture. Paper books will inevitably suffer the same fate as typewriters. People will buy a few as collectables and for display purposes, but books are going electronic. Of course, it is very important that no one entity has control of something as important as literature, but oddly it is much easier to find "dissident" books on Kobo or Amazon than in Waterstones or specialist bookshops. Fortunately, as long as the Internet remains open, it is relatively easy to set up rival outlets for electronic books. We may wonder why some powerful lobbies would like to restrict this freedom in the name of questionable intellectual property rights.

Starbucks has been notorious not only for tax dodging but also for employing mainly newcomers to the detriment of young adults born and bred in the UK. Yet the politically correct left dare not mention this fact and have often suggested such progressive employers boost the economy through their smart branding of caffeinated froth. A casual visit to any Starbucks in London will soon reveal most customers are Guardian-readers, whose favourite newspaper is on sale before they part with at least £2.50 for your fair trade jug of flavoured hot milk.

Considering the government's love affair with big business we may reasonably ask who benefits most from this negative publicity campaign. You guessed it, other multinationals, who use a slightly different strategy to embezzle ordinary taxpayers. Much of the left has been rather uncritical of some of the worst quasi-monopolists and control freaks and Microsoft is a prime example. Amazon built its empire on open-source software. Its servers run Linux as do its now ubiquitous e-readers and tablets (Kindle Fire). Microsoft had successfully persuaded key policymakers that word processing, spreadsheets and presentations were their exclusive preserve. To suggest using a word-processor other than Microsoft Word in public sector IT departments not only attracted bewilderment and ridicule but usually fell on deaf ears. As a result, UK taxpayers have transferred billions of pounds to one US Multinational, which has only ever spent a very small fraction of that on actual software development. Besides Microsoft Office and Windows licences, they earn hundreds of millions for SharePoint, Exchange and SQL Server. Now Apple, Amazon and Google have shown the public IT not just Microsoft. Software development is moving to the Web and Microsoft's desktop franchise is under threat. If you can knock up a diagram and Gantt chart online, why spend over £100 on a piece of desktop software that will be out of date soon anyway? Do we seriously want to entrust our digital future, including the internals of what was until recently the dominant desktop operating system and productivity software, to a US based multinational? By not releasing the source code to their ubiquitous products, Microsoft can spy on you (and they have a dismal security record too). In the open-source world, you can view the human-readable source code to find any hidden backdoors. In my experience, the UK tax and social welfare system penalises honest hard workers and rewards fraudsters the Banks! Hedge Funds. Some benefits cheats are just small-time chancers and other huge international operations with their tentacles in most government bodies.

Categories
All in the Mind Computing

All true conservatives are green

I sometimes enjoy Peter Hitchens‚ antidote to mainstream trendy Neo-Liberal thinking, but fear he is on some subjects in bad company and a tad ill-informed. No rational person could deny volumes of hard evidence showing the exponential rise in humanity's collective impact on our planet's delicate ecosystem, both in terms of our numbers (rising from just 750 million at the start of the industrial revolution to 7 billion now) and our per capita consumption. Our population will probably peak in the next 10 to 30 years, but at the expense of adopting modern high-consumption lifestyles. And now 2500 million Chinese and Indians are preparing to join the mass consumer frenzy, resources that previously seemed almost unlimited, are nearing depletion.

The fact that scientific forecasts have so often proven wrong should lead us to take a more rather than a less cautious, and thus conservative, approach to future development. Climatologists know full well our climate is subject to multiple natural and, dare I say, anthropogenic factors, but man's impact on our environment has reached unprecedented levels. But climate change is just one of many potential side effects of our rapid overdevelopment. James Lovelock has merely conceded that some of the more alarmist forecasts made 20 years ago have not been supported by subsequent observations. So what! They were just forecasts. Meanwhile, other forecasts, such as available oil reserves in Saudi Arabia, have also turned out to be gross exaggerations. That's why Brazilian geologists are busy surveying fossil fuel deposits 2 miles below the surface of Mid Atlantic Ocean, the Chinese are sealing deals with Nigerian businessmen and Western Oil companies see Libya as a mere gateway to oil in Chad and Darfur, despite the huge costs of building pipelines and other infrastructure.

Wishful thinking cornucopians would like to see the current era of cheap mass motoring for all continue without drastic consequences and place blind faith in scientists to find to magic techno-fixes. Climate change denial, so popular in Neo-Conservative circles, has little to do with any understanding of the actual climate (which may get warmer, colder, wetter or drier in different parts of the globe) and everything to do with the same culture of entitlement Mr Hitchens so rightly denounces in his columns. Claiming to have a god-given right to drive your car to a suburban shopping mall, funded by your non-productive marketing job, is just the same as claiming a right to welfare handouts to subsidise your hedonistic idleness. If we are to tackle our very real environmental challenges and avoid unprecedented loss of life resulting from a grotesque overconsumption, we need to power down.

Categories
All in the Mind Power Dynamics

Hedonism Ablaze

What a coincidence! Just days after the US administration agreed to raise their country's debt ceiling and let the global consumption party go on for a few more months or maybe years, In London marauding mobs run riot, loot retail outlets and set commercial and residential buildings on fire. Reportedly it all started in Tottenham Hale, North East, on Saturday evening when demonstration against the police shooting of a minicab driver and alleged drug dealer, Mark Duggan, descended into violence, just four miles from my bedsit. Eye witness accounts and video footage clearly show that police lost control and were unable to contain the ensuing disorders. Some observers have dwelled on the conflicting evidence behind the initial incident, whose background builds on longstanding mistrust between the police and local communities. In 1985 a notorious riot on the Broadwater Farm Estate after Cynthia Jarrett, an African Caribbean woman, died during a police search of her home, later saw a Policeman, PC Keith Blakelock killed. Early reports indicated just another example of police brutality against an innocent man. It now looks much more like another case of police incompetence, as both bullets fired were police-issue, but the 29 year-old victim and father of four was undoubtedly involved with narco-trafficking Star Gang. That may not have justified his death, but like many other lads from sink estates in a city with over 50 billionaires he opted to service the service sector by not only facilitating the distribution of drugs, but living by the law of the gun.

The saddest part of all the destruction that has followed is that many young people in towns and cities across the UK see little future other than to party and re-enact some gangland fantasy. The more talented youths may aspire to becoming pop musicians, actors, dee-jays or film producers. A few entrepreneurs may open hairdressers, pubs, nightclubs, restaurants and gyms,. And a few conscientious individuals may be drawn to the caring surveillance professions such as social workers, police and learning support assistants, but many just choose to live on benefits. The purpose of life in London has now become simply having fun or rather exploiting other people's desire to indulge in frivolous entertainment. The city has long been a parasite on the world stage, importing huge quantities of additional goods through the proceeds of a global casino.

As riots spread to other London boroughs on Sunday and Monday, a pattern began to emerge. Thousands of hyperactive youths, a small but sizable minority in a city with over 8 million inhabitants, enjoyed re-ennacting the kind of wanton mayhem they had previously seen on TV and simulated on game consoles. Rather than protesting against the evil capitalist system that enslaves them they could not wait to get their hands on the latest electronic gadgets. Admittedly some food outlets were trashed too, many fast food eateries, but these were no food riots. Britain's generous social security system ensures nobody goes hungry unless they choose to squander their benefits on booze, drugs and gambling. Indeed the scenes of ransacked shopping districts reveal another grim reality. Most shops sell non-essential merchandise. One happy looter posted a picture of his bounty on Twitter, a vast collection of video games and other gadgetry. Was this some kind of statement against the UK/US invasion of Iraq, a sign of solidarity with starving Somalis or attempt to redistribute wealth from the rich to poor? The looter may have feigned his opposition to the excesses of British imperialism or pretended to care about malnourished Africans or the urban poor in a grotesquely overpriced city. But no, he just wanted some instant gratification.

As more reports come in, the choice of looting targets seems to reflect the spirit of our times, to name but a few "The Sony Distribution Centre" in a large warehouse filled mainly with DVDs and game consoles in Enfield and the Party Superstore in Clapham. The big babies are throwing their toys out of their hyper-consumptive prams.

In reply to a New Labourite:

I wonder if New Labour's supporters will ever question the wisdom of economists whose advice has bankrupted the US and European economies in the name of growth? While New Labourites may distance themselves from the current ConDem coalition, they actively supported the previous administration with almost identical policies and equally subservient to the unaccountable multinational organisations who really run the country.

Recent debt-fuelled economic "growth" in the UK has mainly relied on banking and frivolous media services, aided only in part by North Sea Oil (the UK as a whole is now a net importer of oil and gas). Once demand for these non-essential services crumbles, as it surely will, Britain will have to start living within its own means. However, after 30 years of unashamedly pro-globalist policies (by which I mean reliance on global trade), a huge public and private debt and a large section of the working age population on benefits, the country will be ill-equipped to weather any storms. In a historical context globalism is but the last stage of imperialism, so let's call it global imperialism.

Circular Arguments over Immigration:

While mass immigration may create new jobs by boosting demand, that's an entirely circular argument, e.g. before the 2004 influx of Eastern Europeans there were 600,000 unfilled vacancies, 4 years later the UK still had the same number of unfilled vacancies, but a million more residents boosting the country's reliance on imports. The UK's population has not grown at such a fast rate since the end of WW2. During the 1970s and 80s more people left the UK than entered. Indeed we've witnessed a steady brain drain of talented Brits to the US and Australia and from countries like Nigeria, India and now Poland to the UK. We have a shortage of surgeons because many of the best UK born surgeons work in private hospitals abroad. The oft-repeated claim that "the economy benefits from immigration", means big business gets a short-term boost in profitability due to the influx of enthusiastic workers and total demand rises, but what is good for the economy in the short term is not necessarily good for society in the long term. These arguments made sense in countries like Australia, the US, Canada or Argentina. Indeed for some time now, UK economic growth has been consumption-driven. This logic fails to take account of rather obvious socio-envionmental factors. Southern England is now the most densely populated region of Europe and Londoners would starve within a week in the absence of food imports. Who said we need to boost aggregate consumption? We should be doing exactly the opposite. If you believe infinite economic growth is possible, then surely you'd have to believe in infinite energy and dismiss man-made climate change as a green plot to depopulate the earth (as some pro-growthists do), but you don't because it would be politically incorrect.

As we hit limits to growth, the consequences of a recent consumption frenzy growth will significantly reduce the earth's carrying capacity (i.e. more consumption per capita => fewer people). Yet new Labour's policies actively encourage procreation through Europe's most generous child benefits leading to a benefits-driven baby boom and these babies become young adults wanting to emulate Jeremy Clarkson because that's the consumer culture your friends in big business keep marketing. This observation may horrify you, I hear you murmuring "racist" or maybe sexist, but the facts on the ground are pretty undeniable, so don't shoot the messenger. We should not subsidise irresponsible procreation, because it will inevitably lead to more social problems further down the line. You know that. I know that, so stop pretending otherwise.

Waves of Migration and Social Breakdown

Advocates of mass immigration had claimed before 2003 we needed an influx of highly skilled Eastern Europeans because native Brits lacked these skills, although as you no doubt remember the Home Office estimated only 5000 to 13000 Eastern Europeans would move to the UK in the first year after their countries joined the EU,. The classic example was the Polish plumber. First why did British-born young adults not aspire to these jobs? Second how does simply importing skilled and semi-skiled workers form abroad address a skills shortage among the home-bred population? It doesn't. More important a large proportion of this new unemployable underclass in the London area are themselves descendants of immigrants from the 1950s and 60s, whose parents and grandparents had filled a skills gap. So many conflicts we see now are between different waves of immigrants, something that can only get worse in the event of economic meltdown. However, in the 1960s unemployment in the UK was negligible, two-parent families still very much the norm and housewives valued members of society. Fast forward 40 years and most of the manufacturing and skilled manual jobs that made the British working class proud have been outsourced or assigned to new communities. Whether you like it or not, only a small minority of people will ever excel in the kind of cerebral jobs created by a knowledge economy. I know from personal experience that while millions of people are proficient in the use of software applications, only a few have the mental discipline required to write programs. Hence there are more IT recruiters (talking the talk) than programmers (walking the walk). Back in 1997 your friend, Tony Blair, boasted about how Britain led the world in IT. I presume that's why so few young adults from the XBox generation can write more than a few lines of client-side Javascript code. Much of the rest of the knowledge economy revolves around marketing goods we don't really need and promoting various social agendas (hence growth in the charity sector), which in turn serve to create new markets.

Do you seriously think British born young adults cannot learn plumbing, bricklaying or farming? Their forebears did. Why did they become de-skilled? And if there was such an urgent need for friendly smiling retail and catering staff, why could big business not tap into the large pool of British unemployed, many of whose parents were immigrants themselves? Why had they become so demotivated and unwilling to get out of the bed in the morning? You may blame Thatcher, who oversaw a tremendous rise in benefits dependency, but Tony Blair followed in her footsteps albeit with different rhetoric.

"Tariq Jahan had lost his 21-year-old son Haroon, murdered in the Winson Green area of Birmingham by thugs who drove at him in their car in what appears to have been a racist attack. No one could be more aware of the simmering racial tensions between Asians in his neighbourhood and those of Caribbean ancestry".

So why should we tolerate further erosions of civil liberties turning us all into suspects to deal with the side effects of over-development and its recent manifestations as unbridled consumerism, narcissism and media trivialisation of violence. Yet as a result of these policies we will soon be cajoled into accepting even more authoritarianism

Attacking our Communities?

Globalist policies destroyed these communities. A community requires shared values, customs and social cohesion that cannot be built if its composition keeps changing. Ordinary people cannot afford to live in London except if the government, read taxpayers, subsidises rents. Indeed among the main beneficiaries of New Labour's welfare and immigration policies have been landlords, who in many cases can charge what they like because the Department of Word and Pensions will pick up the bill. As a result we have mind-boggling cases (that I have witnessed personally) of families subsidised to the tune of £3000-4000 a month? Let's do some maths. A typical semi in London is around £320,000 ... that means a couple needs to earn £80,000 per annum to get a mortgage, while real average salaries are closer to £30,000. Indeed in Scotland, I knew many on 15/16 K per annum as late as 2009. In case you haven't noticed there has been a whole scale exodus from vast swathes of London. Deny it if you will, but normal working people cannot afford to live here, unless like me they can tolerate a single room. So we have the chattering classes on 100K+ a year, wealthy advertising and media executives, and then street after street of houses converted into flats and rented to a motley crew of migrant workers, home-grown benefits scroungers and miscellaneous gangsters. What a wonderful community!

Categories
Computing Power Dynamics

The Bankers are bankrupt and so are we

Today over a hundred thousand demonstrators will descend on Central London to protest against cuts in public spending. I can sympathise for I've joined many similar protests‚ defending the rights of ordinary working people and against wanton waste and wars. Why should ordinary people suffer because politicians and bankers have wasted billions on wars and billionaire bankers continue to reward themselves huge bonuses? Unfortunately many have misdiagnosed the problem. While undoubtedly many welfare dependents may suffer hardships as a result of cutbacks and some public sector workers will lose their jobs, we do not suffer from underspending on key public services such as health and education, but from huge waste on unsustainable bureaucracy financed mainly by a non-productive tertiary sector, offering services that nobody really needs. Demonstrators will be entertained by the spectre of a former New Labour cabinet minister and now their leader, Milliband, claiming we can keep spending as if there were no tomorrow. Few will dare challenge the previous‚ administration‚ on their grotesque overspending, fuelled by an economic boom based on property trading, banking, lobbying and media, and worse still their bail-out of the very bankers who caused the mess in the first place. In 2008 the country stood on the brink of financial collapse as banks could no longer sustain such a level of bad debt, i.e. debt on loans to people who could never repay. Throughout the late 1990s and early 20 zeroes manufacturing industries continued to close as retail outlets and other services expanded. New Labour oversaw more than a decade of private and public waste. Ordinary folk were urged to indulge in cheap holidays abroad, large plasma TV screens, more cars, electronic gadgets, boozing and gambling. While New Labour monitored and regulated the habits and behaviour of private citizens, it deregulated the hedononism‚ business and let bankers offer loans to those who could never realistically repay. At the same time despite official declines in unemployment, millions remained dependent on a multitude of benefits. In 1997 John Reid responded to demands for the re-nationalisation of the railways by simply stating "We can't afford the projected cost of £20 billion". Since then the government has not only spent more on subsidising private rail companies but has also squandered billions on PFIs (Private Finance Initiatives) to build new hospitals and schools, which the general public do not even own. Inflation-adjusted public health spending has doubled, but the quality of health care has seen no measurable improvement as the NHS is overburdened with the side-effects of hedonism and, dare I mention, unsustainable levels of net immigration. Politicians‚ on both sides of the House continue to talk about economic growth and none more so than Ed Milliband. Yet by growing demand for consumer products and promoting a non-productive service sector, we simply increase the country's reliance on global markets and imports. If the world economy as a whole proves unsustainable and, as recent events in Libya and Japan should surely remind us, energy becomes more expensive (i.e. a higher EROEI = Energy Returned On Energy Invested), we will find it much harder to readapt to the real world, where we need to be largely self-sufficient in food staples and material resources and can only provide for the weak and elderly through hard work. Our current model of development is entirely based on marketing and thus dependent on a plentiful supply of cheap human and material resources. However, as China and India grow and demand a larger share of the world's finite resources, their labour will become more expensive. Why should we rely on outsourcing menial office tasks to India and production to China, Vietnam or Indonesia? Why should their labour subsidise our consumption?‚

Practical Solutions

  1. Phase in a 30-hour working week and give people more flexibility. This may be bad for business and economic growth in the short terms as some of the best workers will be able to work less, but it will encourage a wider section of the population to aspire to high-skill jobs.
  2. Cut all child benefits after the second birth (i.e. allowing for twins, triplets etc.). If couples choose to have more children, they should not expect the state to subsidise it.
  3. Remove all NHS help for IVF and facilitate adoption when couples are unable to have children naturally.
  4. Cut all forms of unemployment benefit after 1 year, unless a person has a genuine disability preventing work. After this period, the out-of-work will be employed on the minimum wage in a vast range of environmental and social projects for up 30 hours a week.
  5. Reward housewives or househusbands who choose to stay at home to look after their children until the age of 14. There are also plenty of new remote working opportunities allowing parents to work part-time if they so choose. Couples could be granted 20 hours of parental time a week deductible from their income tax. The tax system should clearly encourage small two-parent families, in which at least one parent works.
  6. Raise the minimum wage for antisocial working hours. We do not need to shop 24/7.
  7. Treat mental health as primarily a psycho-social issue rather than a medical issue. Cut NHS spending on the promotion of mental health issues and address the very real psychosocial causes. Reduce dependence on psychoactive medicines.
  8. Encourage school leavers‚ uninterested‚ in academic subjects or hard sciences, to undertake vocational courses in practical trades such as plumbing, building, farming‚ mechanics etc. There is no need for 40%+ of school leavers to go to university. We should target further education spending on the 10 to 15% who can make a real difference.
  9. Provide special bursaries for degrees in hard sciences, medicine and engineering.‚
  10. While immigration would naturally fall as a result of declining domestic demand for superfluous consumer goods and services, we should ensure migration is both manageable and socially responsible.
Categories
Power Dynamics

Corporate Mercenaries

The LM Gang are back, this time advocating, in a new C4 documentary Britain's Trillion pound Horror Story, the privatisation of healthcare and education and downsizing of the rest of the public sector to reduce taxes, the national debt and stimulate economic growth.

Back in 1998 a post-modern intellectual associated with the former Revolutionary Communist Party, which later became Living Marxism and then just the LM Group and more recently Spiked Online, produced a documentary for Britain's Channel 4, Against Nature, railing against misanthropic greens. They have taken some radical and provocative stances aimed mainly at the thinking left, those of us who are not completely brainwashed by corporate conditioning and actually want to see a more caring, sharing and, dare I say, sustainable society. Since the fall of the former Soviet Union, they have argued that the socialist cause they once espoused is dead and instead they began a campaign against what they considered reactionary forces opposed to progress. To them progress was redefined as the globalisation of labour and consumer markets, rapid evolution of technology to enable constant material growth and the replacement of previous social structures such as families and close-knit communities with a shared cultural heritage with new structures based around life-style choices and special interests. The clique around Frank Füredi, a professor of sociology at the University of Kent and author of Reviews of Where Have All the Intellectuals
Gone?, have morphed from extreme proponents of a worldwide Bolshevik revolution in the dying days of the modern era, to extreme advocates of postmodern neoliberal globalisation. Back in the 1970s and 80s, most on the left opposed immigration controls and welcomed multiculturalism because of a basic sense of humanitarian solidarity with the downtrodden, the perceived victims of imperialism and irrational ethnic prejudice. That was my gut instinct until the early years of the new millennium.

Yet as I try to explain in another post, modern globalisation owes its roots in 18th and 19th century European colonisation and the expansion of the United States as a world power. The left also championed women's rights, another very noble cause, which has arguably been perverted to disempower families, as wel as gay rights, which while removing stigma against natural feelings of erotic attraction towards the members of the same gender, served similar purposes in weakening traditional family units and empowering big business and the state. Thus for many years the disciples of Frank Furedi could pose on the left. When other sections of the left opposed nuclear power and later genetically modified food, the descendants of the British RCP, championed these technologies as a means of feeding the poor.

As noted elsewhere, former RCPers have become very media-savvy, but we'd be very naive if we thought they had somehow successfully inflitrated corporate media organisations in order to promote a revolution that would see the overthrow of the today's ruling elites. Rather they serve as fifth-columnists embedded in media and organisations appealing to the wishful-thinking left on behalf of a corporate elite who owe no allegiance to the ordinary people of any country.

Smart propagandists like to build on concerns about a very real problem and then differentiate themselves from other more mainstream opinion leaders to appeal to a disgruntled section of the gullible electorate. If we sum the government debt accumulated thus far and the total commitments for debt repayments, planned public expenditure, the UK public debt is forecast to reach a staggering 4.8 trillion pounds, which as the documentary pointed out could not be repaid if every house in the country were sold at current market rates. This is obviously unsustainable, indeed so obvious that even advocates of unlimited growth admit it. The documentary rightly sheds light on the huge bureaucracy within the UK's public services. Of 9 million public sector workers, only 2 million are engaged in frontline jobs as teachers, doctors, nurses, firefighters, police officers etc... Instead most sit in offices administering and monitoring others. Many dependent services become self-serving as they only exist to service the administration of the public sector. For instance, an equal opportunities commission does not provide the underprivileged with new opportunities, but merely liaises with other employers and service providers to ensure their client groups are well represented. However, as they're in the communication business, they inevitably require IT, multimedia, printing, catering and transport services and their infrastructure relies on hardware technicians, builders, plumbers, joiners, mechanics and electricians. However, this huge waste of resources is not confined to te public sector. We not only have a huge rise in the third sector of NGOs, charities and not-for-profit foundations promoting this or that agenda, but large corporations, even those with an industrial base, have morphed into miniature states. For all the talk of lean manufacturing and streamlined organisation, most large private sector companies are chock-a-block with non-productive penpushers and people-managers. hile the public sector is undoubtedly inefficient, it is at least in theory accountable to taxpayers. The documentary completely missed the point, why would the government and its corporate masters subsidise non-productive people management on such a large scale? The previous NewLabour government, which ran up the largest deficit in the UK's history, can hardly be accused of not acquiescing to the needs of large transnational corporations. More important before the government began its huge spending splurge following its 2001 re-election, banks had begun lending irresponsibly to millions without stable employment or even on benefits. The UK doesn't just have a public debt, but also a huge private debt to the tune of £1.4 trillion. Most owners of typical 3 or 4 bedroom houses do not really own their homes outright, their bank or building society does. They are in most cases 6 months to a year away from eviction should they fail to honour monthly mortgage repayments. Worst still as property prices skyrocketed in the South East of England, hundreds of thousands took out interest-only mortgages, i.e. for an initial period, usually 1 to 2 years, they pay only interest on their mortgage, but after this period of grace, their monthly repayments go through the roof. Many believed in a era of unprecedented financial growth that 2 years later they would double or triple their earnings and once they were on the property ladder living the middle class dream, life would be sweet. In the end the government had to bail out the bankers, so a good deal of the huge £4.8 trillion debt is actually inherited from the private sector. I would suggest that both the state and corporate sectors wanted to stimulate consumer growth. Miraculously, as NewLabour launched Private Finance Initiatives and continued to transfer public services to private contractors, quangos continued to grow.


Expropriation

Most transfers of ownership from private to public and the from public back to private hands disempower locals and empower transnational corporations. In its early stages in a favourable resource-rich environment , a market economy can theoretically reward hard work and let entrepreneurs build communities around the provision of useful products and services. This certainly appeared to be the case in 19th century North America and even in prosperous enclaves of Western Europe. However, such a system relied on a working class willing to let their bosses profit from their labour in exchange for job security. As small companies grew larger to take advantage of economies of scale and drive industrial development, the proletariat became a distinct class whose interests clashed with those of their bosses. Before the emergence of capitalism, most workers were mere peasants tilling a small plot of land and handing a large proportion of their produce to their landlord as rent. Much of the British economy came under government ownership in the aftermath of the Second World War as much of the country's industrial infrastructure such the still important railways, coal mining, steelworks, health system could not operate effectively at a profit. The State left the profitable sections of the economy to the private sector. Indeed much had controlled by huge state interventions, not least through massive armaments contracts. Nonetheless after the austere 1940s, the 50s and 60s saw the longest period of economic and social betterment, as measured by rapidly decreasing infant mortality, the reduced incidence of poverty-related diseases (such as rickets) and full employment. Although the tertiary sector continued to grow, Britain still had a manufacturing base. Most cars, lorries and trains were still made in the UK as was most industrial machinery, coal and steel. While more and more women chose to pursue careers, most mothers of young children were happy to work as housewives. In many ways the 50s and 60s were the hey day of the modern nuclear family with its typical 2.3 children. Social services still played a relatively marginal role and Health and Safety inspectors were few and far between, hence despite apparent technological limitations before the advent of microprocessor-enabled information technology, public sector bureaucracy was a lot smaller.


Proponents of nationalisation or privatisation often use the democracy argument. Thus nationalisation makes an organisation democratically accountable, while privatisation frees an enterprise of the constraints and inefficiencies of state control and places it in the hands of private shareholders. In reality nationalisation merely transfers ownership to the state, which in turn serves the interests of its corporate backers and usually rewards former owners handsomely, while privatisation leads to a temporary injection of capital into the public coffers, but has always transferred ownership to monopolistic capitalists, thus failing to provide any real competition. We could even argue that nationalising loss-making industries did an enormous favour to venture capitalists as they could invest their compensation oversees, allowing other entrepreneurs to acquire the more profitable remnants when the government privatises again.


The post-war boom would simply not have happened without an advanced welfare state, a healthy and largely contented work force and the survival of strategic energy, transportation and manufacturing industries. Hence even capitalists, claiming to favour a free market, supported nationalisation in the mid 20th century. The Thatcherite revolution practically outsourced most major manufacturing and refocussed on non-productive media and banking, a trend that continued unabated under New Labour. The only segments of Britain's industrial base that remained almost unscathed were the multi-billion pound government-subsidised armaments industry (so-called defence), the pharmaceutical and biotech industries with some niche luxury and entertainment gadget producers. Manufacturing saw a brief comeback in the late 1980s and early 1990s with an influx of American, Japanese and German inward investors. However, by the early twenty-noughties factories resumed closing, replaced only by supermarkets, call centres, entertainment complexes. In 2006 Tessa Jowell promoted regional casinos as a means of job creation and urban renewal in Britain's depressed former industrial heartlands.


In 1997 I suggested to an acquaintance who worked as an advisor for the Labour Party that he'd better save up for his daughter's university education. "Nonsense", he said, "New Labour would always ensure higher education remain accessible to all". A few months later, New Labour announced the introduction of tuition fees, initially just £1000 a year, soon rising to £3000 and now, under the Con-Dem government to £9000. As a result millions of young workers will either have to accept low-paid jobs to escape repaying their loans, thus defeating the purpose of higher education, or forever be in debt. However, the true cost of higher education actually exceeds £9000 a year, but that misses the point, the whole sector is slowly but surely being primed for privatisation, relying on wealthy foreign students and failing to train the country's future generation of engineers, doctors and scientific researchers, while the relative academic value of degrees has been significantly debased. In the 1970s only 15% of school leavers went to uni, by 2010 that number is nearly 50%. Despite the Blairite mantra of education, education, education!!, class sizes have grown and student behaviour worsened leading hundreds of thousands of middle class parents, including Labour cabinet ministers, to send their offspring to private schools. When they consider the costs of a UK university degree, they might as well use their academic loan to send their offspring abroad. I suspect Indian universities will soon start offering cut-price degrees to the same disgruntled moneyed middle classes who travelled to Eastern Europe for cosmetic surgery.


The previous government pumped billions into the national health service, insisting all new hospitals be built via PFI (Private Finance Initiatives). Despite the rhetoric the NHS bureaucracy has mushroomed with billions squandered on management consultants (not doctors) and centralised IT projects, as detailed brilliantly by David Craig in his 2008 book Squandered. More disturbingly, vast sums of public money have been spent not on essential frontline healthcare, but on promoting awareness of new mental illnesses and lifestyle-related ailments ( diabetes, obesity, angina, high blood pressure etc..) hugely boosting demand for pharmaceutical products. Amazingly, the new Con-Dem government, depsite a massive debt, has committed itself to maintaining the previous administration's spending plans. In real terms public health spending has doubled since 1997, yet the nation's health patently hasn't as any gains in prosperity have been offset by culture of hedonism and a growing rich-poor gap. Any recent gains in life expectancy have more to do with improvements that occurred 30-40 years ago (i.e. your life expectancy is largely determined by your health in your 30s and 40s) than multi-million pound anti-smoking campaigns. The US probably has the world's most wasteful healthcare system with 16% of GDP devoted to public and private healthcare. This compares with 10 to 11% in France, Canada and Germany and 8.9% in Italy, 8.7% in Australia, 8.4% in the UK and just 8.1% in Japan, while life expectancy is highest in Japan, France, Italy, Spain, Greece and Iceland, probably more down to diet and lifestyle than provision of drugs. The US Model is to boost public demand for healthcare services persuading more people that they need long-term medication and cosmetic surgery (not included in the above figures), creating a huge comsumer market. In my humble analysis the UK health system is being primed for privatisation in all but name. It has become such a monster as to be completely unsustainable and the corporate elite will rely on a knee-jerk reaction to reports of waste and inefficiencies to soften public opposition to the removal of universal provision of healtcare free at the point of delivery. Nadeem Waylayat of

Market Oracle

has detailed the almost inevitability of the failure of the NHS project ( see

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article23744.html

), however, he seems to welcome its downfall. I hasten to add, when the NHS collapses, millions will suffer the consequences.


Martin Durkin's documentary is just the latest salvo in a war against common sense, i.e. a rational world in which education and healthcare serve the needs of taxpayers rather than those of multinational corporations and are not allowed to become unsustainable. Apparently he has the government on his side as they have now allowed the cloning of animals for human consumption and given the green light to transgenic farming and quiely announced the privatisation of the Royal Mail.

Categories
All in the Mind

Rethinking Autism – Assorted notes

What is Asperger`s Anyway ?

Were this personality type promoted as schizophrenia without psychosis, few parents or affected individuals would ever seek diagnosis, yet the history of the emergence of this social construct clearly demonstrates its origins in psychiatry. In little more than a decade, Asperger`s has become so instilled in the public mind in Anglo-Saxon countries that journalists and playwrights may use it as a byword for social ineptitude or mindblindness. Social workers, teachers, parents and psychologists have contributed to a stereotyped view of this condition. It may refer to a form of mad professor syndrome associated with eccentric habits and incessant lecturing on some niche subject, to extreme social anxiety or to emotional immaturity. Ironically the AS-diagnosed may be considered both extrovert, when lecturing others, and introvert when isolating themselves from social gatherings. These diagnostic inconsistencies have led to the co-diagnosis of more categories such as Semantic Pragmatic Disorder (mad professor syndrome), Social Anxiety Disorder (shyness), Tourettes, Dyspraxia and ADHD. The best definition in support of the orthodox extended Autistic Spectrum Theory concerns purported deficits in the Theory of Mind module and thus an inability to instinctively empathise with others. We cannot deny that many AS-diagnosed individuals, as they are known in the psychiatric literature, seem exceedingly wrapped up in their own micro-worlds and have considerable problems interacting with peers at school, work or in the neighbourhood, often falling victim to bullying and deliberate alienation. The Asperger`s label purportedly provides hope that all this perceived suffering is not the fault of the affected individual, his parents or even necessarily of his peers, but of a lack of awareness of the individual`s neurological difference and society`s failure to accommodate the other-brained. Thus not only mind blindness is equated with physiological handicaps, some see neurological diversity as worthy of same equal rights treatment or positive discrimination as applied to other disadvantaged sections of the community such as women or ethno-racial minorities. However, this hope comes at a considerable price, that of delegating control of one`s own life to external intermediaries. After learning that normal people often bend the truth to avoid offence to others, but also to gain greater social acceptance and personal advantage over others, we are expected to place our trust in nice neurotypicals who have our best interests at heart. As Asperger`s individuals allegedly lack presentational and negotiating skills, they are naturally excluded from representing themselves except under the guidance of professionals and activists in the growing autism sector.

Three Marketing Pitches

The autism sector presents ASDs in three divergent ways, depending on the audience.

  1. When addressing affected individuals the literature emphasises the positives of neurological difference and the need for differentiation from mainstream neurologically typical society. Problems are analysed in terms of aspies' alleged deficits in emotional intelligence, a concept as dubious as categorising people based on intelligence quotient.
  2. When addressing parents and teachers, both positives and negatives are highlighted, but usually in terms of people management and their responsibility to treat their aspie children differently.
  3. When addressing various social, healthcare and law-enforcement agencies, ASDs are presented clearly as psychiatric disorders.

A good aspie accepts not only his or her fundamental neurological difference, but also resigns to the fact that this puts him or her at a disadvantage in mainstream society requiring some form of advocacy. If AS-diagnosed persons were able to stand up for themselves, as some Internet advocacy groups would like to suggest, and form viable independent communities, the label would become meaningless with any perceived disability, stigma or social alienation removed. Yet such communities have never materialised because anyone diagnosed by a mental health professional has logically undergone a period of emotional distress and under-achievement in an important aspect of their life, meaning they are inevitably sucked into the mental health system with its focus on monitoring, medication, work placements and training schemes.

Emotional Intelligence

Clearly not all us show the same degree of emotional sensitivity to others. Some, notably Simon Baron Cohen, have hypothesised a dichotomy of systemising and empathising, with males generally faring better at the former and females tending to excel more at the latter. However, it is possible to construct an alternative explanation for these manifest differences, based more on experience, societal expectations and hormonal changes.

The Control Agenda

NB: Some may view any heading with the key word agenda as a sign of paranoia.

Since the inception of childhood in its modern form, the main institutions responsible for child development have been parents and the local community, with a key role played by religious organisations with a strong presence on the ground. Industrialisation saw the transfer of close-knit rural communities to towns and cities. Indeed to some extent the early educational gains of the renaissance as the growing British economy of the 18th and early 19th centuries demanded child labour. Children had little time to develop emotionally before they entered the tough life of work and assumed responsibilities we now only afford to adults. Some have hypothesised an end of childhood in the post-modern era, in which pervasive media reveal the secrets of adulthood (cf. Neil Postman) leading to earlier sexualisation and a blurring of the distinctions that for many centuries demarcated the key phases of our life. The late 19th and the first six decades of the 20th century probably represented the heyday of the family. Throughout that period a large number of children remained parentless as a result of precarious economic circumstances and migration to more prosperous regions, with many being either adopted by relatives in their extended family or sent to orphanages, run largely by the dominant religious institutions. Fifteen years after the official end of second World War and after a decade of continuous economic growth, by 1960 the vast majority of children were born into stable nuclear families with married parents. More important one parent played the role of primary breadwinner, while the other dedicated herself to multiple roles of house management, childcare, psychotherapy, learning support and public relations. As noted elsewhere, these tasks have now been professionalised. Before the word house-husband entered our customary lexicon, fathers were not absent from children's lives as progressively shorter working weeks and more generous holidays enabled families to spend more time together. By and large society expected mothers to postpone their professional ambitions until their children no longer needed their vigilance, emotional and logistical support. The breadwinner + housewife partnership had considerable flexibility, especially if the family had a small business, with the female partner becoming a key team player in the family's commercial dealings too. Until the late 60s most grocery shopping in the UK was still done in small family-run outlets. This model admittedly had many faults and inequalities. The primary breadwinner technically earned the family's income, purchased or rented the family's property and treasured belongings, offering his spouse spending money. In crude economic terms the housewife was an employee of her husband, but also a dependent in legal terms. For working class housewives without another source of income, low-paid part-time jobs remained the only option.

A number of economic and cultural changes have radically changed the domestic landscape in Western Europe and North America, and nowhere more so than in the UK. Even within a stable marriage, society now expects mothers to return to work as soon as their children start school. Indeed parents receive state subsidies for childcare if they return to work even earlier. Other European countries have lightened the impact of working mothers by extending maternity leave or even, as the case of Sweden and Norway, extending the same rights to fathers. However, for the first time in recent human history most children attend day institutions by the age of 3, with many starting as young as 6 months. If a mother wishes to pursue a career, that means the child spends 6-10 hours of his day away from her/his parents, home environment and often separated from an extended family or close-knit neighbourhood. On her or his return home, the child spends much of the potential quality time not interacting with her or his parents or exploring their immediate surroundings and treasured objects as in traditional households, but often glued to children TV or immersed in a kid-friendly virtual reality preparing them psychologically for a very different world to the one their parents knew. Again cultural comparisons reveal some notable differences among the the world's most prosperous countries. Although Southern European countries have undergone much structural and cultural change over the last few decades, this has manifested itself mainly in lower birth rates, with Italian and Spanish women only having around 1.3 children each on average, smaller family units, much later ages of marriage and more stay-at-home adult offspring. Indeed it is not uncommon for Italians to live with their parents well into their 40s until they marry or are compelled to move for work. Even the most cosmopolitan-minded Southern Europeans, often spending a few years abroad for work experience or master foreign languages, have firm cultural roots much deeper than a mere affinity with their country's number one supermarket chain, top TV shows, top video games or latest rock music. These phenomena are viewed as a superficial layer of international culture. Nowhere is this cultural affinity more embedded, by comparison with the UK, than in cuisine, usually simple with a healthy range of ingredients available locally. Few self-respecting Southern Europeans choose to save time with ready meals, replete with addictive additives. On three measures of lifestyle change, the UK stands at one extreme on an international spectrum.

  1. The UK has the smallest percentage of children growing up in stable families with both parents, with one parent dedicated to their upbringing in their pre-school years.
  2. UK children spend much more time watching television or immersed in other forms of electronic entertainment.
  3. UK children, especially from the lower social categories, are much less likely to eat wholesome meals at the table with the rest of their family.

However, within the British Isles we observe an additional social divide. The above trends are much more entrenched in the lower social classes. A recent survey showed that in the lower 25th percentile over 90% of the children had a TV set in their bedroom usually complete with a DVD player and game console, while in the upper 25th percentile this figure stands at just 50%. Needless to say, in Southern Europe with a much more outdoor lifestyle, even fewer pre-adolescent children have monitors or game consoles in their private space. Many family units with limited floor space do not even have a dining room table, but somehow make room for all sorts of electronic wizardry.

Some commentators view this metamorphosis of childhood as a sign of progress, focussing on other developments such as social disapprobation of corporal punishment both at school and within the family and a growing awareness or rather codification of children's rights. Indeed many look back at the 1960s and 70s as an era of child abuse and intolerance towards people with different sexual orientations or neurological profiles. Nobody can dispute that various forms of child abuse and neglect have existed throughout human history, but as a rule social stability and widely distributed prosperity without the extreme income disparity that we see in modern Britain and in the US tend to reduce the potential social triggers of such abuse. Thus the new orthodoxy maintains that greater social intervention, more psychiatric screening and tougher laws are the best means of preventing child abuse and building a society more at ease with itself. Others [cite] have observed that media preoccupation with abusive adults, antisocial behaviour and dysfunctional families generates a climate of fear and distrust, so even some of the best parents, trying hard to cope in a frenetic society, are referred to social workers or the police. While many desperate cases leave social care professionals with little practical choice, we would dispute that state intervention into the private lives of families is the best way to tackle problems that have socio-economic and cultural roots. However, if the emotional problems that hundreds of thousands of young people undoubtedly face are categorised as personality disorders with a significant genetic component, the case for psychiatric intervention seems much stronger.

It would be way too simplistic to conclude that any single socio-environmental factor, be it the breakup of traditional families, addiction to video games or artificial colourings added to popular fizzy drinks, directly cause any of the new generation of personality disorders. One needs first to analyse the case histories of those diagnosed and identify obvious biological factors, which in the case of the extended autistic spectrum would separate cases of Kanner's and regressive autism from the much larger group diagnosed on the basis of behaviour alone. Next we should reevaluate behavioural autism within the wider social context of early 21st century Britain. Not only do employers place a greater emphasis on teamwork and interpersonal skills, but to survive in modern public sector schools children arguably need to hone much more advanced social skills and adopt much more effective coping strategies if they wish to integrate within the mainstream social and learning environments. The diagnosis of Asperger's, Tourettes, OCD and Social Anxiety Disorder has risen in concomitance with a general trend towards greater atomisation of communities and more geographically distributed social networks, with wide-ranging effects on our sense of self. In such a fluid environment it is not hard to envisage that some individuals fail to fit in and begin to exhibit behavioural traits that teachers, parents and colleagues consider maladaptive and which inevitably lead to social exclusion, which in turn may trigger the onset of more problematic psychological complexes. We see a rise in many other types of labelled syndromes, eating disorders, self-harm, lack of concentration at school or work and various forms of obsessive compulsive behaviour.

Lower-cased social conservatives tend to view the current situation through a different filter, focussing on unruly behaviour, lack of respect and falling academic standards, at least . When criticism of personality disorder screening comes from those who would like to turn the clock back to the 1950s when children allegedly knew their place in society and respected adults , the mental health establishment dons its progressive and liberal coat, advocating greater awareness and tolerance of the neurologically diverse. In reality at stake are different means of social control. Do we trust parents and the local community to raise tomorrow's adult citizens or do we transfer this responsibility to myriad agencies run by the state or funded by large corporations? Media sensationalism serves to convince us that many parents, whether single or living together, are irresponsible and potentially abusive. Even teachers and community workers such as scout leaders or church activists often face allegations of child abuse. In recent years we have seen a huge decline in male primary school teachers, partly because the relatively low salaries on offer fail to appeal to this demographic, but also because many would-be school masters fear accusations of paedophilia. At a time when millions of ordinary children suffer from severe emotional neglect with parents often living apart or working antisocial hours and bullies rife at school, abuse has been redefined as specific acts in which only psychopathic adults indulge. Absent from this simplistic analysis, popularised by the red-top press, is the blurring of boundaries between adulthood and childhood, with both groups often treated as minors worthy of supervision, as noted brilliantly by Michael Bywater's satirical Big Babies. In a nutshell we may think of the old adage 'Treat people like monkeys and they might behave like monkeys'. There is certainly more than anecdotal evidence that the professionalisation of childcare and adult supervision infantilises both groups. Every mental health awareness raising campaign merely spreads the message that many adults cannot be trusted unsupervised. Far from combatting stigma this approach sows the seeds of distrust about conditions of which people were previously unaware, except in the more down-to-earth form of character and moods. A classic example is one busy mother's reaction to her daughter's tantrum in a supermarket car park. Most conscientious parents find such outbursts deeply embarrassing, but also need to prevent further occurrences and not succumb to the temptation to win their child's temporary favour by satisfying their every whim and fancy to avoid public embarrassment. Ms Ball of Luton chose to lock her screaming three year-old daughter in the car while she returned to the supermarket to get some essential groceries, only to return five minutes later by which time a member of the public had reported the incident to the police. A few hours later a police officer turned up at Ms Ball's doorstep. So what lesson did her daughter learn? "Naughty mummy, next time I want her to buy something I'll just scream louder". All too often child abuse is assessed by simplistic criteria such as smacking, shouting or temporary confinement, the latter being increasingly common as politically correct parents reject the former two options. Thus many parents not only have to hold down jobs, but often find themselves between a rock and a hard place when it comes to dealing with problem behaviour. An inability to assert their authority and win a child's respect early on can have catastrophic consequences leading to much more traumatic family rows than short-lived humiliation a child feels at the receiving end of traditional means of parental discipline. Successful and self-confident parents respected by other close friends and family and integrated into a stable community find it much easier to avoid either corporal punishment or extreme capricious behaviour. Many professionals responsible for setting parental guidelines seem unaware of the stigma many parents in precarious employment and personal situations find themselves. If you're under pressure at work, have just lost your job or been abandoned by your partner, you tend to lack self-respect with obvious ramifications for your relationship with your offspring. A child's behaviour and academic performance has been shown to improve simply because their breadwinner parent has secured more rewarding employment, has greater self-confidence and thus is more successful at winning his or her child's respect. In modern parlance a parent who lacks professional success and is isolated from the community is branded a loser, unworthy of respect. The media presents young minds with imagery of role model families with parents always keeping their cool, empathising with their kids by playing sport and indulging in youth culture and pursuing a successful career with plenty of spare time. Reality on the ground contrasts drastically with this rose-tinted vision of postmodern life. Few parents can hope to compete with those portrayed in 1990s American sitcoms, though many try their best often compensating for their failings in sport, dance, personal relationships and professional success by acquiescing to their children's material desires fuelled by a multi-billion pound advertising industry. As a multitude of pressures produces a heightened level of peer competition at school, college and work, it is not difficult to imagine that many would rather leave a cultural rat race and join one of their own making. Parents are often made to feel guilty if they deny their children of the chance to compete culturally with their peers, which often means adapting to subcultures targeted at vulnerable youth markets. In many working class neighbourhoods of provincial Britain to win in the cultural stakes a teenage boy might need the latest and greatest game console with the most awesome first-person shooter game, especially if he fares badly at sport.

The classic portrayal of an aspie boy reciting bus timetables, collecting coins and spending hours on end obsessing with model railway bears little relation the kind of severe emotional problems experienced by millions of young people today and probably belongs to a bygone modernist era in which such pursuits were met with general approval. Early interest in mechanics and numbers can pave the way to a future career in engineering. Indeed the UK has a woeful dearth of competent engineers, often importing human resources from far and wide for routine tasks such as as railway maintenance or road building.

Psychologists [cite] observed interactions between engineers from Germany, Britain and some other countries who collaborated on the design of a new Airship in 2002 [verify]. Language was not the main barrier as English served as the lingua franca for all work-related matters. While one might not expect the German engineers to understand the subtleties of colloquial native English and its myriad regional accents, the setting in Germany meant most adapted to a more standardised form of English. Instead the main barrier proved to be the engineers' attitude to teamwork. Anglo-Saxon engineers would thrive in technical meetings and at working in groups, while German engineers would thrive at creative autonomous work, often taking the initiative to introduce new features in line with their understanding of technical requirements and finding the endless technical meeting of their British and American colleagues a pointless waste of resources. Indeed the latter groups often proved unable to undertake any task without guidance or rather without the benefit of groupthink. Ironically this collective approach seldom reaches a consensus by considering the experience and views of all those involved, but rather tends to invite members lower in the pecking order to go with the flow. In any meeting of mind, some enjoy higher status than others and most participants, especially those more in tune with the teamwork ethos, would rather voice their creatively worded agreement than raise a contrary opinion or simply suggest new ways to implement collective decisions, but challenge those key policy decisions. Commercial organisations cannot afford to have large numbers of ambitious engineers or programmers working creatively on their own projects with conflicting approaches. In reality the teamwork ethos compels participants to adapt to the will of their team leader who in turn reports to a multi-tiered bureaucracy of project managers, who tend to view everything in terms of the allocation of human resources. Post-modern teaching techniques also favour a groupthink mentality. Most notably UK and US schools have a strong bias towards group work over whole-class teaching with extensive time reserved for homework, as practised in countries as diverse as Germany, France, Italy, Japan and Korea. The Anglo-Saxon models focuses on a child's ability to integrate into a team rather than adhere to a core curriculum, taught to the whole class, while developing more specialised skills independently. In a group teaching situation a child who has finds it harder than others to mingle with his or her classmates is at a natural disadvantage, often lacking motivation and inspiration to learn.

One cannot fail to observe the huge rise in the UK in the number of learning support staff. One often sees large classes with over 30 pupils split into a smaller groups of 4-6 with one class teacher and a lower-paid learning support assistant working alongside a pupil diagnosed with a behavioural disorder and/or learning difficulty. Indeed other children fail to distinguish naughty classmates, who need special help because of their behaviour, from thick kids, who need special help because they can't grasp key concepts. They all just receive the generic label of special needs, increasingly uttered on playgrounds in a derogatory manner. Learning support staff also seem equally confused, often applying the same approach to intellectually gifted children diagnosed with AS as to children failing to attain basic levels of literacy and numeracy for their age. However, rather than blame teaching staff for their lack of awareness of a growing array of personality and learning disorders, we need merely observe that children within the same diagnostic category exhibit a huge range of learning and behavioural patterns.

Autistogenesis

Social commentators have observed how the media treats the general population like children whose complaints and dissatisfaction are based on an incomplete or rather immature appraisal of the facts, i.e. they are simply not aware of the true complexity of the situation and are thus ill-qualified to judge tough decisions that politicians have had to take. This assumes, naturally, that politicians have a better grip on reality than average resident of a suburban sprawl estate commuting 30 miles to work everyday and witnessing first-hand the transformation of her or his country of birth. When someone cries wolf, simply stating the obvious, their opinion is often defined by leading political pundits as ill-considered or worse deeply prejudiced. A more rational analysis reveals that politicians tend to protect vested state or commercial interests, which may naturally not correspond with those of large sections of their electorate. This general establishment attitude has no unique qualities. For much of history the general populace just got on with their mundane lives owing due allegiance and respect to local leaders. With low material expectations most were content just to earn a living, so necessities like food, shelter and security mattered much more than abstract concepts like democracy. Indeed throughout much of its history Western democracy has really involved a consultation process with competing social and commercial forces with voting power linked either to one's social status or wealth. Universal suffrage is a relatively phenomenon, but to last without rocking any boats or challenging elite interests it has to be micromanaged. One may look back to heyday of two party politics in the UK in which the Conservative and Labour seemed to offer voters alternative policies with the latter championing reforms to bring about a more egalitarian redistribution of wealth with a wider social safety net. Fast forward to the early 20th century and the main parties differ little of any of the fundamental issues of the day. Indeed the social forces that have given rise to the new generation of personality disorders started under a Conservative government and continued unabated under a Labour government. So why do ordinary people not rebel and form their own parties more representative of their true feelings? Let us consider three possible answers. First people are simply too immersed in their busy lives of work and entertainment to spare a thought for political alternatives, so they merely respond emotionally to the rhetoric of mainstream politicians, often taking the lead of popular media pundits. Second when groups do offer policies outside the mainstream consensus, they are quickly deemed extremist, prejudiced or simply naïve wishful thinking. Third, the media invest billions dumbing people down diverting attention from the real issues at stake, spreading fear and fomenting reactions that effectively empower remote institutions, e.g. a food poisoning scare may lead to the closure of small farms and traders and consolidate the domination of large supermarkets as only the latter can afford to meet new food safety regulations. So adults are expected to vote, but are only considered mature or worthy of respect if they exercise their electoral power within the confines of mainstream political parties. Here we see a dichotomy between largely upper middle class political activists, who have the time and resources to engage in the democratic process, and the masses who are merely expected to place a cross next to their preferred brand of the establishment party. As long as dissent can be confined to a small politicised minority or denounced as the wild rants of ill-informed plebs, it can be micromanaged. Undoubtedly the political insight of individuals within the general population varies enormously. When an infamous big brother contestant, later accused of racism, erroneously claimed Margaret Thatcher was leader of the Labour Party, media pundits had a field day. How can we trust ignoramuses like this to determine our country's future direction, they wondered. That the then Labour leader, Tony Blair, followed very much in Margaret Thatcher's footsteps taking her reforms to the next level seemed irrelevant, today's youth are expected to know who plays for which team, but not necessarily to analyse their actions.

We see the same social dynamic at play in the management of any workplace. Some get promoted to managerial positions while others either specialise in technical roles or accept a lowly status. Presumably the skills required to rise through the glass ceiling relate not just to one's professional competence, but to one's emotional intelligence. If you lack people skills, you are effectively excluded from all client-facing or people-managing positions. You become a faceless implementer of requirements that others have set. The transition from a largely manufacturing and mercantile economy to a service-led information economy has led to a proliferation of sales representatives, project managers, advertising executives, consultants, public speakers and creative writers whose main role is to persuade others to buy products, change their working patterns or simply toe the corporate line. And they do so with increasing sophistication. Only a generation ago most workers had specific and largely methodical jobs. As long as they understood what was expected of them and could perform their assigned tasks to the management's satisfaction and did not rock any boats or break any explicit rules, little else mattered. To succeed an engineer of the modern area needs an obsessive interest in their chosen specialisation, requiring prolonged periods of analysis and research to the exclusion of social niceties. Let us consider a technical feasibility study on the conversion of an old warehouse into luxury apartments, experience in structural engineering and hard geophysical facts are required. An analysis based on social osmosis, seeking guidance from the perceived integrity of other qualified experts, may lead to disastrous decisions, such as investing large amounts of capital into a project doomed to failure due to underlying structural weaknesses or wasting valuable resources on demolishing a building that was structurally intact and replacing it with a substandard building. To obtain an objective judgement, based on solid experience, you need to consult someone with a clear focus on the matter at hand, but easily swayed by emotions and thus influenced by peer pressure. Within a relatively short time span social networking and an aptitude to assimilate into a hive mentality have to varying degrees become prerequisites for most jobs in a post-industrial world. Indeed in many organisations we a social stratification at play, in which talented technical staff deemed to lack social skills are micromanaged by project managers, often younger than their human resources, whose role is to smooth relations between different team players, but in reality enforce an agenda determined by upper management. On closer analysis this burgeoning people management bureaucracy serves purposes other than efficiency or worker-management relations. It effectively prevents individual teamplayers involved in a small technical aspect of a larger project from seeing the whole picture.

Key Points

  1. We should challenge the validity of the extended autistic spectrum theory (AST) as a meaningful diagnostic category, but stress that subgroups within it may have more consistent and identifiable causal pathways.
  2. Both psycho-social and biological factors may cause antisocial or even psychopathic behaviour. We can change the former by nurturing a more socially cohesive, egalitarian, sustainable and less stressful community, while the latter requires invasive intervention into people's private lives.
  3. We should stress the wide range of symptoms, behavioural patterns, performance and outcomes associated with ASDs. They need not have the same causal pathways, though of course the AST (as defined above) can only be understood in its social context.
  4. ASDs tend to be defined by behaviour, which in my mind says little about their causes. A closer analysis reveals that a high proportion of those deemed to have severe autistic symptoms from an early age have other medical conditions pointing to a biological cause. Rather than focusing on the neurodevelopmental consequences of the underlying medical conditions, which may result in behavioural patterns now considered autistic, autistic spectrum theorists try to link their problems with the behaviour exhibited by other categories of perfectly functional human beings, whose behavioural deviance may be caused by largely psycho-social factors and some minor biological variables (somatopsychic).
  5. Biological factors are both numerous and complex and not necessarily genetic. Genes are little more than a blueprint determining the more physical and mechanical aspects of our personhood. The efficiency and sensitivity of motor and sensory processing may be influenced within the same species by minor genetic variations, but also by diet, contaminants, radiation etc.
  6. Neuroplasticity may also explain how some deviant behaviours may become so ingrained that a person finds it hard to unlearn habits that others consider dysfunctional or fails to learn skills that to others is second nature, e.g. my father never learned to swim or the fact I'm so bad at ball games may partly be attributed a lack of rigourous training in key stages of childhood. A brain develops post-partum fine-tuned specialised logical modules (or circuits) required to survive in a given cultural setting, e.g. in hunter-gatherer societies acute hand-eye co-ordination and premonition would be essential skills, while mental arithmetic would be of limited utility.
  7. Psychiatry. Recently we`ve seen a blurring of the distinctions traditionally made between psychology, psychiatry, psychopathology and neurology. As I commented rather provocatively on my blog site, we don`t really need psychiatry, but this should not be interpreted as an offence against individual psychiatrists who have the best interests of their clients/patients at heart. Indeed in my recent experience many psychologists, social workers and autism/personality disorder professionals adhere much more to the psychiatric model than many real psychiatrists, well aware of the psycho-socio elements in the bio-psycho-socio triad. Nobody can seriously doubt that some behaviours are either immoral or antisocial and others very dysfunctional, the issue at stake is whether a large section of the general population has significant cerebral defects that require lifelong intervention of one form or another. It is my understanding that psychology is the science of the mind and neurology the science of the brain. Criminology is self-explanatory and psychopathology suggests some people`s minds may be so warped as to be totally oblivious to the psychosocial consequences of their actions on others. Where does this leave psychiatry? To me the psychiatric model supports the notion that all deviant or unacceptable behaviour is caused by a defect in the person`s brain. In my mind we need psychology and neurology. Criminologists, depending how society defines criminality, may then investigate the psycho-socio-bio causes crime.
  8. Mercury and MMR: It stands to reason that if the AST is invalid then not all cases on this spectrum may be attributed to a single cause. The diagnostic rise did start before the introduction of MMR, but sky-rocketed in the mid 1990s several years after its introduction. However, we can only seriously link bio-chemical contaminants with regressive autism, in which relatively normal progress goes into reverse gear at between 18 to 36 months of age. I can certainly vividly remember my children`s key stages of development in this period. In short, as you are probably aware, there are two hypotheses. The first relates to the live measles virus in the triple jab. Donna Williams, (born in the same year as me), suggested regressive autism may be immunoglobulin G deficiency, but still strongly recommended the MMR jab for everyone else. I was very much in favour of having my two kids vaccinated (too many of Michael Crichton`s bio-scare novels maybe), while Stefania had doubts, fuelled mainly by an Italian friend of hers who rejected all forms of vaccination. The MMR jab in Italy at the time was thimerosal-free, while the UK variant was not until 2001 I believe. More important because of large anti-vaccination movement and widespread public scepticism, its uptake was as low as 50% in many areas, yet despite the occasional outbreak of measles very few cases of measles-induced brain damage or fatalities resulted. Indeed I can recall getting measles and rubella myself (but failing to get mumps) when most just considered a childhood disease that would help build your body`s defences. If anything what concerns me most is the media`s manipulation of this scandal (first playing it up largely through the Daily Mail and a Channel 5 debate and then setting up Andrew Wakefield as a fall guy, vilified especially in the Guardianesque liberal press. Now citing a Danish study showing no significant difference in the prevalence of autism between MMR-vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, the establishment appears complacent in its desire to push ahead with new mass medication initiatives. This has to some extent confused the public with a false debate about the efficacy of vaccines, rather than the causes of severe behavioural disorders. The second hypothesis, much more credible IMHO, relates to mercury and other heavy metal poisoning, especially in combination with high levels of testosterone. Intriguingly Dr J B Handley, a proponent of this thesis, cites Simon Baron Cohen`s research revealing a higher levels of testosterone in subjects considered on the autistic spectrum. More important, vaccines are not the only source of heavy metals. Some research, cited by Dr Handleys, shows that amalgam fillings not only pass the blood-brain barrier, but can be transmitted to newborns perinatally. Also exposure to various forms of radiation may cause neurological damage. Currently most controversy relates to the links between mobile phones and microwaves in general and brain cancer, but let us not forget the good old X-Ray, until the 1980s often used during pregnancy. I did find this odd link http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/radiation.html from what I`d consider to be a pro-psychiatry source (namely favouring the genetic causation of psychosis).
  9. Epilepsy: A sizeable proportion of ASD individuals, especially those with more severe emotional withdrawal, learning handicaps and stims, have at some stage had epileptic seizures. Obviously millions of epileptics do not exhibit autistic behaviour, but the seizures may affect different parts of the brain and in some individuals the brain may be better able to reorganise itself after a seizure. I mentioned the case of a young man I had worked with on a council project. He too had been diagnosed with Asperger`s, but required 24/7 support and the permanent presence of a key worker. It turns out he had regular epileptic seizures as a teenager and regressed rapidly after the age of 7. These are case notes his employability advisor divulged to me in confidence. I also know of someone who had been erroneously given strong anticonvulsants for 15 years ending up in a day centre alongside people with severe learning disabilities. When his medication was withdrawn, his mental faculties returned. Could we not simply be classifying all sorts of diverse cases under one happy umbrella.
  10. Possible causal categories:
  1. Rare genetic deformities of the brain.
  2. Heavy metal poisoning and/or exposure to radiation causing varying degrees of cerebral abnormalities affecting language, cognition, perception and fine-motor control.
  3. Excessive cultural emphasis on the importance of physical perfection and dexterity in culturally significant sports and pursuits, i.e. the coolness factor (see below) to the detriment of otherwise perfectly functional human beings.
  4. Emotional neglect and/or cultural alienation inducing emotional withdrawal and depression with the onset of many features associated with Asperger`s Syndrome.
Trait

Overlapping psychiatric labels

Lack of eye contact

Depression, social anxiety disorder. In general a lack of eye contract results from lack of self-confidence either to due to one`s state of mind or self-image. The same person may exhibit widely different degrees of reciprocal eye-contact in different social situations.

Deficiency in processing nonverbal communication, especially subtle facial expressions.

Semantic Pragmatic Disorder and to a lesser extent bipolar affective disorder. This deficiency is at best relative. Baron-Cohen and others have suggested a brain module responsible for processing nonverbal information often quoting research showing as much as 90% of information is conveyed through means other than mere spoken or written words. A classic example would be a weather forecast presented by an attractive scantily clad and soft-spoken woman on an idyllic beach. Clearly viewers would process much more information than meteorological data. Asperger`s individuals are considered literal thinkers. However, all aspies I`ve met not only respond to nonverbal cues, but actively use expressions and gestures to express emotions. The vacant expressions associated with a subset of the AS diagnosed can easily be attributed to a sense of alienation from mainstream social culture and in some cases to side effects of antipsychotic medication.

Encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus

OCD, except in this condition the obsession itself is considered dysfunctional or maladaptive while in AS it is just an all-consuming fascination that excludes interest in a broader range of culturally appropriate subjects. However, a more detached analysis would reveal that a high proportion of the population have obsessive interest in a narrow range of subjects, except they do so in an adaptive and culturally appropriate way.

Failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level

ADHD, Semantic Pragmatic Disorder. This really refers to the core reason many parents, teachers or social workers to seek to have their children diagnosed in the first place, a failure to fit in. AS-diagnosed children are often reported to be more at ease with teachers or

A lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interest or achievements with other people

Depression. As a rule a lack of self-confidence in social situations and a preoccupation with one`s own problems tends to exclude interest in other people`s lives and interests. My observations would suggest a huge range within the general population in the ability to empathise with other people`s lives. Those who succeed very well in this enterprise may find it easier to make friends and take on team-leading roles. However, the extent to which one can feign interest in all subjects or empathise with all predicaments is limited. Usually a socially adept person can empathise with a range of interests and emotions within the common experience of their culture. Thus this statement is simply a generalisation that holds true for most people diagnosed with AS. One reason some people may not seem so eager to share achievements is a general sense of inferiority in everything but their chosen specialisation.

Stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms

Depression, Bipolar Affective Disorder: This criterion really refers to severe autistics. However, tics are not uncommon within the general population as a reaction to a traumatic experience or way of coping with an inferiority complex. The kind of never-ending stims, such as persistent rocking, associated with Kanner`s and regressive autistics are rare in AS individuals, whose mannerisms match more closely the kind of nervous twitches common in depressed persons in general. That these symptoms can be observed in large proportion of AS-diagnosed individuals proves little about their cause. Of note, many psychoactive medications, both SSRIs and antipsychotics, have nervous twitches as known side effects.

Persistent preoccupation with parts of objects

Humanity: Obsessive interest in objects is characteristic not only of a depressed and withdrawn state of mind, but also of a phase of discovery and exploration. If someone had not fixated long enough on the tendency of logs to roll down slopes, the wheel may never have been invented. Most people fixate with a very narrow range of objects.

  1. The ADHD Connection: This condition has received more critiques largely because it is more readily diagnosed in the US, UK and other countries who follow the Anglo-American psychiatric model and because of the rather obvious role of large pharmaceutical multinationals in the promotion of this disorder, treated most commonly with methylphenidate. As most ADHD-diagnosed children show few signs of the kind of emotional withdrawal and obsessive interest characteristic of autistic spectrum disorders, including this category within the autistic spectrum would confuse parents of severely autistic children and the public perception of autism as a one-dimensional spectrum of varying degrees of introversion. However, on the ground hundreds of thousands of parents have their children first diagnosed with ADHD when they first encounter problems with social integration at school, only to have the diagnosis reviewed and changed to Asperger`s Syndrome when their child reveals a special academic talent and slightly longer attention span than previously feared. It certainly appears odd that the same child may first cause concern due to his alleged lack of focus and then due to his obsessive focus in one subject. Many social workers in the UK have observed that working class kids are more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD, while children with better educated parents tend to receive an AS label. Whichever way, in an alarming number of cases, Ritalin is offered as an integral part of the treatment. Diane M. Kennedy wrote a whole book, the ADHD Autism Connection, with a forward by none other than autism celebrity Temple Grandin. The last two chapters are dedicated to treatment and it should come as little surprise that overall the book is very much in favour of medication albeit emphasising that misdiagnosis may lead to the prescription of the wrong medication. Ms Kennedy not only see links with ADHD, but with Bipolar Affective Disorder and Manic Depression. If we extend the autistic spectrum to cover people liable to be diagnosed with these labels, then we may soon reach as much as 10% of the population. The fact is there are no neat dividing lines between these categories. Rather than infinitely extending the autistic spectrum, we should reassess its validity. It may only make sense when severe developmental impairments are observed within the first 24 months of life, with all subsequent emotional problems down to a combination of environmental influences interacting with one`s physical inheritance.
  2. Autism as a State of Mind: So far we have considered two interpretations of this catch-all term, a pervasive cerebral disorder and neurological variable that one may have to varying degrees. However, there is a third perspective. Autism is simply a state of mind common to the whole of humanity. In a nutshell, we may think of this phenomenon as "being totally wrapped up in oneself and the immediate physical world to the exclusion of the wider social world". This is certainly our initial state as newborns. In the first days of life a baby can quickly adapt to surrogate mothers as long as her/his basic needs are met, but after a week or more of close proximity with a mother figure, her/his whole world becomes the mother figure and the fulfilment of her/his personal needs. To feel embarrassment, sadness, inferiority or alienation represents an awareness of, but an inability to integrate with, the wider social world. Thus a completely autistic person would feel no embarrassment or sorrow. At a party a genuine autistic, by this definition, would happily stand alone in the corner with tomato juice spilt all over his shirt playing a moronic video game on his portable game console, totally oblivious to the emotions of other human beings in the same room. By contrast a typical AS-diagnosed person would feel deep embarrassment and quickly sneak out at the earliest opportunity. The crucial variables here are our sense of self (cf. Kenneth Gergen`s Multiphrenia theory) and cultural influences on personal development (cf. Michael Bywater`s satirical book Big Babies).

Autistogenic Culture

I like this coinage, but it can logically only refer to psycho-social influences. Thus if autism, as a cerebral difference, may only apply to a miniscule percentage (0.2% by NAS statistics) of severely handicapped autistics, we have to move on to another definition of autism. If a person`s brain is unable to assimilate the full depth of recent cultural change, as in the case of many people with severe intellectual impairment, autism is an acultural phenomenon, but we take the above definition of autism as a state of mind culture may indeed induce autistic behaviour. Beyond the first few hours of postnatal life, nobody is completely autistic as defined above. Our subsequent development may lead us to exhibit various forms of awareness of and concern for other people`s feelings. Consider if you will the current craze among many urban teenagers to play load rap music on their mobile phones in buses and trains. This behaviour annoys a large proportion of passengers, though few complain. Do they simply want to enjoy the music, usually very distorted, without earphones or do they deliberately want to annoy anyone who does not share their musical taste? In other words to what extent can we define their behaviour as deliberately antisocial and to what extent are they simply unaware of other people`s feelings? We might define this as social autism, introversion not into oneself but into a small clique within a larger social group, resulting in total indifference to the feelings of those outside the clique. However, I'd dispute that in today's interconnected and media-saturated world anyone can be truly isolated from the wider reality of mass socialisation. We just integrate differently with societal expectations.

Many have observed the absurdity that in modern Britain some of us hardly ever talk to our neighbours, but thinks nothing of communicating with friends, colleagues or just vague acquaintances thousands of miles away, just because they share an interest or indulgence with us. The logic of globalisation has persuaded many of us of the need to conform with remote global norms as taught in leading educational establishments, broadcast on TV and popularised via numerous high traffic Web sites, leaving aside generations of familial culture and leading a general distrust of recalcitrant neighbours still wedded to the old ways. So while we may gain friends in remote locales, we lose friends in the geographic community. Indeed even the concept of community has morphed from a group of people living in close proximity and sharing resources, services and values to one of an amorphous collection of human beings who share some special interest. Thus we have the gay community, the Java developer community, the Star Wars fans community, the Halo gamers community, not to mention the Autistic Spectrum scene. (Of note some European languages such as German retain their native term for the geographic community, but use the English word for virtual community). Unlike close-knit geographic communities, none of these communities can exist in isolation. Members of the Java developers community may be gifted programmers but lack a sufficient diversity of skills and social cohesion to form a viable self-sustaining community. Traditionally most geographic communities have had to develop some degree of functional autonomy for the provision of essential goods and services. Each community would have its highly skilled tradespeople, farmers, builders, joiners, market gardeners, bakers, fishmongers, butchers and more recently plumbers, electricians, mechanics and engineers. Individual members of the community would respond largely to community demands, which may naturally stem from geostrategic and technological developments elsewhere, but nonetheless as perceived locally. Fast forward to modern Britain and we find over 90% of the grocery trade controlled by a handful of supermarket chains. Geographic communities have been replaced by housing estates, which may attract residents from a wide geographic area with diverse ethnocultural backgrounds and thus little emotional loyalty to their place of abode. Supermarket chains compete to win planning permission to meet local demand, which itself depends on remote macro-economic conditions. Supermarket staff seldom learn the trade from close relatives or choose to pursue this career path. Rather they are trained to work as part of large corporations and usually view their employment there as a temporary money-earner. With the exception of managerial staff, few superstore staff remain in the same workplace for longer than two years. Thus lasting loyalty to the family business is replaced by transitory allegiance to a corporate entity.