by Ian Brady
Good laws left to the interpretation of evil men are no longer good. Therefore it follows that good laws should be framed as clearly and as unequivocally as a written constitution, to obviate any possibility of deliberate misinterpretation and nullification. Such laws should be applicable to all, including politicians, intelligence services (foreign and domestic) and every agent of law enforcement. Exceptions lead to general contempt.
Those who aspire to have immutable rules of conduct, good or evil, are nevertheless secretly plagued by doubt like everyone else. Only the church believes in saints. Absolutists are invariably absolute fools. And not least because they absolutely expect to be absolutely believed. As stated, all but the insane are well aware whenever personal actions conflict with their true beliefs, as opposed to their socially conditioned responses.
I believe every intelligent individual, whether predominantly good or evil, possesses a mostly idiosyncratic moral gyroscope which reminds him whether he is in conflict with his own moral and ethical convictions or merely those of others. Individuality is the supreme value, in my opinion, not regimentation or servile social assimilation.
In case my use of the words ‘good’ and ‘evil’ be misconstrued in a narrow theological sense, I must explain that they are meant to be interpreted, as previously implied, within the wider framework of moral and metaphysical philosophy. I examine religious teachings through the microscope of psychology, psychiatry, criminology, anthropology, literature, zoology and the principles of forensic science in general. Religion taken neat can be toxic. People drink a lot on Sunday evenings to get rid of the hangover left by attending church.
Am I alone in experiencing that the dirge-like cadence of a preacher’s delivery induces drowsiness, an acute sense of absurdity, an uncomfortable suspension of disbelief, an emetic voiding of natural vitality?
In an obviously uncertain and chaotic world, those who smugly believe preachers are delivering the gospel truth represent, in my eyes, an insult to intelligence and a manifest example of criminal delusion. Even the most elementary refutatory evidence of modern medical science and eclectic philosophy appear not to affect the religious fanatic. Not so much faith versus free will, but faith versus common sense.
Had Christ been crucified in the manner commonly depicted, it is a physical fact that his body weight would have immediately ripped the iron nails straight through his hands. The precepts and concepts of the gospels, written decades after Christ’s death, were plagiarised from Judaism and Hellenism. Modern moral philosophy has not added significantly to the tenets of the ancient.
Prophets and preachers would do better to practise a more profound degree of humility and scientific introspection, hopefully resulting in humanistic insight and less dogmatic prohibition. However, as Luke states, even ‘He that humbleth himself wisheth to be exalted.’
By dwelling lightly upon morality and ethics up to this point, mainly in relation to examining, through relativistic principles, their orthodox/unorthodox interpretation and application by the minority upon the majority, you may be assuming that I regard such synthetic codes of conduct as the prime values and purpose of life. I do not. To me, as previously indicated, they are simply inescapable conditioned aspects of whatever country you had the good fortune or misfortune to be born into. Governments, with their whimsical, Populist morality and ethics, come and go, but bureaucracies eternally survive by more dependable amoral principles.
Had you been born and spent your life up till now in, let us say, the rainforests of the Amazon, you would not be devoting so much of your life and energy to conformity with the convoluted moral abstractions of others. In such primal circumstances, the individualistic urge to experience all one can, before losing the race against death, would naturally evolve as paramount. Individual quality of life is more relevant than quantity, both physically and intellectually.
Zest is the vital ingredient one should seek. Some are born with it.
As previously indicated, most people observe legal, moral and ethical boundaries for immediate personal comfort or from timidity. The criminal is more attracted and stimulated by the excitement of challenging the norm, of stepping into forbidden territory like a solitary explorer, consciously thirsting to experience that which the majority have not and dare not.
Nature abhors not only a vacuum but right angles. Likewise, unconditioned human nature is inclined towards, and more fascinated by, the crooked.
Many are content to confine such forbidden journeys to the mind and, frankly, by so doing, most probably achieve more pleasure and satisfaction than they would from committing the deed itself.
Being in the position of having tasted both fantasy and deed, I can candidly testify that fantasy is invariably more hedonistically superior, its creator having the advantage of omnipotence. The safer one feels from interruption or capture, the more intense and rounded the act.
I can also state with authority that, contrary to popular belief, much crime is tedious and repetitive hard work, wearing on the nerves and an anticlimax. In the words of the song by Peggy Lee, after the completion of each successive, escalating crime, the criminal is left spiritually asking himself: ‘Is That All There Is?’ Pervasive emptiness accentuates a nihilistic syndrome. The hunt for the chimerical key to knowledge, life, power or the ultimate sensation becomes a never-to-be-satisfied addiction.
In performance of the deed itself, the perpetrator is either greatly preoccupied and distracted by the constant danger of discovery, the fear of leaving some clue behind, or, in some instances, the psychological impact of confronting the enormity of the crime’s reality. It is not uncommon for perpetrators to overestimate their own callousness.
The determined professional’s surest way to overcome physical and spiritual weakness is to programme himself in advance by auto-hypnosis techniques — which I shall expand upon as we advance.
There are of course a minority of criminals who enjoy the danger most of all, like lovers who add piquancy to sex by performing in public locations. To such aficionados, the main purpose of the crime is almost secondary.
I contend that most people, criminal or otherwise, consciously/subconsciously regard aesthetics as the dominant physical and metaphysical value of existence. They may simultaneously pay lip service to legality and morality whilst atavistically regarding them as irritating hindrances to primal biological inclinations. Only the compensatory delusions of theology attribute moral and ethical values to a patently indifferent universe.
The doctrines of Christianity synthesize a death cult, an hallucinatory invitation to corruption and decay. Its adherents sing songs of praise to empty skies which rain visions of hell upon heretics, diverting attention from the all-precious present. This suicidal concept should be made criminal were it not already dying of its own accord.
Nowadays, belief in the possibility of a higher intelligence on other planets is more acceptable and appealing than the concept of a Creator responsible for our earthly bedlam.
The hope is now for physical rescue rather than metaphysical redemption. Children believe more devoutly in the magical benefits of Santa Claus than the verbiage of Christ and the dirge-like intoning of moralistic parables by his far-from-joyous servants.
To paraphrase Shakespeare, Christianity is increasingly regarded as a tale told by an idiot, full of inhuman ideals and absurd prejudices, signifying nothing. Its main social function of course is to delude and keep order among the justifiably malcontent. But even prison should be seen as preferable to religious lobotomy.
Show me someone who would hesitate to lie or commit a crime in order to protect or help a loved one or friend, and I will show you a truly inhuman criminal or madman. Laws and externally enforced moral and ethical norms are put into their proper secondary perspective in affairs of emotion when it makes one feel good to break the law if need be.
By this route, breach of law is gradually perceived as relatively acceptable, and statutes not at all as sacrosanct as many would have you
tamely believe. Everything made by man can be unmade.
Longevity or universal acceptance is of no essential relevance in the context of endlessly fluctuating anthropological and biological values. Ubiquity should not be equated with merit, nor conformity with virtue. We are, at this stage of human knowledge, merely myths created by religion. Viewed scientifically, the death of a human being is of no more significance than that of any other animal on earth.
Superior human intelligence is no mark of divinity. Empirically, it reveals a superior savagery. No other animal on earth is so inclined to slaughter its own kind in regular global conflicts, apparently subject to the Orwellian expedient that some people are made more in the image of God than others.
The plain and perhaps regrettable fact is that it is part of the eternal human psyche and cycle for the normal individual to derive cathartic satisfaction and enjoyment from savouring the crimes of others, and from luxuriously dreaming of personally committing them. Similar cathartic satisfaction is afforded by contemplating the punishment of those who are caught. Nobody likes a loser and therefore we believe they get what they deserve.
What do you believe you deserve for the undetected crimes and secret moral outrages you have committed in thought or action? Absolution?
CHAPTER TWO
One must have a good memory to be able to keep the promises one makes.
One must have a strong imagination in order to feel sympathy.
So closely is ethics connected with intellectual capacity.
Nietzsche
The allied judges at Nuremberg, in justifying their condemnation of German war crimes, proclaimed, ‘Any immoral law must be disobeyed.’ But, as the history of warfare has profusely illustrated since, the countries responsible for this grandiose principle of judgment meant it to apply only to Germany and not themselves.
To the freethinker or relativist, personal beliefs and principles — rather than external social dogma — dictate action. Truth be told, we owe genuine loyalty only to our loved ones and close friends. It is to whom we give our word that matters, not the giving of it.
People often blind themselves to the harsh moral dichotomy that the harms they would not do to a loved one or friend can be perpetrated, without any significant qualm, upon strangers.
Whatever laws you believe you have a right to break, accepting the possible social and legal consequences, you will do so willingly and without remorse. But it is patently superstitious to believe that all lawbreaking automatically exacts some degree of personal remorse. In general, politicians, intelligence personnel and criminals only bother to heed laws when they’re not attempting to bend or circumvent them. Law, to such individuals, is likened to an interesting and often irritating obstacle course.
To be bound by law distinctly advantages those who are not. It is therefore the duty of the powerful and over-privileged to frame laws that exploit and maintain this status quo. The social elite, like the criminal, allow no law to deflect their purpose and are adept at using legality against those who oppose them.
Will you not admit that sometimes it’s a most stimulating experience to do something you don’t want to do, don’t approve of, and are legally proscribed from experiencing — just to discover new aspects of yourself and others? This is something which I will presently refer to as spiritually switching on the dark. The forbidden fascinates all, naturally attracting rather than repelling. As we all know, banning or censoring draws crowds. This reflects the low intelligence of the censorious in many instances, or political corruption and greed, as in the case of the powerful alcohol and tobacco lobbies, whose products kill millions annually, but who advocate the outlawing of less harmful drugs such as cannabis purely to maintain high profits and tax yield.
Does virtue have its own reward? You may live a blameless life, and perform charitable deeds for three-score years and ten, but if you ultimately commit one crime, you are nevertheless become a ‘criminal.’ Those of you who are forever baying for harsher laws and punishments should remember the blatantly obvious truth that the very wealthy and powerful are the lawmakers, and that no one accumulates such a high degree of wealth and power by honest and legal means.
‘Crime Does Not Pay’ — except for the elite, of course. With the underclasses even deprived of the hope of honest work, crime remains the only feasible option for survival. The American private prison industry also operates on that premise. Glossy brochures to shareholders proclaim: ‘While arrests and convictions are steadily on the rise, profits are to be made from crime. Get in on the ground floor of this booming industry now! . . . With the advent of a new administration, stocks for the private correctional management firms, crime-fighting sector and security industry will jump even higher than their current growth rate . . . Just consider the current inmate populations in adult facilities combined with population growth of juvenile detention centres. Invest now!’
Shareholders have a vested interest in making sure that prisons do not reform and rehabilitate. Society need not worry about unemployment or care about the underprivileged, as long as enough prison warehouses are constructed to store those forced to commit crime in order to survive. This mercenary political programme, inducing others into crime rather than providing jobs and adequate welfare, could be construed as a criminal offence in itself.
The age of reason and hope is in terminal decline. The ruling elite are abandoning even the paternal pretence of thinking in terms of general welfare. So why should anyone else?
Robbed of traditional identities and social cohesion, the underclasses of the West are now spiritless in their submission. Yawning gulfs have come between the very rich, the middle class who serve them, and what one might cynically describe as the economy class, which is now replaced by robotic technology.
As the dispossessed turn more and more naturally to crime, it becomes financially expedient to imprison them in service to corporation, an even more faceless dictator than the state. But the time is fast approaching when demand will outstrip supply, chaos shall have its day, and brute force its revenge.
Whatever section of society is out for blood, one thing should be kept in mind: ‘Before seeking revenge, dig two graves.’ Prisoners have relatives and friends in the outside world ready and willing to balance accounts. What better circumstance and material could a resentful, hopeless prisoner ask for to school in the study of crime and revenge? He has at his constant disposal a veritable army of budding psychopaths and psychotics serving short sentences, ardent for knowledge and instruction, eager to re-enter the community and try out their newfound ideas of social justice.
Justice? During the Vietnam War those who burned their draft cards were jailed for refusing to kill, and sat side by side with convicted murderers. Different cause, same effect.
Should the thought occur to you, this book, and every view, sentiment and expression in it, is written by my own hand from a cell in which I’ve spent the past three decades and will remain in till I die. Any adverse criticism you may form over the contents will not cause me to retract one measured word.
You will presently discover that this work is not an apologia. Why should it be? To whom should I apologise, and what difference would it make to anyone? You contain me till death in a concrete box that measures eight by ten and expect public confessions of remorse as well? That species of feigned repentance extorted at show trials? Rid your mind of that expectation. I will not cater to the moral pretensions of the bovine; nor will I flatter retarded authority.
Remorse is a purely personal matter, not a circus performance. Who can truly distinguish the point where self-pity ends and compunction begins? The certitude of my death in captivity paradoxically confers a certainty of belief, a freedom of thought and expression most so-called free people will fail to experience in their lifetime. Unlike the merely physically free individual, no hellish circles of social graces and ersatz respect bind me to censor beliefs. I am not under the least obligation to please by deceit any individual whomsoeve
r. To all practical intents and purposes, I am no longer of your world — if, as you might suggest, I ever was. I am now simply a curious observer, resistant to ‘thirty years of blur and blot.’
Is it so perversely singular to postulate that compassion for mankind in general is empirically inconceivable? That such ostensible human empathy, when so widely distributed, loses all meaning and substance? Is such an overambitious, compensatory claim of universal benevolence in reality a clear admission that one has, in fact, no deep feelings worth speaking of?
Even Jesus smote the moneychangers. But that metaphysician habitually preached the impossible anyway. Know thyself? We find it far simpler, and more emotionally satisfying, to believe we know others; it deflects self-analysis.
If a psychiatrist is leading a worthless private life, a failure even to his family, he could be of far more assistance to his patients by explaining his own faults, his own mistakes in life, from which the patient might benefit through avoidance.
I am applying variations of that principle in these opening chapters, by the end of which perhaps some of you will know my faults and strengths. The majority will think they know them better than I do.
The reader rightly expects to share the psychic, ethical and moral perspective of the serial killer for a change, anticipating that beliefs and rationale are expressed with articulate candour, devoid of any attempt to gain sympathy or acolytes.
I have never seriously set out to corrupt anyone. I believe the seed of corruption is already within all, requiring only the right primal incentive, circumstance or utilitarian stimulus in which to blossom. The degree, nature and cultivation of corruption depends almost entirely upon the innate criminal propensities of the individual recipient. The extent of his/her natural predatory instinct and capacity for independent thought and social/relativistic analysis. In this particular, I am unavoidably in unholy accord with the theological doctrine of original sin, but from a secular premise.