Somewhat of an unconventional biography of serial killer Ian Brady who in the 60s killed children with the help from his girlfriend Myra Hindley. I say "somewhat" because as they say "there is nothing new under the sun." The book is all over the place. Not specifically in the context of narrative, but in genre. The only thing off putting about this book is the religious author who inserts his own religious bias into the narrative. I totally disagree with the author on every religious opinion and makes the same insane and idiotic arguments I've heard again and again and again. "scientism" "science is a pseudo religion" or some insane sentiment like that. Science is not a religion, there are no dogmas, there are no sacred cows. He bashes scientist like Richard Dawkins [who I admire, although I haven't been into Dawkins for a long while. I use to watch him all the time.] and implies that Dawkins thinks he has "all the answers" so to speak, that he is the self proclaimed arbitrary of truth, dogmatic, and is never wrong. The exact opposite is true. In fact Dawkins like my self pride them selves on admitting they were wrong. Science it's self prides it's self on being wrong. Just look up Karl Popper and the black swan analogy. This is why I reject the notion of absolutes, but only in terms of knowledge. Popper is the one who came up with concept of what is science and what is pseudo science and therefor what is justified to accept. He came up with the concept of "falsifiable" and "non falsifiable"
As google states "In the philosophy of science, falsifiability or refutability is the capacity for a statement, theory or hypothesis to be contradicted by evidence. For example, the statement "All swans are white" is falsifiable because one can observe that black swans exist."
If "scientism" was a religion or dogmatic or what ever....why would it be based on "falsifiable" and "nonfalsifiable"??? Also, please tell me what religion even accepts those notions?
Dictionary definition of dogma: a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
I can only think of buddhism because Buddha basically told his followers "if it's stupid then it's stupid no matter who says it including my self."
Buddah: Do not go by reports (repeated hearing), by legends, by traditions, by rumours, by scriptures, by surmise, conjecture and axioms.
This is partly why I will debate people on the existence of leprechauns. Do I believe leprechauns exist? Of course not. There is zero evidence and I will say "of course leprechauns don't exist." "yeah, they don't exist" I don't even bother to entertain the notion that they exist, but do I know for 100% fact that they don't exist? Of course not and how could I know?! I don't entertain ideas like solipism or gods or leprechauns because there is no evidence. "you have 'faith' in the sun coming up every morning." No I don't! I have reasonable expectation based on evidence and lack of evidence. When did the sun not come up every morning and if it did we would of been frozen to death. Is it possible that solipism is in fact true? My entire view can be summed up as the criminologist in the movie The rocky horror picture show "There are those who say that life is an illusion and that reality is but a figment of the imagination. If this is so, then Brad and Janet are quite safe." and I don't see any of these solipsis taking that risk.
"without god everything is permittable." WRONG. With god everything is permittable.
Ever heard of CULTS?! That's how you get 9/11. That's how you get the crusades. That's how you get cults like the family, the branch davidians, FLDS, and Dignidad. All of those groups believed and accepted child rape as being not only acceptable but ordained "by god" and therefor not just acceptable but moral. Morally right, morally good. This is also how they could believe child brides and child rape was moral and correct but homosexuality was immoral and wrong.
Branch davidian follower on David Koresh raping little girls: He believed - this is what I accepted. What I've 'come to buy into'' as you might say. He believed god told him to do this.
The family former follower amazed at how easy it was for the cult believers to fall for it: What I haven't come to understanding is how such a large group of people, of diverse backgrounds could so readily turn to whole sale pedophilia.
I reject the notion of "because god said so" for moral reasons. In fact I rejected christianity and the majority of religion for moral reasons and I still do.
Journalist interviewing family in North Korea about North korea and the "dear leader": Can the dear leader do anything wrong? Or what he always says is...magical? [translator is confused and asks her what she means] I think he genuinely didnt understand my question. It seemed there wasn't even vocabulary to question the dear leader.
And there dear dealers are or were literal living breathing gods. Kim Jong Un is a living breathing god. They literally worship him as a god and he's a self proclaimed god just like his father and grandfather and if god says "you've committed crimes" and sends you to a concentration camp where you'll be starved to death, literally butchered and raped by guards, shot and killed for no reason what so ever, etc then that is his justice, his OBJECTIVE law. Not subjective. EVERYTHING is permittable with god.
We live in a reality where a god does not exist [that is what the evidence says] and probably all realities and yet is everything permissble? No. We have laws, we have consequences. We have what is called the social contract that all of society signed. I'll quote from a movie about a mother who shot a man after he got off the hook for raping and almost killing her daughter.
"Justification. The crime committed against Mrs.Sanders daughter is the kind of thing that stirs up vengeful emotions. It makes us want to get up and set things right...but we can't work that way. We have laws. We have police. We have courts. When we feel justified in enforcing the law our selves. Well, chaos is right around the corner. For ALL of us."
Selfishness isn't always a bad thing, it certainly isn't when your talking about mutual co-existence. "I won't start a war if you don't." That is how the social contract functions. It's based on sympathy, compassion, selfishness, and the human need to live. That is why I get so angry at all these anti mask covid 19 deniers. They are literally fighting for "the right" to drive drunk. Your not just endangering your self, but your putting EVERYONE else on the same road at risk.
We get a good sense of Brady, his philosophy which is completely identical to mine only the "it doesn't mean anything" is something I totally reject. I am not a relativist in any form. In fact I despise relativism because I think it's destroying American society. This 'feels over reals" this "facts don't matter. All that matters are my conspiracy theories and what I choose to believe." etc and a lot of that is right wing religion. I also like how Brady includes self destruction into his quote about existentialism, the purposeless of existence and life because I absolutely agree and it reminds me of a quote by Richard Rimarez who ripped it off from Leyton who wrote the book "Hunting humans".
"They are imprisoned in a web of responsibilities, commitments, and belief systems that would render murder an absurd gamble or ridiculous self destruction." Which would explain why Rimarez also admitted in other interviews "I don't care about my self. I don't care about what happens to me. I never did really." and I totally see that with Ian Brady and how he dealt with his prison sentence and Myra Hindley trying to deny her sentence. Brady basically told her "deal with it" you did it and this was the price. You KNEW this was the price. Accept it, deal with it, and move on.
Like in the show Dexter who killed a philosopher and his last words were "Never jump the fence if you're not willing to face what's on the other side." Which makes me think of the rapper Ice T talking about misinterpretation of the song "high roller" That Ice T was glamorizing being a high roller. In that video he's living in a mansion with tons of sexy women, he's wearing expensive jewelry and clothes, has expensive high class cars, etc.
"That video was about 'DON'T BE A HIGH ROLLER" at the end of the video I ended up dead. So theres two sides of everything."
Yeah, you might be making a ton of money, have a ton of women, etc...but the fact is that most of these "high rollers" end up dead or in prison. As Ice T said "this is what you do, this is how you gonna end up." and all of his friends who lived that stayed in that life style were either dead or in prison for life.
"Out there getting that long money, you know what I'm sayin'
But that fast money leads to a fast life and a quick death"
"Now radio stations probably won't play
This record because of the things I say
They'll say I'm glamorizing the hustlin' hood
And a record like this can do no good
But I'm not here to tell ya right or wrong
I don't know which side of the law you belong
Yes, the game has flash but sometimes hurts
Behind any mistake, hard times lurks
And jail's not your only problem, though it may seem
You just may die by a barrage from a M-16"
I bring this up because I have to ask the question "how do you convince a narcissistic psychopath?" Something I've often asked for a long while and I've come to the conclusion that you really can't. Many serial killers were deeply religious and did that stop them from killing? Of course not. Of course there are obvious implications in terms of the death penalty being a deterrent.
Later on the author quotes Aldous Huxley a fellow nihilist and hedonist in which he points out the absurdity of this self destruction. Calling it stupid.
Clearly I think about such things in terms of morality and the construction of laws and society. My entire view on morality and so forth is identical to Sam Harris. "don't drink battery acid" we have many reasons as to why you shouldn't drink battery acid.
As my favorite youtuber said in a video refuting a new age pseudo science believer parroting creationist talking points "The reason science can create technological wonders is because it can understand various properties of things and how they relate to one another. Good luck trying to make a functional air plane without an understanding of aeronautical science."
"for those smart phones and smart pads to work. A lot of scientific knowledge has to be true because if it wasn't true then it wouldn't work. Hot air balloons fly because the hot air inside the balloon is less dense than the colder air outside the balloon. If that weren't a true fact about reality then hot air balloons would not fly"
As Richard Dawkins said "You don't believe the world is round only because your an astronaut. You don't believe Napoleaon existed only because your a historian. You believe [and accept] these things because there are facts, proved by evidence." "Relativism, the quaint notion that there are many truths, even if they are contradictory is rift today." "it's a pretentious cop out." "science works. Planes fly. Magic carpets and broom sticks don't."
The book gives a very good insight into Brady as a person through out the years and details his childhood and background and as with the case of Clark, Alcala, Kraft, and how serial killers who were not abused as children and actually had a good childhood I kept wondering "what made him a killer?" Other then the motive of "I did it for kicks because life is boring otherwise." Obviously the answer has to do with sociopathy and the lack of emotional sympathy. Of course Brady had cognitive sympathy along with sympathy for animals. Which is not rare among serial killers. Yes, some serial killers actually loved animals, but had zero empathy for their fellow human beings. Ian Brady would fit into this category.
We learn a lot about Brady, his daily existence down to even what he commonly ate for breakfast [although it's only mentioned once but the author says it was his regular breakfast], his many travels and why he did it, what he was thinking before and after he did it and how and when he came across the Moors and the relationship with Myra Hindley.
Seems Myra was the one with the cruel mean streak while Brady was the mellow cold blooded one. Not letting his cruel desires outway pragmatism. I find it ironic and funny that Brady after the first murder got mad at Myra for taking personal items from the victim. Yet he was planning on taking photographs and later audio recorded one victim along with photos. That sure as hell negates his rule of destroying any connecting thread and in fact, how damning are photos and audio compared to a ring or a necklace? He later admitted this him self.
After the first murder, it's murder, murder, murder.
The first murder however is very detailed. The rest of the murders, not as detailed, at least with everything that was said during the murders and the process of covering it up. After 3 murders it seems the Moors killers got bored like most serial killers. Which explains the photo shoot and tape recording and the axe. After the murders, childhood experiences, and road trips it details Brady's life in prison with some Myra Hindley thrown in.
As I read about Myra Hindley I couldn't help but think that this was in the early 1960s and I kept thinking about the book responsible for the feminist movement of the 1960s. The Feminine Mystique.
Wiki "The phrase "feminine mystique" was created by Friedan to show the assumptions that women would be fulfilled from their housework, marriage, sexual lives, and children. It was said that women, who were actually feminine, should not have wanted to work, get an education, or have political opinions. Friedan wanted to prove that women were unsatisfied but could not voice their feelings."
Ian Brady rejected that and told her she can choose what she wants and not give into society's perception of what they want her to be. Actually a pro feminist perspective from Ian Brady to Myra Hindley. So I guess you could argue that society's sexist views on women was partly responsible for Myra's discontent with how things were for her as a women living in 1960's UK. The murders at least for Myra were a rejection of that. Myra didn't want to end up like every other women she saw. She wanted more. Maybe if society was more free for women, she might of not felt so compelled to commit murder with Brady. Not to precipitate the first murder by calling him out on his "all talk, no action" which she obviously implied.
The book details Brady's depressing existence in prison as the years go by and the author's relationship with Brady.
My only real flaw with the book is how long the book is, the bias, and we never get any sense of fantasy in the relation to the murders.