Modern Management systems. As if there was a choice.

A post of Laura from the thread: http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=415 , sort of triggered this next “energy disbursement” and made me end up right here.

An excerpt:
Laura said:
"I think that the best thing we could do is to spread the word about Ponerology, psychopathy, Pathocrats, and help people to develop better psychological knowledge about their world from the bottom up. I think that, instead of trying to first get people to see anything about 9-11, it might be better to help them to understand what kind of people could and would do something like that."
I agree that informing people about ponerology, pathocracy, and the incredibly high incidence of psychopathy would be a very down to earth thing to do actually.
I also agree with the bottom up strategy. It reminds me of the question that I once posed to the management of the company I work for. After a presentation of the new management style that was going to be implemented, I could only distill a strict top down style of management, with a lot of organisational trickery and chicanery that would only result in divide et impera. I was missing the “bottom up” part in the business model that was going to be implemented and I was predicting that such would inevitably lead to serious problems, for which I presented some examples. They promised me that once the new system got rolling the bottom up part would follow within two years. Oh no, I was not so naïve. Five years have passed since then, and the leash around the bottom people’s neck gets tighter and tighter.

"I think we have more freedom now than we've ever had before and it's increasing…the government is less powerful in our lives than it ever has been and it's becoming less powerful in our lives."

So said Ms. Ranthum on the Jeff Rense radio program causing its host, and no doubt the listeners, to momentarily pause and wonder if they had slipped into some strange hyper-dimension of dark humour. Ms. Ranthum professed to be an optimist, however, this brand of positivism was at the expense of the facts which lead us to believe that she may be an example of the rather dangerous fantasy world of denial or naiveté that many Americans seem to be living in. It is also starkly macabre coming from a former military war-gamer.
And thusly started a treatise by Jonathan Metcalfe called “ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERIKA".

Very often, it has been stated over here at the other side of the Atlantic, that what first starts in America (correction! that is US that I am pointing at), is later followed in Europe.
How true this seems to be. Apart from the few companies in Europe that already did have an American style of management, similar systems have been adopted in our company, in our governmental departments, in ALL other companies, with try outs in our service sector, in our educational system, in the Academic world and even in our postal offices. Postmen (mail carriers), now get 10 seconds to post a standard letter, 30 seconds to deliver the retirement pay for the elder and so on, and all this in the name of rational management and cost effectiveness??!
This not only happens in my country but ALL over Europe in ALL “working” places that did not have such a system yet, and all this in the time span of a meager 4 to 5 years.

Heck, maybe it is all over the world. You see, there seems to be a perfect correlation between the ban on smoking tobacco and how that is demonized, and the installment of new management systems in the corporate world. It’s like an all-in package. I have a colleague, who travels a lot to the Middle East, Afghanistan (surprised me too), and further East, to India and China. He refuses to go to Japan. He told me, that everywhere he goes there is this ban on smoking tobacco, and that everywhere it has been implemented since 5 years. I recently met a visitor from Japan while smoking a cigarette outside, so I asked him about a possible ban, and since when such was implemented. Hmm, maybe four, five years, and he adds that there was one particular stretch along the West Coast where smoking was banned altogether.

This is simply amazing, This is happening ALL over the world, in a meager time span of FOUR to FIVE years. And a lot of people notice it.

For instance.
When I informed friends or colleagues about some thorny issues five years ago, most of them would still react by hushing up, and placating the problem that it has always been that way. “Look at history” they said. But right now, they (a lot of my direct colleagues for instance) no longer say such thing. It has been going too fast, and too aggressively and people notice it and are coming to the conclusion that something is up.
Before, and when you looked at things from a distance you could also see how the leash around peoples neck was ever tightening. But when it became noticeable, the process was stopped temporarily, or the leash was even loosened a little, only to restart the process once they fell back to sleep of course. It seems that there’s no longer “time” for this. How comes? Something is up, and people feel it.

To come back to ponerology, and more particularly the work of Lobaczewski, I think it is invaluable. It is a true eye-opener. But we should not leave it at this. When I go over all those character traits that are displayed by the various pathologies described, I have a very hard time, to connect this information with the processes I have just described, i.e. the installment of certain managerial systems. Our top management simply does not seem to fit the descriptions in the work of Lobaczewski. Rather I have the impression that these systems are taken over because they are presented and shown to “work” (in this I totally disagree!). I think that we are not only dealing with neurotic paranoid control freaks, or psychopaths for that matter, but also with a big bunch of simple profiteers (of the systems they helped to install), and down-right ignorant people who do not see what the systems do to cooperation and communication at ALL levels and the motivation of people at the working floor. But they have been trained that way. It was indeed that simple maybe. After all the false knowledge that they consumed, they no longer see what they are actually doing (referring to the modern managerial systems). They’ve split, from reality. Maybe that too is cognitive dissonance. There is another thing that seems to bind most of the top managers. They could miss creativity, and surely hate it in others. It is not manageable. Oooh just imagine what would happen.

There is no thing that breaks the spirit of man as much as somebody that is constantly saying over his/her shoulder what he/she should do or not.
(Don Juan – maybe with slightly different phrasing)

The usual explanation for the installment of those various management systems is … money on the table, cost-effectiveness, yield, or profitability. Guess what? This is NOT what I see after five years of having to survive such a system. Than why is it installed ? What is the aim ?

Maybe we should expand the work of Lobaczewski so that it becomes more recognizable within our current predicament. After all, our heroic author has studied the ponerogenic process in the former Soviet-Union. And there was no corporate world as we have it nowadays. There were only ‘governmental orders’ and control, OSIT.

Some more (small) references:
In turn, Mikel Harry quipped, “In essence, Six Sigma is driven by a divide and conquer strategy. It begins by first dividing the quality pie into comprehensive compartments, or dimensions, that form a holistic focus at all levels of the business enterprise.” These compartments or dimensions are translated into teams, or project teams. This statement explains what top-level management supports to achieve an effective continuous improvement system.
From: http://www.sixsig.info/six-sigma-black-belt/189.html

Ok, and now with some personal remarks,
“In essence, Six Sigma is driven by a divide and conquer strategy.
I couldn’t agree more! Also, have we not heard this before? That “the thing” sort of outs itself before and towards self-destruction?
It begins by first dividing the quality pie into comprehensive compartments,
The quality pie huh? To me the pie with highest quality is still that of the people or what has been termed Human Resources. I never invented that term but to me, it is like we are a … exactly cattle, or crude oil or something like that. I am sure it is easy to make them believe (during some training for instance) that we are some form of crude oil that has to be refined somehow, so that it would fit their ends of course. But there is a blind blob above that latter consequence of such thinking. They’d feel oh so important and above it all.
or dimensions, that form a holistic focus at all levels of the business enterprise.”
There is no form of any holism applied whatsoever. They only use matrices and spreadsheets and chicanery to set people up against each other. By the fruits I see the tree! And I am learning to know that tree.

Just some examples :
Six Sigma implementation
Six Sigma implementation is top-down: The CEO is usually the driving force, and an executive management team provides the Champion for each project.
From: http://www.asq.org/pub/qualityprogress/past/0102/27TheEssential0102.html

Hmm, as if the CEO would be able to do a good job with our modern management systems.

Six Sigma, could be used as a tool, for certain tasks, but here again I see that it comes as an “all-in package”, and nests itself into the very dynamic of people "working" together.
 
Lobaczewski's work is a foundation, and an anchor for understanding the human condition, written not as cold science but from the heart as a testament of evolutionary social necessity. It is not the theory of one person but the results of hard experience in vivo.

As such, it is a seed that needs to be planted in fertile ground so that it can branch in all manner of domains of social applicability that thirst for its wisdom, although they may not currently know it. Its clarity and coherence brings a real rational calm so that each of us can shake the cobwebs of fear and disinformation. It provides a rational (as opposed to rationalized) reference to start making sense of the chaos, and serves as an attractor for our creative potential.

The real power of this wisdom has not even begun to manifest. Because of Lobaczewski, the suffering of the Stalinist era will not have been in vain. Because of Lobaczewski, we have a concise map that finally grounds us into the reality confronting us, so we may be spared the dangers of being lost in blind alleys.

The above comment is a testimony that the seed Lobaczewski has planted can and is taking root. By seriously asking "how can I apply this in my neck of the woods?", creativity is challenged and solutions can begin to germinate for every pathocratic issue in every aspect of our lives. Humans are creative beings, and when creativity is suffocated, freedom is suffocated, and life itself is not far behind.

One thing the pathocrats have provided to otherwise complacent yet healthy individuals is motivation. We are being suffocated and we need to breath. In the past the road to freedom has been through violence, and for the most part this has been a false path. For once, we can chart the road to freedom through the unfathomable (yet often initially hidden) treasures of human creative potential.

Lobaczewski gives us a focus for this simply because it makes blatantly obvious crystal clear sense. This is not an ideology, and does not require leaps of faith. It's right there for the visionary and the pragmatist to creatively forge and temper for each case of social applicability. It is not a revelation in any high and mighty sense, and it is not a bible in any sense. It is simply the manifestation of pure INSIGHT, based on the hard experience of suffering. In this age of confusion, such objective insight is what we direly need.

So I commend Charles for taking this step and addressing the issue of applied ponerology in mangerial systems. One thing I believe we have to consider, however, is that psychopaths in all areas of society are seriously allergic to even the mention of such solutions. They can smell anti-pathocratic solutions a mile away. When Zbigniew Brzezinski got wind of Lobaczewski's work, he tried not only to stifle it, considering it dangerous, but apparently gave it to think tanks so they could find a way to undermine any potential ponerologic movements (I am not sure about the last part, but I think I remember reading it in the SOTT literature somewhere).

In my view, the bottom up propagation of ponerologic principles means that the top should be the last to know that these principles are being applied, unless one is sure that there are those in top positions who are anti-pathocratic. As Charles pointed out, there are too many programs in all areas of society that simply do not make rational sense without the ponerologic angle.

Simply put, pathocrats are not rational. They can surely fake it, and all deserve Oscar nominations for their performances, but the person behind the mask is not sane, and that insanity is contagious. I have seen it everywhere from universities and research laboratories to the military. The pathocratic pressure from those at the top drives those at the bottom crazy, because the message is ONLY THE INSANE WILL SURVIVE: YOU ARE EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST US!

Even so, it is encouraging that comments such as the one above are coming forth and I look forward to more of them.
 
Charles said:
To come back to ponerology, and more particularly the work of Lobaczewski, I think it is invaluable. It is a true eye-opener. But we should not leave it at this. When I go over all those character traits that are displayed by the various pathologies described, I have a very hard time, to connect this information with the processes I have just described, i.e. the installment of certain managerial systems. Our top management simply does not seem to fit the descriptions in the work of Lobaczewski.
EsoQuest has already addressed th philosophical implications and applications, so I'll go in the practical direction.

Yes, this work needs to be fully expanded, and in some ways, that has been begun. Robert Hare talks quite a bit about psychopaths in the business world. He points out that, yes, there are many psychopaths who are also "anti-socials" but there seem to be far more of them that would never be classified as anti-social or "sociopathic."

In a recent paper, "Construct Validity of Psychopathy in a Community Sample: A Nomological Net Approach," Salekin, Trobst, Krioukova, Journal of Personality Disorders, 15(5), 425-441, 2001), the authors state:

"Psychopathy, as originally conceived by Cleckley (1941), is not limited to engagement in illegal activities, but rather encompasses such personality characteristics as manipulativeness, insincerity, egocentricity, and lack of guilt - characteristics clearly present in criminals but also in spouses, parents, bosses, attorneys, politicians, and CEOs, to name but a few. (Bursten, 1973; Stewart, 1991). Our own examination of the prevalence of psychopathy within a university population suggested that perhaps 5% or more of this sample might be deemed psychopathic, although the vast majority of those will be male (more than 1/10 males versus approximately 1/100 females).

"As such, psychopathy may be characterized ... as involving a tendency towards both dominance and coldness. Wiggins (1995) in summarizing numerous previous findings... indicates that such individuals are prone to anger and irritation and are willing to exploit others. They are arrogant, manipulative, cynical, exhibitionistic, sensation -seeking, Machiavellian, vindictive, and out for their own gain.

With respect to their patterns of social exchange (Foa & Foa, 1974), they attribute love and status to themselves, seeing themselves as highly worthy and important, but prescribe neither love nor status to others, seeing them as unworthy and insignificant. This characterization is clearly consistent with the essence of psychopathy as commonly described.

"The present investigation sought to answer some basic questions regarding the construct of psychopathy in non forensic settings... In so doing we have returned to Cleckley's (1941) original emphasis on psychopathy as a personality style not only among criminals, but also among successful individuals within the community.

"What is clear from our findings is that (a) psychopathy measures have converged on a prototype of psychopathy that involves a combination of dominant and cold interpersonal characteristics; (b) psychopathy does occur in the community and at what might be a higher than expected rate; and (c) psychopathy appears to have little overlap with personality disorders aside from Antisocial Personality Disorder. ...

"Clearly, where much more work is needed is in understanding what factors differentiate the abiding (although perhaps not moral-abiding) psychopath from the law-breaking psychopath; such research surely needs to make greater use of non forensic samples than has been customary in the past."
In short, if you want to learn about psychopathy, don't read about the criminal types. They are the failures of the taxon, the ones who ended up in jail or psychiatric hospitals.

I also suspect that the identified characteristics I have put in bold text above fit your management types quite nicely.
 
"As such, psychopathy may be characterized ... as involving a tendency towards both dominance and coldness. Wiggins (1995) in summarizing numerous previous findings... indicates that such individuals are prone to anger and irritation and are willing to exploit others. They are arrogant, manipulative, cynical, exhibitionistic, sensation -seeking, Machiavellian, vindictive, and out for their own gain.

With respect to their patterns of social exchange (Foa & Foa, 1974), they attribute love and status to themselves, seeing themselves as highly worthy and important, but prescribe neither love nor status to others, seeing them as unworthy and insignificant. This characterization is clearly consistent with the essence of psychopathy as commonly described."

Excellent Thread! Yes. Yes. This fits my personal experience and observations! Often I wondered if it was me or the work world that was going crazy. I have hypothesized that the U.S. workplace is very pathocratized at this stage. I think the purpose has been to enculturize(?) (prepare) the population for the blossoming pathocratic political environment. Most people are well aware that anybody that has the temerity to speak out or stand up to a wrong or injustice at work will be systematically harassed and fired--as an example to all that remain--they've seen it plenty before. Slavish submission to whatever craziness the party line happens to be is about the only way to survive--which, of course, is repaid with disrespect, contempt and backhanded insults. Whatever legal protections or security workers once had have been stripped away. It is easier to fire somebody than to take out the trash.

I think that between the increasingly hostile and totalitarian work environment and the rapid evaporation of the illusion of economic security for the masses most people will be too busy struggling for survival to even think about political protest or resistance. If they've gotten the message at work then they'll be good little robots and #ss kissers.
 
yossarian said:
I think the purpose has been to enculturize(?) (prepare) the population for the blossoming pathocratic political environment. Most people are well aware that anybody that has the temerity to speak out or stand up to a wrong or injustice at work will be systematically harassed and fired--as an example to all that remain--they've seen it plenty before. Slavish submission to whatever craziness the party line happens to be is about the only way to survive--which, of course, is repaid with disrespect, contempt and backhanded insults. Whatever legal protections or security workers once had have been stripped away. It is easier to fire somebody than to take out the trash.
Lobaczewski talks about this problem and describes how it develops and additional factors that eventually come into play.

Some psychiatrists, especially Germans, have praised such people [psychopaths and other deviants] as embodying the principal inspiration for the development of civilization; this is a damagingly unilateral view of reality. Laymen in the field of psychopathology frequently gain the impression that such persons represent some extraordinary talents. This very science, however, explains that these individuals’ hyperactivity and sense of being exceptional are derived from their drive to overcompensate for a feeling of some deficiency. The truth is that normal people are the richest of all. [...]

It is equally thought-provoking, however, to see how relatively little has been said about the opposite side of the coin; the nature, causes, and genesis of evil. These matters are usually cloaked behind the above generalized conclusions with a certain amount of secrecy. Such a state of affairs can be partially ascribed to the social conditions and historical circumstances under which these thinkers worked; their modus operandi may have been dictated at least in part by personal fate, inherited traditions, or even prudishness. After all, justice and virtue are the opposites of force and perversity; the same applies to truthfulness vs. mendacity, similarly like health is the opposite of an illness.

The character and genesis of evil thus remained hidden in discreet shadows, leaving it to playwrights to deal with the subject in their highly expressive language, but it did not reach the primeval source of the phenomena. A certain cognitive space thus remains as an uninvestigated thicket of moral questions which resists understanding and philosophical generalizations. Present-day philosophers developing meta-ethics are trying to push on, but as they slip and slide along the elastic space leading to an analysis of the language of ethics, they contribute toward eliminating some imperfections and habits of natural conceptual language. Penetrating this ever-mysterious nucleus, however, is highly tempting to a scientist.

At the same time, active practitioners in social life and normal people searching for their way are both significantly conditioned by their trust in certain authorities. However, eternal temptations such as trivializing insufficiently-proven moral values or disloyally taking advantage of naive human respect for them, find no adequate counterweight within a rational understanding of reality.

If physicians behaved like ethicists, i.e. left in the shadow of their personal experience of relatively un-esthetic disease phenomena because they were primarily interested in studying questions of physical and mental hygiene, there would be no such thing as modern medicine. Even the roots of this health-maintenance science would be hidden in similar shadows. In spite of the fact that the theory of hygiene has been linked to medicine since its ancient beginnings, physicians were correct in their emphasis upon studying disease above all. They risked their own health and suffered sacrifices in order to discover the causes and biological properties of illnesses and, afterwards, to understand the patho-dynamics of the courses of these illnesses. A comprehension of the nature of a disease, and the course it runs, after all, enables the proper curative means to be elaborated.

While studying an organisms’ ability to fight off disease, scientists invented vaccination, which allows organisms to become resistant to an illness without passing through it. Thanks to this, medicine conquers and prevents phenomena which, in its scope of activity, are considered a type of evil.

The question thus arises: could some analogous modus operandi not be used to study the causes and genesis of other kinds of evil scourging human individuals, families, and societies, in spite of the fact that they appear even more insulting to our moral feelings than do diseases? Experience has taught the author that evil is similar to disease in nature, although possibly more complex and elusive to our understanding. Its genesis reveals many factors, pathological, especially psychopathological, in character, whose essence medicine and psychology have already studied, or whose understanding demands investigation in these realms. [...]

The genesis of pathocracy in any country is so lengthy a process that it is difficult to pinpoint when it began. If we take into consideration those historical examples which should be qualified in that regard, we will most frequently observe the figure of an autocratic ruler whose mental mediocrity and infantile personality finally opened the door to the ponerogenesis of the phenomenon. Wherever a society’s common sense is sufficiently influential, its self-preservation instinct is able to overcome this ponerogenic process rather early. Things are different when an active nucleus of this disease already exists and can dominate by means of infection or the imposition of force.

Whenever a nation experiences a “system crisis” or a hyperactivity of ponerogenic processes within, it becomes the object of a pathocratic penetration whose purpose is to serve up the country as booty. It will then become easy to take advantage of its internal weaknesses and revolutionary movements in order to impose rule on the basis of a limited use of force. Conditions such as a great war or a country’s temporary weakness can sometimes give in to the violence of a pathocratic neighbor country (against their will) whose system did not betray such wide-scope infirmities earlier. After forcible imposition of such a system the course of pathologization of life becomes different; and such a pathocracy will be less stable, its very existence dependent upon the factor of never-ending outside force.

Let us now address the latter situation first: Brute force must first stifle the resistance of an exhausted nation; people possessing military or leadership skills must be disposed of, and anyone appealing to moral values and legal principles must be silenced. The new principles are never explicitly enunciated. People must learn the new unwritten law via painful experience. The stultifying influence of this deviant world of concepts finishes the job, and common sense demands caution and endurance.

This is followed by a shock which appears as tragic as it is frightening. Some people from every social group, whether abused paupers, aristocrats, officials, literati, students, scientists, priests, atheists, or nobodies known to no one, suddenly start changing their personality and world-view. Decent Christians and patriots just yesterday, they now espouse the new ideology and behave contemptuously to anyone still adhering to the old values. Only later does it become evident that this ostensibly avalanche-like process has its natural limits. With time, the society becomes stratified based on factors entirely different from the old political convictions and social links. We already know the causes for this.

Through direct contact with the phenomenon, society simultaneously begins to sense that its true content is different from the imaginings disseminated earlier, while the country was still independent. This divergence is a traumatizing factor, because it questions the value of accepted convictions. Years must pass before the mind has adapted to the new concepts. When we then travel to Western Europe, or especially to the United States, people who have kept the old system of imaginings strike us as being silly.

Pathocracy imposed by force arrives in a finished form, we could even call it ripe. People observing it close up were unable to distinguish the earlier phases of its development, when the schizoidals and characteropaths were in charge. The need for the existence of these phases and their character had to be reconstructed in this work on the basis of historical data.

In an imposed system, psychopathic material is already dominant; it was perceived as something contrary to human nature, virtually bereft of the mask of ideology rendered ever less necessary in a conquered country, but nevertheless masked by its incomprehensibility to people thinking in the categories of the natural world-view. We at first perceived this latter system as painfully inadequate for purposes of comprehending the reality which had overwhelmed us. The essential objective categories would not be created until many years of effort had passed. Individuals with the above-described characteristics, however, unerringly sensed that the time had come for their dreams to come true, the time to exact revenge upon those “others” who had abused and humiliated them before. The violent formative process of pathocracy lasted barely eight years or so, thereupon making a similarly escalated transformation into the dissimulative phase.

The system functions, psychological mechanisms, and mysterious causative links in a country upon which a quasi-political structure was imposed are basically analogous to those of the country which gave rise to the phenomenon. The system spreads downward until it reaches every village and every human individual. The actual contents and internal causes of this phenomenon also manifest no essential difference, regardless of whether we make our observation in the capital or in some outlying small town. If the entire organism is sick, diagnostic biopsy tissue can be collected wherever this can be performed most expediently.

The system will strike the society as something foreign associated with the other country. The society’s historical tradition and culture constitute a reliance to those strivings which are always aimed in the direction of normal man’s structures. The more mature cultural formations in particular prove the most highly resistant to the system’s destructive activities. The subjugated nation finds support and inspiration for its psychological and moral resistance in its own cultural, religious, and moral traditions. These values, elaborated through centuries, cannot easily be destroyed or co-opted by pathocracy; quite the contrary, they even embark upon more intensive life in the new society. These values progressively cleanse themselves of patriotic buffoonery, and their principal contents become more real in their eternal meaning. If forced by necessity, the culture of country in question is concealed in private homes or disseminated via conspiracy; however, it continues to survive and develop, creating values which could not have arisen during happier times.

As a result, such a society’s opposition becomes ever more enduring, ever more skillfully effected. It turns out that those who believed they could impose such a system, trusting that it would then function on the pathocracy’s autonomic mechanisms, were overly optimistic. [...]

If a nucleus of this macrosocial pathological phenomenon already exists in the world, always cloaking its true quality behind an ideological mask of some political system, it irradiates into other nations via coded news difficult for normal people to understand, but easy to read for psychopathic individuals. “That’s the place for us, we now have a homeland where our youthful dreams can come true about ruling those ‘others’ and living in safety and prosperity.” The more powerful this nucleus and this pathocratic nation, the wider the scope of its inductive siren-call, heard by individuals whose nature is correspondingly deviant as though they were superheterodyne receivers naturally attuned to the same wave-length. Unfortunately, what is being used today is real radio transmitters in the hundreds of kilowatts, as well as loyal agents networking our planet.
Whether directly or indirectly, i.e. by means of the above-mentioned persons, this call of pathocracy, once appropriately “decked-out”, reaches a significantly wider circle of people, including both individuals with various psychological deviations and those who are frustrated, deprived of the opportunity to earn an education and make use of their talents, physically or morally injured, or simply primitive. The scope of the response to this call may vary in proportion, but nowhere will it represent the majority. Nonetheless, the home-bred spellbinders who arise never take into account the fact that they are not able to enrapture the majority.

An appropriately elaborated revolutionary doctrine reaches a society’s autonomous substratum and finds people who treat it like ideational reality in countries just emerging from primeval conditions and lacking political experience. This also occurs in nations where an over-egoistical ruling class defends its position by means of naively moralizing doctrines, where injustice is overly popular, or where an intensification of the hysteria level stifles the operation of common sense. People who have become close to revolutionary catchwords no longer watch to make sure that whoever expounds such an ideology is a truly sincere adherent, not just someone using the mask of ideology to conceal other motives derived from his deviant personality.
In addition to these spellbinders, we can find another kind of preacher of revolutionary ideas, one whose status is basically linked to the money he receives for his activities. However, it is unlikely that its ranks include people who could be characterized as psychologically normal with no reservations on the basis of the above-mentioned criteria. Their indifference to the human suffering caused by their own activities is derived from their deficiencies in their perceived value of societal links or their capacity to foresee the results of their activities. In ponerogenic processes, moral deficiencies, intellectual failings, and pathological factors intersect in a time-space causative network giving rise to individual and national suffering. Any war waged with psychological weapons costs only a fraction as much as classical warfare, but it does have a cost , especially when it is being waged simultaneously in many countries throughout the world.

People acting in the name of pathocracy’s interests may effect their activities in parallel, under the banner of some traditional or other ideology, or even with the assistance of a contradictory ideology battling the traditional one. In these latter cases, the service must be performed by individuals whose response to the call of the pathocracy is sufficiently vehement so as to prevent the self-suggestive activities of the other ideology they are using from straining the links with their actual hopes for power.

Whenever a society contains serious social problems, there will also be some group of sensible people striving to improve the social situ-situation by means of energetic reforms, so as to eliminate the cause of social tension. Others consider it their duty to bring about a moral rejuvenation of society. Elimination of social injustice and reconstruction of the country’s morals and civilization could deprive a pathocracy of any chance to take over. Such reformers and moralists must therefore be consistently neutralized by means of liberal or conservative positions and appropriately suggestive catchwords and paramoralisms; if necessary, the best among them has to be murdered.

Psychological-warfare strategists must decide rather early on which ideology would be most efficient in a particular country because of its adaptability to said nation’s traditions. After all, the appropriately adapted ideology must perform the function of a Trojan horse, transporting pathocracy into the country. These various ideologies are then gradually conformed to one’s own original master plan. Finally, off comes the mask.
At the right time, local partisans are organized and armed, with recruits picked from dissatisfied localities; leadership is provided by trained officers familiar with the secret idea as well as the operative idea concocted for the country in question. Assistance must then be given so groups of conspirators adhering to the concocted ideology can stage a coup d’état, whereupon an iron-fisted government is installed. Once this has been brought about, the diversionary partisans’ activities are stymied so that the new authorities can take credit for bringing about internal peace. Any hoodlum who cannot or will not submit to the new decrees is gently invited before his former leader and shot in the back of the head.

This is how such governmental systems are born. A network of pathological ponerogenical factors is already active, as is the inspirational role of essential psychopathy. However, that does not yet represent a complete picture of pathocracy. Many local leaders and adherents persist in their original convictions which, albeit radical, strike them as serving the good of a much larger proportion of formerly abused persons, not just a few percent of pathocrats and the world wide interest of a would-be empire.

Local leaders continue to think along the lines of social revolution, appealing to the political goals they believe in. They demand that the “friendly power” furnish them not only the promised assistance, but also a certain measure of autonomy they consider crucial. They are not sufficiently familiar with the mysterious “us-and-them” dichotomy. At the same time they are instructed and ordered to submit to the dictates of unclear ambassadors whose meaning and purpose are hard to understand. Frustration and doubt thus grow; their nature is ideological, nationalistic, and practical.

Conflict progressively increases, especially when wide circles of society begin to doubt whether those people allegedly acting in the name of some great ideology do in fact believe in it. Thanks to experience and contact with the pathocratic nation, similarly wide circles simultaneously increase their practical knowledge about the reality and behavioral methods of that system. Should such a semi-colony thus achieve too much independence or even decide to defect, too much of this knowledge could then reach the consciousness of normal man’s countries. This could represent a serious defeat for pathocracy.

Ever-increasing control is thus necessary until full pathocracy can be achieved. Those leaders whom the central authorities consider to be effectively transitional can be eliminated unless they indicate a sufficient degree of submission. Geopolitical conditions are generally decisive in this area. That explains why it is easier for such leaders to survive on an outlying island than in countries bordering the empire. Should such leaders manage to maintain a larger degree of autonomy by concealing their doubts, they might be able to take advantage of their geopolitical position if the conditions are amenable.

During such a phase of crisis of trust, circumspect policy on the part of normal man’s countries could still tip the scales in favor of a structure which may be revolutionary and leftist, but not pathocratic. However, this is not the only missing consideration; another primary one is the lack of objective knowledge about the phenomenon, something which would make such policy possible. Emotional factors, coupled with a moralizing interpretation of pathological phenomena, frequently play much too great a part in political decision-making.
No full-fledged pathocracy can develop until the second upheaval and the purging of its transitional leadership, which was insufficiently loyal thereto. This is the counterpart of a showdown with the true adherents of the ideology within the genesis of the original pathocracy, which can then develop, thanks both to the appropriately imposed leaders and to the activity of this phenomenon’s autonomous ponerogenic mechanisms.
After the initial governmental period, brutal, bloody, and psychologically naive, such a pathocracy thereupon begins its transformation into its dissimulative form, which has already been described in discussing the genesis of the phenomenon and the force-imposed pathocracy. During this period not even the most skillful outside policy can possibly undermine the existence of such a system. The period of weakness is still to come: when a mighty network of the society of normal people is formed.

The above lapidary description of an infectious imposition of pathocracy indicates that this process repeats all the phases of independent ponerogenesis condensed in time and content. Underneath the rulership of its incompetent administrative predecessors, we can even discern a period of hyperactivity on the part of schizoidal individuals mesmerized by the vision of their own rule based on contempt for human nature, especially if they are numerous within a given country. They do not realize that pathocracy will never make their dreams come true; it will rather shunt them into the shadows, since individuals with whom we are already familiar, will become the leaders.

A pathocracy thus generated will be more strongly imprinted upon the subjugated country than one imposed by force. [...]

The path to comprehending the true contents of the phenomenon and its internal causality has been opened by overcoming natural reflexes and emotions, and the tendency toward moralizing interpretations, followed by data elaborated in difficult everyday clinical work and subsequent generalizations in the form of theoretical ponerology. Such comprehension naturally also encompasses those who would create such an inhuman system. The problem of biological determination of their behavior is thus sketched in all its expressiveness, showing how their capacity for moral judgments and their field of behavior selection is narrowed well below the levels available to a normal person. The attitude of understanding even one’s enemies is close to that Gospel recommendation which is the most difficult for us humans. Moral condemnation proves to be an obstacle along the path toward curing the world of this disease. [...]

The first conclusion which suggested itself soon after meeting with the “professor” was that the phenomenon’s development is limited by nature in terms of the participation of susceptible individuals within a given society. The initial evaluation of approximately 6% proved realistic; progressively collected detailed statistical data assembled later were unable to question it. This value varies from country to country in the magnitude of about one percentage point upward or downward. Quantitatively speaking, this number is broken down into 0.6% essential psychopaths, i.e. about 1/10 of this 6 %. However, this anomaly plays a disproportionate role compared to the numbers by saturating the phenomenon as a whole with its own quality of thought and experience. Other psychopathies, known as asthenic, schizoidal, anankastic, hysterical, et al., definitely play second fiddle although, in sum, they are much more numerous. Relatively primitive skirtoidal individuals become fellow-travelers, goaded by their lust for life, but their activities are limited by considerations of their own advantage. In non-semitic nations, schizoidals are somewhat more numerous than essential psychopaths; although highly active in the early phases of the genesis of the phenomenon, they betray an attraction to pathocracy as well as the rational distance of efficient thinking; Thus they are torn between such a system and the society of normal people.

Persons less distinctly inclined in the pathocratic direction include those affected by some states caused by the toxic activities of certain substances such as ether, carbon monoxide, and possibly some endotoxins, under the condition that this occurred in childhood. Among individuals carrying other indications of brain-tissue damage, only two described types have a somewhat measured inclination, namely frontal and paranoidal characteropaths. In the case of frontal characteropathy, this is principally the result of an incapacity for self-critical reflection and an incapacity for the abandonment of a dead-end street into which one has thoughtlessly stumbled. Paranoidal individuals expect uncritical support within such a system. In general however, the carriers of various kinds of brain-tissue damage lean clearly to the society of normal people, and as a result of their psychological problems suffer even more than healthy people.

It also turned out that the carriers of some physiological anomalies known to physicians and sometimes to psychologists, and which are primarily hereditary in nature, manifest split tendencies similar to schizoids. In a similar manner, people whom nature has unfortunately saddled with a short life and an early cancer-related death frequently indicate a characteristic and irrational attraction for this phenomenon. These latter observations were decisive in my agreeing to call the phenomenon by this name, which had originally struck me as semantically overly loose. An individual’s decreased resistance to the effects of pathocracy and his attraction to this phenomenon appear to be a holistic response of person’s organism, not merely of his psychological makeup alone.

Approximately 6% of the population constitutes the active structure of the new rulership, which carries its own peculiar consciousness of its own goals. Twice as many people constitute a second group: those who have managed to warp their personalities to meet the demands of the new reality. This leads to attitudes which can already be interpreted within the categories of the natural psychological world-view, i.e. the errors we are committing are much smaller. It is of course not possible to draw an exact boundary between these groups; the separation adduced here is merely descriptive in nature.

This second group consists of individuals who are, on the average, weaker, more sickly, and less vital. The frequency of known mental diseases in this group is at twice the rate of the national average. We can thus assume that the genesis of their submissive attitude toward the regime, their greater susceptibility to pathological effects, and their skittish opportunism includes various relatively impalpable anomalies. We observe not only physiological anomalies, but also the kinds described above at the lowest intensity, with the exception of essential psychopathy.

The 6% group constitute the new nobility; the 12% group gradually forms the new bourgeoisie, whose economic situation is the most advantageous. Adapting to the new conditions, not without conflicts of conscience, makes the people into both dodgers and, simultaneously, intermediaries between the oppositional society and the active group, whom they can talk to in the appropriate language. They play such a crucial role within this system that both sides must take them into account. Since their capacities and skills are better than those of the active group, they assume various managerial positions. Normal people see them as persons they can approach, generally without being subjected to pathological arrogance.

Only 18% of the country’s population is thus in favor of the new system of government; but concerning of the layer we have called the bourgeoisie, we may even be doubtful of the sincerity of these attitudes.

The great majority of the population gradually forms the society of normal people, creating an informal communications network. It behooves us to wonder why these people reject the advantages conformity affords, consciously preferring the opposing role: poverty, harassment, and curtailment of human freedoms. What ideals motivate them? Is this merely a kind of romanticism representing ties to tradition and religion? Still, so many people with a religious upbringing change their world-view very quickly..... The next chapter is dedicated to this question. For the moment, let us limit ourselves to stating that a person with a normal human instinctive substratum, good basic intelligence, and full faculties of critical thought would have a difficult time accepting such a compromise; it would devastate his personality and engender neurosis. At the same time, such a system easily distinguishes and separates him from its own kind regardless of his sporadic hesitations. No method of propaganda can change the nature of this macro-social phenomenon or the nature of a normal human being. They remain foreign to each other.
 
Continuing with Lobaczewski's analysis of the progress of the Pathocratic disease. Keep in mind that his "subjects" for study were first the Nazis, and second The Communists. He makes the point in another place that the Ideology of Communism was taken over and subverted by Pathocrats so that it became, in effect, State Corporatism. In the US, this process is moving from the other direction: the coporotization of the State.

The above-described subdivision into three sections should not be identified with membership in the party, which is officially ideological but in fact pathocratic. Such a system contains many normal people forced to join such a party by various circumstances, and who must pretend as best they can to represent said party’s more reasonable adherents. After a year or two of obtusely executed instructions, they start becoming independent and reestablishing their severed ties to society. Their former friends begin to get the gist of their double game. This is the situation of large numbers of the adherents of the former ideology, which is now fulfilling its changed function. They are also the first to protest that this system does not truly represent their old political beliefs. We must also remember that specially trusted people, whose loyalty is a foregone conclusion due to their psychological nature and the functions they perform, have no need to belong to the party; they stand above it.

After a typical pathocratic structure has been formed, the population is effectively divided according to completely different lines from what someone raised outside the purview of this phenomenon might imagine, and in a manner whose actual conditions are also impossible to comprehend for someone lacking essential specialized training. However, an intuitive sense for these causes gradually forms among the majority of society in a country affected by the phenomenon. A person raised in a normal man’s system is accustomed since childhood to seeing economic and ideological problems in the foreground, possibly also the results of social injustice. Such concepts have proved illusory and ineffective in a most tragic manner: the macrosocial phenomenon has its own properties and laws which can only be studied and comprehended within the appropriate categories.

However, in leaving behind our old natural method of comprehension and learning to track the internal causality of the phenomenon, we marvel at the surprising exactness with which the latter turns out to be subjected to its own regular laws. With regard to individuals, there is always a greater scope of some individualism and environmental influences. In statistical analyses these variable factors disappear and the essential constant characteristics surface. The entirety is thus clearly subject to causative determination. This explains the relative ease of transition from studying causation to predicting future changes in the phenomenon. In time, the adequacy of collected knowledge has been confirmed by the accuracy of these predictions.

Let us now take individual cases into consideration. For instance: we meet two people whose behavior makes us suspect they are psychopaths, but their attitudes to the pathocratic system are quite different; the first is affirmative, the second painfully critical. Studies on the basis of tests detecting brain tissue damage will indicate such changes in the second person, but not in the first; in the second case we are dealing with behavior which may be strongly reminiscent of psychopathy, but whose substratum is different.

If a carrier of an essential psychopathy gene was a member of the decidedly anti-communist government party before the war, he will be treated as an “ideological enemy” during the pathocracy’s formative period. However, he soon appears to find a modus vivendi with the new authorities and enjoys a certain amount of tolerance. The moment when he becomes transformed into an adherent of the new “ideology” and finds the way back to the ruling party is only a matter of time and circumstance.

If the family of a typical zealous pathocrat produces a son who does not inherit the appropriate gene, thanks to a happy genetic coincidence, (or he was born from a bio-psychologically normal partner), such a son will be raised in the corresponding youth organization, faithful to the ideology and the party, which he joins early. By mature manhood, however, he will begin to list toward the society of normal people. The opposition, that world which feels and thinks normally, becomes ever closer to him; therein he finds himself and a set of values unknown to him. A conflict eventually arises between himself and his family, party, and environment, under conditions which may be more or less dramatic. This starts out with critical statements and the writing of rather naive appeals requesting changes in the party, in the direction of healthy common sense, of course. Such people then finally begin to do battle on society’s side, bearing sacrifices and suffering. Others decide to abandon their native country and wander foreign lands, lonely among people who cannot understand them or the problems under which they were raised.

With regard to the phenomenon as whole, one can predict its primary properties and processes of change and estimate the time at which they will occur. Regardless of its genesis, no pathocratic activation of the population of a country affected by this phenomenon can exceed the above discussed boundaries set by biological factors. The phenomenon will develop according to the patterns we have already described, gnawing ever deeper into the country’s social fabric. The resulting pathocratic mono-party will bifurcate from the very outset: one wing is consistently pathological and earns nicknames such as “doctrinarian”, “hard-headed”, “beton”, etc. The second is considered more liberal, and in fact this is where the reverberation of the original ideology remains alive for the longest. The representatives of this second wing try as hard as their shrinking powers permit to bend this strange reality into a direction more amenable to human reason, and they do not lose complete touch with society’s links. The first internal crisis of weakness occurs some ten years after such a system has emerged; as a result, the society of normal people gains a bit more freedom. During this time frame, skillful outside action can already count on internal cooperation.

Pathocracy corrodes the entire social organism, wasting its skills and power. The effects of this more ideational wing of the party and its enlivening influence upon the workings of the entire country gradually weaken. Typical pathocrats take over all the managerial functions in a totally destroyed structure of a nation. Such a state must be short-term, since no ideology can vivify it. The time comes when the common masses of people want to live like human beings and the system can no longer resist. There will be no great counter-revolution; a more or less stormy process of regeneration will instead ensue.

Pathocracy is even less of a socioeconomic system than a social structure or political system. It is a macrosocial disease process affecting entire nations and running the course of its characteristic pathodynamic properties. The phenomenon changes too quickly in time for us to be able to comprehend it in categories which would imply a certain stability, not ruling out the evolutionary processes to which social systems are subject. Any way of comprehending the phenomenon by imputing certain enduring properties to it thus quickly causes us to lose sight of its current contents. The dynamics of transformation in time is part of the nature of the phenomenon; we cannot possibly achieve comprehension from outside its parameters.

As long as we keep using methods of comprehending this pathological phenomenon, which apply certain political doctrines whose contents are heterogeneous with regard to its true nature, we will not be able to identify the causes and properties of the disease. A correspondingly prepared ideology will be able to cloak these essential qualities from the minds of scientists, politicians, and common people. In such a state of affairs, we will never elaborate any causatively active methods which could stifle the phenomenon’s pathological self-reproduction or its expansionist external influences. Ignota nulla curatio morbi!

However, once we understand a disease’s etiological factors and their activities as well as the pathodynamics of its changes, we find that the search for a curative method generally becomes much easier. Something similar applies with regard to the macrosocial pathological phenomenon discussed above.
Next: how normal people function under a Pathocracy and learn to survive and cooperate.
 
Lobaczewski on the effects of a Pathocracy on normal people.

As adduced above, the anomaly distinguished as essential psychopathy inspires the overall phenomenon in a well-developed pathocracy and betrays biological analogies to the well-known phenomenon called Daltonism, color-blindness or near-blindness as regard to red and green. For the purpose of an intellectual exercise, let us thus imagine that Daltonists have managed to take over power in some country and have forbidden the citizens from distinguishing these colors, thus eliminating the distinction between green (unripe) and ripe tomatoes. Special vegetable patch inspectors armed with pistols and pickets would patrol the areas to make sure the citizens picked not only the ripe tomatoes. Such inspectors could not, of course, be totally color-blind themselves (otherwise they could not exercise this extremely important function), They could not suffer more than near-blindness as regards these colors. However, they would have to belong to the clan of people made nervous by any discussion about colors.

With such authorities around, the citizens might even be willing to eat a green tomato and affirm quite convincingly that it was ripe. But once the severe inspectors left for some other garden far away enough, there would be the shower of comments, it does not behoove me to adduce in a scientific work. The citizens would than pick nicely vine-ripened tomatoes, make a salad with cream, and add a few drops of rum for flavor.

May I suggest that all normal people whom fate has forced to live under pathocratic rule make the serving of a salad according to the above recipe into a symbolic custom. Any guest recognizing the symbol by its color and aroma will refrain from making any comments. Such a custom might hasten the reinstallation of a normal man’s system.

The pathological authorities are convinced that the appropriate pedagogical, indoctrinational, propaganda, and terrorist means can teach a person with a normal instinctive substratum, range of feelings, and basic intelligence to think and feel according to their own different fashion. This conviction is only slightly less unrealistic, psychologically speaking, than the belief that people able to see colors normally can be broken of this habit.

Actually, normal people cannot get rid of the characteristics with which the Homo sapiens species was endowed by its phylogenetic past. Such people will thus never stop feeling and perceiving psychological and socio-moral phenomena in much the same way their ancestors had been doing for hundreds of generations. Any attempt to make a society subjugated to the above phenomenon “learn” this different experiential manner imposed by pathological egotism is, in principle, fated for failure regardless of how many generations it might last. It does, however, call forth a series of improper psychological results which may give the pathocrats the appearance of success. However, it also provokes society to elaborate pinpointed, well-thought-out self-defense measures based on its cognitive and creative efforts.

Pathocratic leadership believes that it can achieve a state wherein those “other” people’s minds become dependent by means of the effects of their personality, perfidious pedagogical means, the means of mass- information, and psychological terror; such faith has a basic meaning for them. In their conceptual world, pathocrats consider it virtually self-evident that the “others” should accept their obvious, realistic, and simple way of apprehending reality. For some mysterious reason, though, the “others” wriggle out, slither away, and tell each other jokes. Someone must be responsible for this, pre-revolutionary oldsters, or some radio stations abroad. It thus becomes necessary to improve the methodology of action, find better “soul engineers” with a certain literary talent, and isolate society from improper literature and any foreign influence. Those experiences and intuitions whispering that this is a Sisyphean labor must be repressed from the field of consciousness.

The conflict is thus dramatic for both sides. The first feels insulted in its humanity, rendered obtuse, and forced to think in a manner contrary to healthy common sense. The other stifles the premonition that if this goal cannot be reached, sooner or later things will revert to normal man’s rule, including their vengeful lack of understanding of the pathocrats’ personalities. So if it does not work, it is best not to think about the future, just prolong the status quo by means of the above-mentioned efforts. Toward the end of this book, it will behoove us to consider the possibilities for untying this Gordian knot.

However, such a pedagogical system, rife with pathological egotisation and limitations, produces serious negative results, especially in those generations unfamiliar with any other conditions of life. Personality development is impoverished, particularly regarding the more subtle values widely accepted in societies. We observe the characteristic lack of respect for one’s own organism and the voice of nature and instinct, accompanied by brutalization of feelings and customs, to be explained away by a sense of injustice. The tendency to be morally judgmental in interpreting the behavior of those who caused one’s suffering sometimes leads to a demonological world-view. At the same time, adaptation and resourcefulness within these different conditions become the object of recognition.

A person who has been the object of the effects of the egotistic behavior of pathological individuals for a long time becomes saturated with their characteristic psychological material to such an extent that we can thereupon frequently discern the kind of psychological anomalies which affected him. The personalities of former concentration-camp inmates have become saturated with generally psychopathic material ingested from camp commanders and tormentors, creating a phenomenon so widespread that it later becomes a primary motive of psychotherapy. Becoming aware of this makes it easier for them to throw off this burden and re-establish contact with the normal human world. In particular, being shown appropriate statistical data concerning the appearance of psychopathy in a given population facilitates their search for a calmer view of their nightmare years and a rebuilding of trust in their fellow man.

This kind of psychotherapy would be extremely useful for those people who need it most, but it has unfortunately proved too risky for a psychotherapist. Patients easily make connective transfers, unfortunately all too often correct, between the information learned during such therapy (particularly in the area of psychopathy) and the reality surrounding them under the rule of “popular democracy”. Former camp inmates are unhappily unable to hold their tongues in check, which causes intervention on the part of political authorities.

When American soldiers returned from North Vietnamese prison camps, many of them proved to have been subjected to indoctrination and other methods of influencing by pathological material. A certain degree of transpersonification appeared in many of these. In the U.S.A. this was called “programming” and outstanding psychotherapists proceeded to effect therapy for the purpose of deprogramming them. It turned out that they met with opposition and critical commentary concerning their skills, among other things. When I heard about this, I breathed a deep sigh and thought: Dear God, what interesting work that would make for a psychotherapist who understands such matters well.

The pathocratic world, the world of pathological egotism and terror, is so difficult to understand for people raised outside the scope of this phenomenon that they often manifest childlike naiveté, even if they studied psychopathology and are psychologists by profession. There are no real data in their behavior, advice, rebukes, and psychotherapy. That explains why their efforts are boring and hurtful and frequently come to naught. Their egotism transforms their good will into ill results.

If someone has personally experienced that reality, he considers people who have not progressed in understanding it within the same time frame to be simply presumptuous, sometimes even malicious. In the course of his experience and contact with this macro-social phenomenon, he has collected a certain amount of practical knowledge about the phenomenon and its psychology and learned to protect his own personality. This experience, unceremoniously rejected by “people who don’t understand anything”, becomes a psychological burden for him, forcing him to live within a narrow circle of persons whose experiences have been similar. Such a person should rather be treated as the bearer of valuable scientific data; understanding would constitute at least partial psychotherapy for him, and would simultaneously open the door to a comprehension of reality.

I would here like to remind psychologists that these kinds of experiences and their destructive effects upon the human personality are not unknown to scientific practice and experience. We often meet with patients requiring appropriate assistance: individuals raised under the influence of pathological, especially psychopathic, personalities who were forced with a pathological egotism to accept an abnormal way of thinking. Even an approximate determination of the type of pathological factors which operated upon him allow us to pinpoint psychotherapeutic measures. In practice we most frequently meet cases wherein such a pathological situation operated upon a patient’s personality in early childhood, as a result of which we must utilize long term measures and work very carefully, using various techniques, in order to help him develop his true personality.

Children under pathocratic rule are protected until school age. Then they meet with decent people who attempt to limit the destructive influences as much as possible. The most intense effects occur during adolescence and the ensuing time frame of intellectual maturation. This rescues the society of normal people from deeper deformations in personality development and widespread neurosis. This period remains within persistent memory and is thus amenable to insight, reflection, and disillusion. Such people’s psychotherapy would consist almost exclusively of utilizing the correct knowledge of the essence of the phenomenon.

Regardless of the social scale within which human individuals were forcibly reared by pathological persons, whether individual, group, societal, or macrosocial, the principles of psychotherapeutic action will thus be similar, and should be based upon data known to us, and an understanding of the psychological situation. Making a patient aware of the kind of pathological factors which affected him, and jointly understanding the results of such effects, is basic to such therapy. We do not utilize this method if, in an individual case, we have indications that the patient has inherited this factor. However, such limitations should not be consistent with regard to macrosocial phenomena affecting the welfare of entire nations.
 
Last bit on the Normal Person's life under a Pathocracy:

Lobaczewski said:
If a person with a normal instinctive substratum and basic intelligence has already heard and read about such a system of ruthless autocratic rule “based on a fanatical ideology”, he feels he has already formed an opinion on the subject. However, direct confrontation with the phenomenon causes him to feel intellectually helpless. All his prior imaginings prove to be virtually useless; they explain next to nothing. This provokes a nagging sensation that he and the society in which he was educated were quite naive.

Anyone capable of accepting this bitter void with an awareness of his own nescience, which would do a philosopher proud, can also find an orientation path within this deviant world. However, egotistically protecting his world-view habits from disintegrative disillusionment and attempting to combine them with observations from this new divergent reality only reaps mental chaos. The latter has produced unnecessary conflicts and disillusionment with the new rulership in some people; others have subordinated themselves to the pathological reality.

One of the differences observed between a normally resistant person and somebody who has undergone a transpersonification is that the former is better able to survive this disintegrating cognitive void, whereas the latter fills the void with the pathologic propaganda material, and without sufficient controls.

When the human mind comes into contact with this new reality so different from any experiences encountered by a person raised in a society dominated by normal people, it releases psychophysiological shock symptoms in the human brain with a higher tonus of cortex inhibition and a stifling of feelings, which then sometimes gush forth uncontrollably. Human minds work more slowly and less keenly because the associative mechanisms have become inefficient. Especially when a person has direct contact with psychopathic representatives of the new rule, who use their specific experience so as to traumatize the minds of the “others” with their own personalities, his mind succumbs to a state of short-term catatonia. Their humiliating and arrogant techniques, brutal para-moralizations, and so forth deaden his thought processes and his self-defense capabilities, and their divergent experiential method anchors in his mind. In the presence of this kind of phenomenon, any moralizing evaluation of a person’s behavior in such a situation thus becomes inaccurate at best.

Only once these unbelievably unpleasant psychological states have passed, thanks to rest in benevolent company, is it possible to reflect, always a difficult and painful process, or to become aware that one’s mind and common sense have been fooled by something which cannot fit into the normal human imagination. Man and society stands at the beginning of a long road of unknown experiences which, after much trial and error, finally leads to a certain hermetic knowledge of what the qualities of the phenomenon are and how best to build up psychological resistance thereto. Especially during the dissimulative phase, this makes it possible to adapt to life in this different world and thus arrange more tolerable living conditions.

We shall thereupon observe psychological phenomena, knowledge, immunization, and adaptation such as could not have been predicted before and which cannot be understood in the world remaining under the rule of normal man’s systems. A normal person, however, can never completely adapt to a pathological system; it is easy to be pessimistic about the final results of this.

Such experiences are exchanged during evening discussions among a circle of friends, thereby creating within people’s minds a kind of cognitive conglomeration which is initially incoherent and contains factual deficiencies. The participation of moral categories in such a comprehension of the macro-social phenomenon, and the manner in which particular individuals behave, is proportionally much greater within such a new world-view than the above adduced scientific knowledge would dictate.

The ideology officially preached by the pathocracy continues to retain its ever-diminishing suggestive powers until such time as human reason manages to localize it as something subordinate, which is not descriptive of the essence of phenomenon.

Moral and religious values, as well as a nation’s centuries-old cultural heritage, furnish most societies with support for the long road of both individual and collective searching through the jungle of strange phenomena. This apperceptive capacity possessed by people within the framework of the natural world-view contains a deficiency which hides the nucleus of the phenomenon for many years. Under such conditions, both instinct and feelings, and the resulting basic intelligence, play instrumental roles, stimulating man to make selections which are to a great extent subconscious.

Under the conditions created by imposed pathocratic rule in particular, where the just described psychological deficiencies are decisive in joining the activities of such a system, our natural human instinctive substratum is an instrumental factor in joining the opposition. Similarly, the environmental, economic, and ideological motivations which influenced the formation of an individual personality, including those political attitudes which were assumed earlier, play the role of modifying factors which are not as enduring in time. The activity of these latter factors, albeit relatively clear with relation to individuals, disappear within the statistical approach and diminish through the years of pathocratic rule. The decisions and the way selections made for the side of the society of normal people are once again finally decided by factors usually inherited by biological means, and thus not the product of the person’s option, and predominantly in subconscious processes.

Man’s general intelligence, especially its intellectual level, play a relatively limited role in this process of selecting a path of action, as expressed by statistically significant but low correlation (-0.16). The higher a person’s general level of talent, the harder it usually is for him to reconcile himself with this different reality and to find a modus vivendi within it.

At the same time, gifted and talented people join the pathocracy, and harsh words of contempt for the system can be heard on the part of simple, uneducated people. Only those people with the highest degree of intelligence, which, as mentioned, does not accompany psychopathies, are unable to find the meaning of life within such a system. They are sometimes able to take advantage of their superior mentality in order to find exceptional ways in which to be useful to others. Wasting the best talents spells eventual catastrophe for any social system.

Since those factors subject to the laws of genetics have proven decisive, society becomes divided by means of criteria not known before into the adherents of the new rule, the new middle class mentioned twice above, and the majority opposition. Since the properties which cause this new division appear in more or less equal proportions within any old social group or level, this new division cuts right through these traditional layers of society.

If we treat the former stratification, whose formation was decisively influenced by the talent factor, as horizontal, the new one should be referred to as vertical. The most instrumental factor in the latter is good basic intelligence which, as we already know, is widely distributed throughout all social groups.
Even those people who were the object of social injustice in the former system and then bestowed with another system, which allegedly protected them, slowly start criticizing the latter. [...]

From the point of view of economics and reality, any system wherein most of the property and workplaces are state owned de jure and de facto is state capitalism. Such a system contains the traits of a primitive nineteenth-century capitalist exploiter who still has an insufficient grasp of his role in society and of how his interests were linked to workers’ welfare. Workers are very much aware of these traits, especially if they have collected a certain amount of knowledge in connection with their political activities.

A reasonable socialist aiming to replace capitalism with some system in conformity with his idea, which would be based on worker participation in the administration of the work place and the profits, will reject such a system as the “worst variety of capitalism”. After all, concentrating capital and rulership in one place always leads to degeneration. Capital must feel subject to the authority of fairness. Eliminating such a degenerate form of capitalism should thus be a priority task for any socialist. Nonetheless, such reasoning by means of social and economic categories obviously misses the crux of the matter. [...]

One of the first discoveries made by a society of normal people is that it is superior to the new rulers in intelligence and practical skills, no matter what geniuses they appear to be. The knots stultifying reason are gradually loosened, and fascination with the new rulership’s secret knowledge and plan of action begins to diminish, followed by familiarization with the knowledge about this new reality.

The world of normal people is always superior to the other one whenever constructive activity is needed, whether it be the reconstruction of a devastated country, the area of technology, the organization of economic life, or scientific and medical work. “They want to build things, but they can’t get much done without us.”

Qualified experts are even more frequently able to make certain demands; unfortunately, they are just as often only considered qualified until the job has been done. Once the factory has started up, the experts can leave; management will be taken over by someone else, incapable of further progress, under whose leadership much of the effort expended will be wasted.

As we have already pointed out, every psychological anomaly is in fact a kind of deficiency. Psychopathies are based primarily upon deficiencies in the instinctive substratum; however, their influence exerted upon mental development also leads to deficiencies in general intelligence, as discussed above. This deficiency is not compensated by the creation of the special psychological knowledge we observe among some psychopaths. Such knowledge loses its mesmerizing power when normal people learn to understand these phenomena as well. The psychopathologist was thus not surprised by the fact that the world of normal people is dominant regarding skill and talent. For that society, however, this represented a discovery which engendered hope and psychological relaxation.

Since our intelligence is superior to theirs, we can recognize them and understand how they think and act. This is what a person learns in such a system on his own initiative, forced by everyday needs. He learns it while working in his office, school, or factory, when he needs to deal with the authorities, and when he is arrested, something only a few people manage to avoid.

The author and many others learned a good deal about the psychology of this macrosocial phenomenon during compulsory indoctrinational schooling. The organizers and lecturers cannot have intended such a result. Practical knowledge of this new reality thus grows, thanks to which the society gains a resourcefulness of action which enables it to take ever better advantage of the weak spots of the rulership system. This permits gradual reorganization of societal links, which bears fruit with time.[...]

The development of this familiarity with the phenomenon is accompanied by development of communicative language, by means of which society can stay informed and issue warnings of danger. A third language thus appears alongside the ideological doubletalk described above; in part, it borrows names used by the official ideology in their transformed modified meanings. In part, this language operates with words borrowed from still more lively circulating jokes. In spite of its strangeness, this language becomes a useful means of communication and plays a part in regenerating societal links. Lo and behold, this language can be translated and communicated in relations with residents of other countries with analogous governmental systems, even if the other country’s official ideology is different. However, in spite of efforts on the part of literati and journalists, this language remains only communicative inside; it becomes hermetic outside the scope of the phenomenon, uncomprehended by people lacking the appropriate personal experience.

The specific role of certain individuals during such times is worth pointing out; they participate in the discovery of the nature of this new reality and help others find the right path. They have a normal nature but an unfortunate childhood, being subjected very early to the domination of individuals with various psychological deviations, including pathological egotism and methods of terrorizing others. The new rulership system struck such people as a large scale societal multiplication of what they knew from individual experience. From the very outset, they therefore saw this reality much more prosaically, immediately treating the ideology in accordance with the paralogistic stories well known to them, whose purpose was to cloak the bitter reality of their youthful experiences. They soon reach the truth, since the genesis and nature of evil are analogous irrespective of the social scale in which it appears.

Such people are rarely understood in happy societies, but there they became useful; their explanations and advice proved accurate and were transmitted to others joining the network of this apperceptive heritage. However, their own suffering was doubled, since this was too much of a similar kind of abuse for one life to handle. They therefore nursed dreams of escaping into the freedom still existing in the outside world.
Finally, society sees the appearance of individuals who have collected exceptional intuitive perception and practical knowledge in the area of how pathocrats think and how such a system of rule operates. Some of them become so proficient in their deviant language and its idiomatics that they are able to use it, much like a foreign language they have learned well. Since they are able to decipher the rulership’s intentions, such people then offer advice to people who are having trouble with the authorities. These usually disinterested advocates of the society of normal people play a irreplaceable role in the life of society. The pathocrats, however, can never learn to think in normal human categories. At the same time, the ability to predict the ways of reaction of such an authority also leads to the conclusion that the system is rigidly causative and lacking in the natural freedom of choice.

This new science, expressed in language derived from a deviant reality, is something foreign to people who wish to understand this macrosocial phenomenon but think in the categories of the countries of normal man. Attempts to understand this language produce a certain feeling of helplessness which gives rise to the tendency of creating ones own doctrines, built from the concepts of one’s own world and a certain amount of appropriately co-opted pathocratic propaganda material. Such a doctrine, an example would be the American anti-Communist doctrine, makes it even more difficult to understand that other reality. May the objective description adduced herein enable them to overcome the impasse thus engendered.

In countries subjected to pathocratic rule, this knowledge and language, especially human experience, create a mediating concatenation in such a way that most people could assimilate this objective description of the phenomenon without major difficulties with the help of active apperception. Difficulties will only be encountered by the oldest generation and a certain proportion of young people raised in the system since childhood, and these are psychologically understandable.

I was once referred a patient who had been an inmate in a Nazi concentration camp. She came back from that hell in such exceptionally good condition that she was still able to marry and bear three children. However, her child rearing methods were so extremely iron-fisted as to be much too reminiscent of the concentration camp life so stubbornly persevering in former prisoners. The children’s reaction was neurotic protest and aggressiveness against other children.

During the mother’s psychotherapy, we recalled the figures of male and female SS officers to her mind, pointing out their psychopathic characteristics (such people were primary recruits). In order to help her eliminate their pathological material from her person, I furnished her with approximate statistical data regarding the appearance of such individuals within the population as whole.This helped her reach a more objective view of that reality and re-establish trust in the society of normal people.

During the next visit, the patient showed to me a little card on which she had written the names of local pathocratic notables and added her own diagnoses, which were largely correct. So I made a hushing gesture with my finger and admonished her with emphasis that we were dealing only with her problems. The patient understood, and I am sure, she did not make her reflections on the matter known in the wrong places.
Parallel to the development of practical knowledge and a language of insider communication, other psychological phenomena take form; they are truly significant in the transformation of social life under pathocratic rule, and discerning them is essential if one wishes to understand individuals and nations fated to live under such conditions and to evaluate the situation in the political sphere. They include people’s psychological immunization and their adaptation to life under such deviant conditions.

The methods of psychological terror (that specific pathocratic art), the techniques of pathological arrogance, and the striding roughshod into other people’s souls initially have such traumatic effects that people are deprived of their capacity for purposeful reaction; I have already adduced the psychophysiological aspects of such states. Ten or twenty years later, analogous behavior is already recognized as well-known buffoonery and does not deprive the victim of his ability to think and react purposefully. His answers are usually well-thought-out strategies, issued from the position of a normal person’s superiority and often laced with ridicule. Man can look suffering and even death in the eye with the required calm. A dangerous weapon falls out of ruler’s hands.

We have to understand that this process of immunization is not merely a result of the above-described increase in practical knowledge of the macrosocial phenomenon. It is the effect of a many-layered, gradual process of growth in knowledge, familiarization with the phenomenon, creation of the appropriate reactive habits, and self-control, with an overall conception, and moral principles, being worked out in the meantime. After several years, the same stimuli which formerly caused chilly spiritual impotence or mental paralysis now provoke the desire to gargle with something strong so as to get rid of this filth.

This was a time, when many people dreamed of finding some pill which would make it easier to endure dealing with the authorities or attending the forced indoctrination sessions generally chaired by a psychopathic character. Some antidepressants did in fact prove to have the desired effect. Twenty years later, this had been forgotten entirely.

When I was arrested for the first time in 1951, force, arrogance, and psychopathic methods of forcible confession deprived me almost entirely of my self-defense capabilities. My brain stopped functioning after only a few days’ arrest without water, to such a point that I couldn’t even properly remember the incident which resulted in my sudden arrest. I was not even aware that it had been purposely provoked and that conditions permitting self-defense did in fact exist. They did almost anything they wanted to me.
When I was arrested for last time in 1968, I was interrogated by five fierce-looking security functionaries. At one particular moment, after thinking through their predicted reactions, I let my gaze take in each face sequentially with great attentiveness. The most important one asked me, “What’s on your mind, buster, staring at us like that?” I answered without any fear of consequences: “I’m just wondering why so many of you gentleman’s careers end up in a psychiatric hospital.” They were taken aback for a while, whereupon the same man exclaimed, “Because it’s such damned horrible work!” “I am of the opinion that it’s the other way round”, I calmly responded. Then I was taken back to my cell.
Three days later, I had the opportunity to talk to him again, but this time he was much more respectful. Then he ordered me to be taken away--outside, as it turned out. I rode the streetcar home past a large park, still unable to believe my eyes. Once in my room, I lay down on the bed; the world was not quite real yet, but exhausted people fall asleep quickly. When I awoke, I spoke out loud: “Dear God, aren’t you supposed to be in charge here in this world!”

At that time, I knew not only that up to 1/4 of all secret police officials wind up in psychiatric hospitals. I also knew that their “occupational disease” is the congestive dementia formerly encountered only among old prostitutes. Man cannot violate the natural human feelings inside him with impunity, no matter what kind of profession he performs. From that view-point, Comrade Captain was partially right. At the same time, however, my reactions had become resistant, a far cry from what they had been seventeen years earlier.
All these transformations of human consciousness and unconsciousness result in individual and collective adaptation to living under such a system. Under altered conditions of both material and moral limitations, an existential resourcefulness emerges which is prepared to overcome many difficulties. A new network of the society of normal people is also created for self-help and mutual assistance.

This society acts in concert and is aware of the true state of affairs; it begins to develop ways of influencing various elements of authority and achieving goals which are socially useful. Patiently instructing and convincing the rulership’s mediocre representatives takes considerable time and requires pedagogical skills. Therefore, the most even-tempered people are selected for this job, people with sufficient familiarity with their psychology and a specific talent for influencing pathocrats. The opinion that society is totally deprived of any influence upon government in such a country is thus inaccurate. In reality, society does co-govern to a certain extent, sometimes succeeding and sometimes failing in its attempt to create more tolerable living conditions. This, however, occurs in a manner totally different from what happens in democratic countries.

These cognitive processes, psychological immunization, and adaptation permit the creation of new interpersonal and societal links, which operate within the scope of the large majority we have already called the “society of normal people”. These links extend discretely into the world of the regime’s middle class, among people who can be trusted to a certain extent. In time, the social links created are significantly more effective than those active in societies governed by normal human systems. Exchange of information, warnings, and assistance encompass the entire society. Whoever is able to do so offers aid to anyone who finds himself in trouble, often in such a way that the person helped does not know who rendered the assistance. However, if he caused his misfortune by his own lack of circumspect caution with regard to the authorities, he meets with reproach, but not the withholding of assistance.

It is possible to create such links because this new division of society gives only limited consideration to factors such as the level of talent, education or traditions attached to the former social layers. Neither do reduced prosperity differences dissolve these links. One side of this division contains those of the highest mental culture, simple ordinary people, intellectuals, headwork specialists, factory workers, and peasants joined by the common protest of their human nature against the domination of para-human experiential and governmental methods. These links engender interpersonal understanding and fellow-feeling among people and social groups formerly divided by economic differences and social traditions. The thought processes serving these links are of a more psychological character, able to comprehend someone else’s motivations. At the same time, the ordinary folk retain respect for people who have been educated and represent intellectual values. Certain social and moral values also appear and may prove to be permanent.

The genesis, however, of this great interpersonal solidarity only becomes comprehensible once we already know the nature of the pathological macrosocial phenomenon which brought about the liberation of such attitudes, complete with recognition of one’s own humanity and that of others. Another reflection suggests itself, namely how very different these great links are from America’s “competitive society”, for whom the former represents something which is operational even though it crosses the boundaries of the imagination.
One would think that a nation’s cultural and intellectual life would quickly degenerate when subjected to the country’s isolation from the cultural and scientific links with other nations, pathocratic limitations upon the development of one’s thought, a censorship system, the mental level of the executives, and all those other attributes of such rule. Reality nevertheless does not validate such pessimistic predictions. The necessity for constant mental effort so crucial for finding some tolerable way of life, not totally bereft of moral sense within such a deviant reality, cause the development of realistic perception, especially in the area of socio-psychological phenomena. Protecting one’s mind from the effects of paralogistic propaganda, as well as one’s personality from the influence of para-moralisms and the other techniques already described, sharpens controlled thinking processes and the ability to discern these phenomena. Such training is also a special kind of common man’s university.

During such times, society reaches for historical sources in searching for the ancient causes of its misfortunes and for ways to improve its fate in the future. Scientific and societal minds laboriously review the national history in quest of interpretations of the facts which would be more profound from the point of view of psychological and moral realism. We soberly discern what happened years and centuries ago, perceiving the errors of former generations and the results of intolerance or emotionally weighted decision-making. Such a great review of individual, social, and historical world-views in this search for meaning of life and history is a product of unhappy times and will help along the way back to happy ones.

Another object of consideration became: moral problems applicable in individual life as well as in history and politics. The mind starts reaching ever deeper in this area, achieving ever more subtle understanding of the matter, because it is precisely in this world that the old oversimplifications proved to be unsatisfactory. An understanding of other people, including those who commit errors and crimes, appears a problem-solving way which was formerly underrated. Forgiveness is only one step beyond comprehension. As Mme. de Stael wrote: “Tout comprendere, c’est tout pardoner” . [...]

Thus, during brutal times of confrontation with evil, human capabilities of discriminating phenomena become subtler; apperceptive and moral sensibility develops. Critical faculties sometimes border with cynicism.[...]

Thanks to all these transformations, including the de-egotization of thought and attitude connected thereto, society becomes capable of a mental creativity which goes beyond normal conditions. This effort could be useful in any cultural, technical, or economic area if the authorities did not oppose and stifle it because they feel threatened by such activity. Human genius is not born of lazy prosperity and among genteel camaraderie, but rather stands in perpetual confrontation with a recalcitrant reality which is different from ordinary human imaginations. Under such conditions, wide-scale theoretical approaches are found to have practical existential value. The old system of thought which remains in use in free countries starts to look backward, naive, and bereft of feeling of hierarchical values.

If nations which arrived at such a state were to regain their freedom, many valuable accomplishments of human thought would mature within a short time. No excessive fears would be in order as to whether such a nation would then be capable of elaborating a workable socio-economic system. Quite the contrary: the absence of egoistical pressure groups, the conciliatory nature of a society which has years of bitter experience behind it, and the penetrating, morally profound thought processes would permit the way out to be found relatively rapidly. Danger and difficulty would rather come from outside pressures on the part of nations which do not adequately understand the conditions in such a country. But unfortunately, the pathocracy cannot be dosed as a bitter medicine!

The older generation, raised in a normal man’s country, generally reacts by developing the above-mentioned skills, i.e. by enrichment; the younger generation, however, was raised under pathocratic rule and thus succumbs to a greater world-view impoverishment, reflex rigidification of personality, and domination by habitual structures, those typical results of the operation of pathological personalities. Paralogistic propaganda and its corresponding indoctrination are consciously rejected; however, this process demands time and effort which could better be used for active apperception of valuable contents. The latter are accessible only with difficulty, due both to limitations and to apperceptive problems. There arises the feeling of a certain void which is hard to fill. In spite of human good will, certain paralogisms and para-moralisms, as well as cognitive materialism, anchor and persevere in brains. The human mind is not able to disprove every single falsity which has been suggested to it.

The emotional life of people raised within such a deviant psychological reality is also fraught with difficulties. In spite of critical reason, a certain saturation of a youngster’s personality with pathological psychological material is unavoidable, as is a degree of primitivization and rigidity of feelings. The constant efforts to control one’s emotions, so as to avoid having some stormy reaction provoke repression on the part of a vindictive and retentive regime, cause feelings to be repressed into a role of something rather problematic, something which should not be given a natural outlet. Suppressed emotional reactions surface later, when the person can afford to express them; they are delayed and inappropriate to the situation at hand. Worries about the future awaken egotism among people thus adapted to life in a pathological social structure.

Neurosis is a natural response of human nature if a normal person is subordinated to domination of pathological people. The same applies to the subordination of a society and its members to a pathological system of authority. In a pathocratic state, every person with a normal nature thus exhibits a certain chronic neurotic state, controlled by the efforts of reason. The intensity of these states varies among individuals, depending upon different circumstances, usually more serious in direct proportion to the individual’s intelligence. Psychotherapy upon such people is only possible and effective if we can rely on adequate familiarity with the causes of these states. Western educated psychologists thus prove completely impractical with regard to such patients.

A psychologist working in such a country must develop special operational techniques unknown and even unfathomable to specialists practicing in the free world. They have the purpose of partially liberating the voice of instinct and feeling from this abnormal over control, and of rediscovering the voice of nature’s wisdom within, but this must be done in such a way as to avoid exposing the patient to the unfortunate results of excessive freedom of reaction in the conditions under which he must live. A psychotherapist must operate carefully, with the help of allusions, because only rarely may he openly inform the patient of the system’s pathological nature. However, even under such conditions, we can achieve a greater experiential freedom, more appropriate thought processes, and better decision making capabilities. As a result of all this, the patient subsequently behaves with greater caution and feels much safer. [...]

Whoever wants to maintain the freedom of his country and of the world already threatened by this macrosocial pathological phenomenon, whoever would like to heal this sick planet of ours, should not only understand the nature of this great disease, but should also be conscious of potentially regenerative healing powers. Every country within the scope of this macrosocial phenomenon contains a large majority of normal people living and suffering there who will never accept pathocracy; their protest against it derives from the depths of their own souls and their human nature as conditioned by properties transmitted by means of biological heredity. The forms of this protest and the ideologies by which they would like to realize their natural wishes may nevertheless change.
 
Lobaczewski writes on the subject of Pathocratic suppression of science, particularly psychology:

When I came to the West, I met people with leftist attitudes who unquestioningly believed that communist countries existed in more or less the form expounded by American political doctrines. These persons were almost certain that psychology and psychiatry must enjoy freedom in those countries referred to as communist, and that matters were similar to what was mentioned above.

When I contradicted them, they refused to believe me and kept asking why, “why isn’t it like that”? What can politics have to do with psychiatry?

My attempts to explain what that other reality looks like met with the difficulties we are already familiar with, although some people had previously heard about the abuse of psychiatry. However, such “whys” kept cropping up in conversation, and remained unanswered.

The situation in these scientific areas, of social and curative activities, and of the people occupied in these matters, can only be comprehended once we have perceived the true nature of pathocracy in the light of the ponerological approach.

Let us thus imagine something which is only possible in theory, namely, that a country under pathocratic rule is inadvertently allowed to freely develop these sciences, enabling a normal influx of scientific literature and contacts with scientists in other countries. Psychology, psychopathology, and psychiatry would flourish abundantly and produce outstanding representatives. What would it result in?

This accumulation of proper knowledge would, within a short time, enable undertaking investigations whose meaning we already understand. Missing elements and insufficiently investigated questions would be complemented and deepened by means of the appropriate detailed research. The diagnosis of the state of affairs would then be elaborated within the first dozen or so years of the formation of pathocracy, especially if the latter is imposed. The basis of the deductive rationale would be significantly wider than anything the author can present here, and would be illustrated by means of a rich body of analytical and statistical material.

Once transmitted to world opinion, such a diagnosis would quickly become incorporated into it, forcing naive political and propaganda doctrines out of societal consciousness. It would reach nations who are the objects of the pathocratic empire’s expansionist intentions. This would render the usefulness of any ideology as a pathocratic Trojan horse doubtful at best.

In spite of differences among them, countries with normal human systems would be united by characteristic solidarity in the defense of an already understood danger, similar to the solidarity linking normal people living under pathocratic rule.

This consciousness, popularized in the countries affected by this phenomenon, would simultaneously reinforce psychological resistance on the part of normal human societies and furnish them with new measures of self defense. Can any pathocratic empire risk permitting such a possibility?

In times when the above-mentioned disciplines are developing swiftly in many countries, the problem of preventing such a psychiatric threat becomes a matter of “to be or not to be” for pathocracy. Any possibility of such a situation’s emerging must thus be staved off prophylactically and skillfully, both within and without the empire. At the same time, the empire is able to find effective preventive measures thanks to its consciousness of being different as well as that specific psychological knowledge of psychopaths with which we are already familiar, partially reinforced by academic knowledge.

Both inside and outside the boundaries of countries affected by the above-mentioned phenomenon, a purposeful and conscious system of control, terror, and diversion is thus set to work. Any scientific papers publishing under such governments or imported from abroad must be monitored to ascertain that they do not contain data which could be harmful to the pathocracy.

Specialists with superior talent become the objects of blackmail and malicious control. This of course causes the results to become inferior with reference to these areas of science.

The entire operation must of course be managed in such a way as to avoid attracting the attention of public opinion in countries with normal human structures. The effects of such a “bad break” could be too far-reaching. This explains why people caught doing investigative work in this area are destroyed without a sound and suspicious persons are forced abroad to become the objects of appropriately organized harassment campaigns there.
Here Lobaczewski has described exactly what we have uncovered AND experienced personally. Any group that is investigating in areas that could really upset the status quo become subjected to organized harassment which continues even though we have left the US. It only stopped, temporarily, when we took down our website as an experiment April/May of 2003.

Battles are thus being fought on secret fronts which may be reminiscent of the Second World War. The soldiers and leaders fighting in various theaters were not aware that their fate depended on the outcome of that other war, waged by scientists and other soldiers, whose goal was preventing the Germans from producing the atom bomb. The Allies won this battle, and the United States became the first to possess this lethal weapon. For the present, however, the West keeps losing scientific and political battles on this new secret front. Lone fighters are looked upon as odd, denied assistance, or forced to work hard for their bread. Meanwhile, the ideological Trojan horse keeps invading new countries.

An examination of the methodology of such battles, both on the internal and the external fronts, points to that specific pathocratic self-knowledge so difficult to comprehend in the light of the natural language of concepts.

In order to be able to control people and those relatively non-popularized areas of science, one must know or be able to sense what is going on and which fragments of psychopathology are most dangerous. The examiner of this methodology thus also becomes aware of the boundaries and imperfections of this self-knowledge and practice, i.e. the other side’s weaknesses, errors, and gaffes, and may manage to take advantage of them.

In nations with pathocratic systems, supervision over scientific and cultural organizations is assigned to a special department of especially trusted people, a “Nameless Office” composed almost entirely of relatively intelligent persons who betray characteristic psychopathic traits. These people must be capable of completing their academic studies, albeit sometimes by forcing examiners to issue generous evaluations. Their talents are usually inferior to those of average students, especially regarding psychological science. In spite of that, they are rewarded for their services by obtaining academic degrees and positions and are allowed to represent their country’s scientific community abroad.

As especially trusted individuals, they are allowed to not participate in local meetings of the party, or to even avoid joining it entirely. In case of need, they might then pass for non-party. In spite of that, these scientific and cultural superintendents are well-known to the society of normal people, who learn the art of differentiation rather quickly. They are not always properly distinguished from agents of the political police; although they consider themselves in a better class than the latter, they must nevertheless cooperate with them.

We often meet with such people abroad, where various foundations and institutes give them scientific grants with the conviction that they are thereby assisting the development of proper knowledge in countries under “communist” governments. These benefactors do not realize that they are rendering a disservice to such science and to real scientists by allowing the supervisors to attain a certain semi-authentic authority, and by allowing them to become more familiar with whatever they shall later deem to be dangerous.

After all, those people shall later have the power to permit someone to take a doctorate, embark upon a scientific career, achieve academic tenure, and become promoted. Very mediocre scientists themselves, they attempt to knock down more talented persons, governed both by self-interest and that typical jealousy which characterizes a pathocrat’s attitude toward normal people. They will be the ones monitoring scientific papers for their “proper ideology” and attempting to ensure that a good specialist will be denied the scientific literature he needs.

Controls are exceptionally malicious and treacherous in the above-mentioned psychological sciences in particular, for reasons now understandable to us. Written and unwritten lists are compiled for subjects that may not be taught, and corresponding directives are issued to appropriately distort other subjects. This list is so vast in the area of psychology that nothing remains of this science except a skeleton picked bare of anything that might be subtle or penetrating.

A psychiatrist’s required curriculum contains neither the minimal knowledge from the areas of general, developmental, and clinical psychology, nor the basic skills in psychotherapy. Thanks to such a state of affairs, the most mediocre or privileged of physicians become a psychiatrist after a course of study lasting only weeks. This opens the door to psychiatric careers to individuals who are by nature inclined to serving such an authority, and it has fateful repercussions upon the level of the treatment. It later permits psychiatry to be abused for purposes for which it should never be used.

Since they are undereducated, these psychologists then prove helpless in the face of many human problems, especially in cases where detailed knowledge is needed. Such knowledge must then be acquired on one’s own, a feat not everyone is able to manage.

Such behavior carries in its wake a good deal of damage and human injustice in areas of life which have nothing whatsoever to do with politics. Unfortunately, however, such behavior is necessary from the pathocrat’s point of view in order to prevent these dangerous sciences from jeopardizing the existence of a system they consider the best of all possible worlds.

Specialists in the areas of psychology and psychopathology would find an analysis of this system of prohibitions and recommendations to be highly interesting. This makes it possible to realize that this may be one of the roads via which we can reach the crux of the matter or the nature of this macrosocial phenomenon. The prohibitions engulf depth psychology, the analysis of the human instinctive substratum, together with analysis of man’s dreams.
And this is why we say that spreading the awareness of Ponerology is probably the most important thing that any of us can do today.
 
Laura,

Thank you for your response to this. It's going to take me some time to digest all this. However, just based upon the amount of suffering that I have experienced in the workplace and the effort that I've put in trying to figure out how to deal with my circumstances, I think that a deeper understanding of ponerology and psychopathy must be a serious step in sucessfully dealing-coping.

I'm not sure if my elementary ruminations on organizational structure are relevant, but here they are. I originally posted this in response to EsoQuest's posting about a theory of how to deal with psychopathic organizations:

Personally--my thoughts--for what they are worth as to a root cause of the problem, which could lead to a possible cure: I've been toying with the concept of pyramid peoples/organizations vs. circle peoples/organizations. We have been raised from birth, taught that the hierarchichal system is normal, that it is the best and only real way to organize people/business/government and get things done. We accept this without questioning it--I think this is wrong, I think we need to question the basic structure of the hierarchical organization. I read somewhere that the hierarchy/pyramid is the same organization that the "demons" use (our 4th dimensional overlords--4d sts? The reptilians/snake/dragon beings? Jesus said Satan is the ruler of this world--could this be who he was referring to?) If this is true, and it seems very likely (that 4d sts use a very hierarchical organization eg. C-material suggests this I think), then it seems that this is the way they would want us to organize to make it easy to control us. In this structure there can be almost no room for personal autonomy, equality, creativity, freedom, dissent, disagreement, true mutual cooperation and respect, etc. if the hierarchical structure is psychopathic. If the person/persons at the top of the organization/pyramid are psychopathic then it sweeps downward rapidly--in my experience. "Normal" people can't take it--its too uncomfortable for any length of time--or they literally put their minds to sleep, or they have to go and usually vote with their feet or are forced out. Those at the bottom can't "see" what's going on at the top--the system is set up that way--they just know that the organization stinks. They are taught to blindly follow orders and not ask questions--what's the use? In other words the hierarchy is another form of "divide and conquer?"

I'll have to work on it, but I've read convincing evidence that the circle/equality type organization where teamwork is valued, and lines of authority are non-existent--structure is loose, and people gravitate naturally to the areas where they are must helpful/skilled/able to make a difference could be a better way to organize-with caveats. People are in a working together/helping each other out mode, for the common good. Autonomy and creativity are highly valued, as is mutual support and respect. "We're all in this together." "Let's just get the job done and then we can relax for a bit." No fooling around, no games, no put downs, no show offs, just getting it done and helping each other out. Anyhow, that this type of organization could actually be what humanity--souled humanity anyway--was made for--to achieve and learn and accomplish what our potential as souled creatures is?

I think the key to making the circle system work is understanding ponerology, in that everybody has to be on "the same page" more or less for this to work. When the inevitable challenge to equality and mutuality comes--in all the many forms that unity and equality are broken up--at root by our 4d sts overlords I suspect--by psychopathic influences--divide and conquer. Everybody has to be able to recognize what is going on and counteract the negative influence before the integrity of the circle is broken up. Once the circle starts to disintegrate it is re-formed into a pyramid. Those at the top, the "smartest" the "natural leaders" start to do all the planning, keeping control of vital information--keeping the plans and secrets from everybody else--compartmentation--need to know--keep your salary a secret--this is between you and me--quid pro quo--alliances and betrayals (isn't this what "Survivor" was about--and of course those rendevous in the dark for sex--oh how titillating--almost better than real life--come on get a life!?) Don't ask questions, just do what you are told. We know what we are doing. Don't be late drone.

Thus the circle is obliterated. Plus we have been culturized (trained) to believe that the heirarchy is the natural and only way to organize. It's "human nature." Maybe original sin is 4d sts and the natural inclination of some to align with 4d sts thinking and organization and force this and their way of thinking, acting and treating others upon everyone else?

Isn't 4d STS psychopathic? Isn't understanding the psychopath and psychopathic organization also understanding 4d sts?

Just some thought that I've had re: this problem.
 
Also go here:

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=457

and read the entire thread for clues.
 
Back
Top Bottom