An ideology of a secondarily ponerogenic association is formed by gradual adaptation of the primary ideology to functions and goals other than the original formative ones. A certain kind of layering or schizophrenia of ideology takes place during the ponerization process. The outer layer closest to the original content is used for the group’s propaganda purposes, especially regarding the outside world, although it can in part also be used inside with regard to disbelieving lower-echelon members. The second layer presents the elite with no problems of comprehension: it is more hermetic, generally composed by slipping a different meaning into the same names. Since identical names signify different contents depending on the layer in question, understanding this “doubletalk” requires simultaneous fluency in both languages.
Average people succumb to the first layer’s suggestive insinuations for a long time before they learn to understand the second one as well. Anyone with certain psychological deviations, especially if he is wearing the mask of normality with which we are already familiar, immediately perceives the second layer to be attractive and significant; after all, it was built by people like him. Comprehending this doubletalk is therefore a vexatious task, provoking quite understandable psychological resistance; this very duality of language, however, is a pathognomonic symptom indicating that the human union in question is touched by the ponerogenic process to an advanced degree. [...]
As long as the characteropathic individuals play a dominant role within a social movement affected by the ponerogenic process, the ideology, whether doctrinaire from the outset or later vulgarized and further perverted by these latter people, continues to keep and maintain its content link with the original prototype. The ideology continuously affects the movement’s activities and remains an essential justifying motivation for many. In this phase, therefore, such a union does not move in the direction of criminal acts on a mass scale. To a certain extent, at this stage, one can still define such a movement or union by the name of its original ideology.
In the meantime, however, the carriers of other (mainly hereditary) pathological factors become engaged in this already sick social movement and proceed with the work of final transformation of the contents – both ideological and human - of such a union in such a way that it becomes a pathological caricature of its original ideology. This is effected under the ever-growing influence of psychopathic personalities of various types, with particular emphasis on the inspiration role of essential psychopathy.
Such a situation eventually engenders a wholesale showdown: the adherents of the original ideology are shunted aside or terminated. (This group includes many characteropaths, especially of the lesser and paranoidal varieties.) The ideological motivations and the double talk they created then are utilized to hide the actual new contents of the phenomenon. From this time on, using the ideological name of the movement in order to understand its essence becomes a keystone of mistakes.
Psychopathic individuals generally stay away from social organizations characterized by reason and ethical discipline. After all, such organizations are created by that other world of normal people so foreign to them. They hold various social ideologies in contempt, while, at the same time, easily discerning all their actual failings. However, once the process of poneric transformation of some human union into its yet undefined cartoon counterpart has begun and advanced sufficiently, they perceive this fact with almost infallible sensitivity: a circle has been created wherein they can hide their failings and psychological differentness, find their own modus vivendi, and maybe even realize their youthful Utopian dream of a world where they are in power and all those other, “normal people”, are forced into servitude. They then begin infiltrating the rank and file of such a movement; pretending to be sincere adherents poses no difficulty for the psychopath, since it is second nature for them to play a role and hide behind the mask of normal people. [...]
They initially perform subordinate functions in such a movement and execute the leaders’ orders, especially whenever something needs to be done which inspires revulsion in others. Their evident zealotry and cynicism gives rise to criticism on the part of the union’s more reasonable members, but it also earns the respect of some its more extreme revolutionaries. They thus find protection among those people who earlier played a role in the movement’s ponerization, and repay the favor with compliments or by making things easier for them. Thus they climb up the organizational ladder, gain influence, and almost involuntarily bend the contents of the entire group to their own way of experiencing reality and to the goals derived from their deviant nature. A mysterious disease is already raging inside the union. The adherents of the original ideology feel ever more constricted by powers they do not understand; they start fighting with demons and making mistakes. [...]
An ever-strengthening network of psychopathic and related individuals gradually starts to dominate, overshadowing the others. Characteropathic individuals who played an essential role in ponerizing the movement and preparing for revolution, are also eliminated. Adherents of the revolutionary ideology are unscrupulously “pushed into a counter-revolutionary position”. They are now condemned for “moral” reasons in the name of new criteria whose paramoralistic essence they are not in a position to comprehend. Violent negative selection of the original group now ensues. The inspirational role of essential psychopathy is now also consolidated; it remains characteristic for the entire future of this macrosocial pathological phenomenon. [...]
The entire life of a society thus affected then becomes subordinated to deviant thought-criteria and permeated by their specific experiential mode, especially the one described in the section on essential psychopathy. At this point, using the name of the original ideology to designate this phenomenon is meaningless and becomes an error rendering its comprehension more difficult. [...]
In a pathocracy, all leadership positions, (down to village headman and community cooperative managers, not to mention the directors of police units, and special services police personnel, and activists in the pathocratic party) must be filled by individuals with corresponding psychological deviations, which are inherited as a rule. However, such people constitute a very small percentage of the population and this makes them more valuable to the pathocrats. Their intellectual level or professional skills cannot be taken into account, since people representing superior abilities are even harder to find. After such a system has lasted several years, one hundred percent of all the cases of essential psychopathy are involved in pathocratic activity; they are considered the most loyal, even though some of them were formerly involved on the other side in some way.
Under such conditions, no area of social life can develop normally, whether in economics, culture, science, technology, administration, etc. Pathocracy progressively paralyzes everything. [...]
Those people who initially found the original ideology attractive eventually come to the realization that they are in fact dealing with something else that has taken its place under the old name. The disillusionment experienced by such former ideological adherents is bitter in the extreme. [...]
Therefore, to mitigate the threat to their power, the pathocrats must employ any and all methods of terror and exterminatory policies against individuals known for their patriotic feelings and military training; other, specific “indoctrination” activities such as those we have presented are also utilized. Individuals lacking the natural feeling of being linked to normal society become irreplaceable in either of these activities. Again, the foreground of this type of activity is occupied by cases of essential psychopathy, followed by those with similar anomalies, and finally by people alienated from the society in question as a result of racial or national differences. [...]
The phenomenon of pathocracy matures during this period: an extensive and active indoctrination system is built, with a suitably refurbished ideology constituting the vehicle or Trojan horse for the purpose of pathologizing the thought processes of individuals and society. The goal - forcing human minds to incorporate pathological experiential methods and thought-patterns, and consequently accepting such rule - is never openly admitted. This goal is conditioned by pathological egotism, and the possibility of accomplishing it strikes the pathocrats as not only indispensable, but feasible. Thousands of activists must therefore participate in this work. However, time and experience confirm what a psychologist may have long foreseen: the entire effort produces results so very limited that it is reminiscent of the labors of Sisyphus. It only results in producing a general stifling of intellectual development and deep-rooted protest against affront-mongering “hypocrisy”. The authors and executors of this program are incapable of understanding that the decisive factor making their work difficult is the fundamental nature of normal human beings – the majority. [...]
The entire system of force, terror, and forced indoctrination, or, rather, pathologization, thus proves effectively unfeasible, which causes the pathocrats no small measure of surprise. Reality places a question mark on their conviction that such methods can change people in such fundamental ways so that they can eventually recognize this pathocratic kind of government as a “normal state”.
During the initial shock, the feeling of social links between normal people fade. After that has been survived, however, the overwhelming majority of people begin to manifest their own phenomenon of psychological immunization. Society simultaneously starts collecting practical knowledge on the subject of this new reality and its psychological properties. [...]
A new phenomenon occurs: separation between the pathocrats and the society of normal people. The latter have an advantage of talent, professional skills, and healthy common sense. They therefore hold certain very advantageous cards. The pathocracy finally realizes that it must find some modus vivendi or relations with the majority of society: “After all, somebody’s got to do the work for us.”
There are other needs and pressures felt by the pathocrats, especially from outside. The pathological face must be hidden from the world somehow, since recognition of the deviant rulership by world opinion would be a catastrophe. Ideological propaganda alone would then be an inadequate disguise. Primarily in the interests of the new elite and its expansionary plans, a pathocratic state must maintain commercial relations with the countries of normal man. The pathocratic state aims to achieve international recognition as a certain kind of political structure; and it fears recognition in terms of a true clinical diagnosis.
All this makes pathocrats tend to limit their measures of terror, subjecting their propaganda and indoctrination methods to a certain cosmetology, and to accord the society they control some margin of autonomous activity, especially regarding cultural life. [...]
In this phase, normal people within the country ruled by pathocrats become resistant and adapt themselves to the situation. On the outside, however, this phase is marked by outstanding ponerogenic activity. The pathological material of this system can all-too-easily infiltrate into other societies, particularly if they are more primitive, and all the avenues of pathocratic expansion are facilitated because of the decrease of commonsensical criticism on the part of the nations constituting the territory of expansionism. [...]
Individuals with obvious pathological traits are also limited in their ability to exercise diplomatic functions or to become fully cognizant with the political situations of the countries of normal man. Therefore, the persons selected for such positions are chosen because they have thought-processes more similar to the world of normal people; in general, they are sufficiently connected to the pathological system to provide a guarantee of loyalty. An expert in various psychological anomalies can nevertheless discern the discreet deviations upon which such links are based. Another factor to be noted is the great personal advantages accorded to such demi-normal individuals by the pathocracy. [...]
Similar needs apply to other areas as well. The building director for a new factory is often someone barely connected with the pathocratic system but whose skills are essential. Once the plant is operational, administration is taken over by pathocrats, which then often leads to technical and financial ruin.
The army similarly needs people endowed with perspicacity and essential qualifications, especially in the area of modern weapons and warfare. At crucial moments, healthy common sense can override the results of pathocratic drill. In such a state of affairs, many people are forced to adapt, accepting the ruling system as a status quo, but also criticizing it. They fulfill their duties amid doubts and conflicts of conscience, always searching for a more sensible way out which they discuss within trusted circles. In effect, they are always hanging in a limbo between pathocracy and the world of normal people. [...]
The following questions thus suggest themselves: what happens if the network of understanding among psychopaths achieves power in leadership positions with international exposure? This can happen, especially during the later phases of the phenomenon. Goaded by their character, such deviant people thirst for just that even though it ultimately conflicts with their own life interest, and so they are removed by the less pathological, more logical wing of the ruling apparatus. Such deviants do not understand that a catastrophe would otherwise ensue. Germs are not aware that they will be burned alive or buried deep in the ground along with the human body whose death they are causing. [...]
It should be noted that a great ideology with mesmerizing values can also easily deprive people of the capacity for self-critical control over their behavior. The adherents of such ideas tend to lose sight of the fact that the means used, not just the end, will be decisive for the result of their activities. Whenever they reach for overly radical methods of action, still convinced that they are serving their idea, they are not aware that their goal has already changed. The principle “the end justifies the means” opens the door to a different kind of person for whom a great idea is useful for purposes of liberating themselves from the uncomfortable pressure of normal human custom. Every great ideology thus contains danger, especially for small minds. Therefore, every great social movement and its ideology can become a host upon which some pathocracy initiates its parasitic life. [...]
Differentiating the essence of the pathological phenomenon from its contemporary ideological host is thus a basic and necessary task, both for scientific-theoretical purposes and for finding practical solutions for the problems derived from the existence of the above-mentioned macrosocial phenomena.
If, in order to designate a pathological phenomenon, we accept the name furnished by the ideology of a social movement which succumbed to degenerative processes, we lose any ability to understand or evaluate that ideology and its original contents or to effect proper classification of the phenomenon, per se. This error is not semantic; it is the keystone of all other comprehension errors regarding such phenomena, rendering us intellectually helpless, and depriving us of our capacity for purposeful, practical action. [...]
The ideology of pathocracy is created by caricaturizing the original ideology of a social movement in a manner characteristic of that particular pathological phenomenon. The above-mentioned hysteroidal states of societies also deform the contemporary ideologies of the times in question, using a style characteristic for them. [...]
A pathocracy’s ideology changes its function, just as occurs with a mentally ill person’s delusional system. It stops being a human conviction outlining methods of action and takes on other duties which are not openly defined. It becomes a disguising story concealing the new reality from people’s critical consciousness, both inside and outside one’s nation. The first function – a conviction outlining methods of action - soon becomes ineffective for two reasons: on the one hand, reality exposes the methods of action as unworkable; on the other hand, the masses of common people notice the contemptuous attitude toward the ideology represented by the pathocrats themselves. For that reason, the main operational theater for the ideology consists of nations remaining outside the immediate ambit of the pathocracy, since that world tends to continue believing in ideologies. The ideology thus becomes the instrument for external action ...
Psychopaths are conscious of being different from normal people. That is why the “political system” inspired by their nature is able to conceal this awareness of being different. They wear a personal mask of sanity and know how to create a macrosocial mask of the same dissimulating nature. When we observe the role of ideology in this macrosocial phenomenon, quite conscious of the existence of this specific awareness of the psychopath, we can then understand why ideology is relegated to a tool-like role: something useful in dealing with those other naive people and nations. Pathocrats must nevertheless appreciate the function of ideology as being something essential in any ponerogenic group, especially in the macrosocial phenomenon which is their “homeland”. This factor of awareness simultaneously constitutes a certain qualitative difference between the two above-mentioned relationships. Pathocrats know that their real ideology is derived from their deviant natures, and treat the “other” – the masking ideology - with barely concealed contempt. And the common people eventually begin to perceive this as noted above. [...]
Thus, a well-developed pathocratic system no longer has a clear and direct relationship to its original ideology, which it only keeps as its primary, traditional tool for action and masking. For practical purposes of pathocratic expansion, other ideologies may be useful, even if they contradict the main one and heap moral denunciation upon it. However, these other ideologies must be used with care, refraining from official acknowledgement within environments wherein the original ideology can be made to appear too foreign, discredited, and useless.
The main ideology succumbs to symptomatic deformation, in keeping with the characteristic style of this very disease and with what has already been stated about the matter. The names and official contents are kept, but another, completely different content is insinuated underneath, thus giving rise to the well known double talk phenomenon within which the same names have two meanings: one for initiates, one for everyone else. The latter is derived from the original ideology; the former has a specifically pathocratic meaning, something which is known not only to the pathocrats themselves, but also is learned by those people living under long-term subjection to their rule.
Doubletalk is only one of many symptoms. Others are the specific facility for producing new names which have suggestive effects and are accepted virtually uncritically, in particular outside the immediate scope of such a system’s rule. We must thus point out the paramoralistic character and paranoidal qualities frequently contained within these names. The action of paralogisms and paramoralisms in this deformed ideology becomes comprehensible to us based on the information presented in Chapter IV. Anything which threatens pathocratic rule becomes deeply immoral. This also applies to the concept of forgiving the pathocrats themselves; it is extremely dangerous and thus “immoral”.
.
