Introduction
When one first encounters the phenomenon of pathocracy in Andrew M. Lobaczewski’s book, one is referring to the eponymous chapter. This chapter, for those who have read it, is famous: it’s the passage “during happy times.”
A novice reader will likely use this chapter as a starting point to deepen their understanding of the phenomenon (and will, perhaps, modify their worldview in parallel with the discovery of certain important principles because this is fresh, brand new and very interesting).
Upon further reading of the book, it appears that a passage, situated outside this context, could explain the phenomenon of pathocracy in greater depth: Andrew Lobaczewski’s explanations regarding the rise of Hitler.
This post attempts to combine those two sections and proposes a comprehensive framework.
Basics
I recently became aware of an important point on this subject, which wasn’t initially obvious.
Perhaps it would be helpful to discuss the general context for those who haven’t read the book?
Andrew M. Lobaczewski was a Polish psychiatrist who lived through a period of Communism in his country. He quickly realized that what was happening instead of “Communism” was something else entirely. He concluded that something else was lurking beneath the surface; subsequently, he was able to analyze that this wasn’t unique to Communism, and that what he described as “a phenomenon” could affect any movement, any ideology, any group.
His study took shape as a study of “evil,” because he determined that the metaphysics of what he observed could be reduced to “actions that harm others.”
Ultimately, he discovered that evil, as we knew it, deserved further categorization, stemming from pathology and psychopathology. He distinguished an additional category concerning “evil actions.”
He observed that this type of evil was frequent and that, when left unchecked, it tended to spread “internally” within society, with a tendency to create a situation of totalitarianism. Gradually, this phenomenon seizes positions of power, key posts. This is something very unusual for the existing categories of our worldview. One could observe a kind of organic development of something.
Ultimately, he characterized this “phenomenon” as a “macrosocial psychopathological phenomenon.”
See here for more about the conceptual framework:
Pathocracy
Andrew Lobaczewski’s book explains the ins and outs of this phenomenon when it reaches maturity—what he calls “pathocracy.” Pathocracy is when pathological totalitarianism has managed to continue its course. See Stalin, Hitler, Mao.
Andrew Lobaczewski explains how all of this develops.
He has a chapter that begins as follows—and this will be the basis of my post, in the sense that I think I’ve found an additional, important element to what you’re about to read:
During happy times of peace and social injustice, children of the privileged classes learn to repress from their field of consciousness any of those uncomfortable concepts suggesting that they and their parents benefit from injustice. Young people learn to disqualify the moral and mental values of anyone whose work they are using to over-advantage.
(…)
When the habits of subconscious selection and substitution of thought-data spread to the macro-social level, a society tends to develop contempt for factual criticism and to humiliate anyone sounding an alarm. Contempt is also shown for other nations which have maintained normal thought-patterns and for their opinions.
(…)
a rising wave of hysteria
(…)
Every society worldwide contains individuals whose dreams of power arise very early as we have already discussed. They are generally discriminated against in some way by society
(…)
A significant and active proportion of this group is composed of individuals with various deviations who imagine this better world in their own way, of which we are already familiar.
(…)
During stable times which are ostensibly happy, albeit dependent upon injustice to other individuals and nations, doctrinaire people believe they have found a simple solution to fix the world
I had more or less framed the starting point of pathocracy as follows, but I would like to present an alternative version. Before that, I will briefly outline the development described above, which appears to actually be part of a bigger “whole”. These elements are not wrong in explaining the genesis of pathocracy, but I believe I have found an additional element, encompassing even more.
Let’s briefly return to the model expressed above. Here is what it says :
A society is going through a period of relative calm.
Over time, naturally, society tends to become somewhat complacent and fails to bring out its best. This intensifies.
Society enters a phase of hysteria, which reflects a severely compromised state of mental health.
It is during such a context that people, previously unable to exert any influence on society, can find their way forward. The “schizoids,” specialists in formulas for fixing the world, tend to appear at this time and publicly propose “an idea,” which is accepted by people—whereas it wouldn’t have been at other times.
This is a chronological model that seems stable, where pathocracies have developed within ideologies.
It took me a long time to assemble these elements into a coherent whole. I need simple diagrams—and I hope the paragraph above reflects what A. Lobaczewski meant.
An additional consideration
Now, I’d like to address a part that, in my opinion, was missing from my overall picture of the development of pathocracy.
There’s a section of the book that explains Hitler’s rise to power in detail.
Note: What matters here is the development of a pathocracy within an ideology. What matters somewhat less is “Hitler” as such. Perhaps this is difficult to grasp, but A. Lobaczewski’s teaching focuses on the discovery of pathocracy as a “disease of civilizations.” When he speaks of Hitler and manages to explain his emergence, as you will see, it is primarily with a view to a broader context—the study of pathocracy.
In a way, he tells us: “See how a pathocracy developed in the case of Hitler.”
I think what we need to keep in mind is the idea of a phenomenon that was embedded within the Reich, and that the Reich and Hitler were vectors, containers—subject to an internal, hidden influence. This influence is the same one that affected other civilizations, other ideologies—and which are completely unrelated. The Reich wasn’t really an “exception” in this respect, and I suggest we step back from the whole “single evil” angle. Germany “fell under the yoke of pathocracy”—and this took the form of Hitler and the Reich.
Furthermore, this passage allows me to explain the missing piece I needed for a better understanding of the phenomenon: this passage clearly explains that pathocracy rests on a transgenerational legacy.
So here it is.
Long before Hitler, and the pathocracy that afflicted the Reich, there was Wilhelm II in Germany. He was the Emperor. Well, Wilhelm II had some problems. His reign was marked by “a tendency towards dueling.” A. Lobaczewski explains how, during his reign, the mania for dueling, with all its corollaries, influenced the population. Thus, the principle is simple: an entire population, at a given point in time, is subject to an influence that is “not particularly good.” Here, the mania for dueling, with all that it could imply: aggression masquerading as strength of character, things of that nature. An environment that promotes “washing away insults” rather than resolving problems differently.
So, I note here: “generational legacy 1: dueling.”
Then, the First World War took place. The Germans lost.
“Generational legacy 2: a feeling of defeat.” Perhaps with a desire for revenge, or a thirst for vengeance.
Little by little, we see a kind of transgenerational accumulation.
And then, this continued for the German people. There were similar, successive psychological impacts. Sebastian Haffner explains this very well. From 1923 until Hitler’s rise to power, Germans seem to have found themselves in extremely traumatic processes at the macro-social level. There were currency devaluations, the war, and so on. Many very strong feelings crystallized, in addition to the aforementioned legacies.
Well, I would say that this entire transgenerational legacy should not be overlooked when it comes to a proper understanding of the genesis of a pathocracy.
If we look closely, that’s exactly what A. Lobaczewski says in his summary, “during happy times...”. So perhaps it’s my fault, and I’m the one who didn’t understand.
However, I would like to emphasize the importance of considering a chronology that extends beyond “a decade.” One might be tempted, upon reading the passage “during happy times,” to correlate this more or less closely with Hitler. We might be tempted to want to define pathocracy, based on a more or less “recent” moment.
There is also the conceptual phenomenon of the “wave of hysteria” which plays a rôle. Recap :
1) He explains that it is “during a phase of hysteria,” which represents a period of mental degeneration, that pathocracy can find its genesis.
2) A. Lobaczewski speaks of a wave of hysteria that spread across Europe in 1900.
Yet, with Wilhelm II, we trace the real, objective origin of Hitler’s pathocracy back much further. Wilhelm II reigned from 1888.
Thus, even the wave of hysteria that struck Europe in 1900 seems almost to confirm the complete picture, but we would still need to go back a little bit earlier to grasp the entirety of the phenomenon.
Here are the excerpts related to Hitler’s pathocracy:
A. Lobaczewski - “Political ponerology”
Many thoughtful persons keep asking the same anxious question: how could the German nation have chosen for a Fuehrer a clownish psychopath who made no bones about his pathological vision of superman rule?
A characteropathic personality opened the door for leadership by a psychopathic individual.
... era of hysterical regression gave birth to the great war and the great revolution which extended into Fascism, Hitlerism, and the tragedy of the Second World War.
These excerpts summarize what I explained. Here are the details:
A relatively well-documented example of such an influence of a characteropathic personality on a macrosocial scale is the last German emperor, Wilhelm II
That was the Europe of the three Emperors: the splendor of three people with limited intelligence (...) The concept of “honor” sanctified triumph. Staring at someone too long was sufficient pretext for a duel. These brothers were thus raised to be valiant duelists covered with saber-scars; however, the slashes they inflicted upon their opponents were more frequent and much worse.
Since the common people are prone to identify with the emperor, and through the emperor, with a system of government, the characteropathic material emanating from the Kaiser resulted in many Germans being progressively deprived of their ability to use their common sense. An entire generation grew up with psychological deformities regarding feeling and understanding moral, psychological, social and political realities.
Large portions of German society ingested psychopathological material, together with that unrealistic way of thinking wherein slogans take on the power of arguments and real data are subjected to subconscious selection.
The German nation, fed for a generation on pathologically altered psychological material, fell into a state comparable to what we see in certain individuals raised by persons who are both characteropathic and hysterical.
The Germans inflicted and suffered enormous damage and pain during the first World War; they thus felt no substantial guilt and even thought that they were the ones who had been wronged.
A mysterious craving arose, as if the social organism had managed to become addicted to some drug.
Here comes Hitler :
This hunger could only be satisfied by another similarly pathological personality and system of government.
Note: the interest here doesn’t exactly lie with “Hitler,” but with an “underlying structure.”
And that, then, is what pathocracy is; in A. Lobaczewski’s words, it’s “a phenomenon.” A. Lobaczewski doesn’t offer any further, or more precise, qualifier than “a phenomenon.”
With painful efforts, A. Lobaczewski manages to discern the phenomenon :
1) Wilhelm 2 spreading distorsions in the citizen’s minds.
2) A stacking of further distorsions
3) Big hysteria in the air, at some point, exacerbating things – or the result of the stacking
4) Overall a sort of “mysterious magnetization”, aggregation, giving birth to “Hitler”
5) Detention camps, arbitrary criminal acts
And so, “Pathocracy” is like an unknown process, with its own “laws” of growth, etc.
Its is best “described” as such, and it’s not easy to define it clearly, in pure 3D terms.
I think this is crucial to avoid getting bogged down in the “Hitler” angle. That’s not the focus of A. Lobaczewski’s study.
It’s easy to make the connection, when reading these excerpts about Hitler, with “this unquenchable hunger finally found an echo in Hitler.” We think: “Well! Makes sense! People are on their knees, all it takes is for a guy like him to come along, and he gets them stimulated.”
The connection of this hunger is made through pathocracy—and not through Hitler.
Hitler is merely the figurehead, and there are extremely vast processes behind it. Hitler was just an obscene, front person, serving as a “hub”. This pathocracy had been under construction in the background for several decades.
I think the overall picture is this: we observe that this “hunger,” present in the population, has grown gradually and represents a kind of “continuity.” It seems that, in parallel, a phenomenon, a “counterpart,” has grown. A bit like a tandem. At a certain point, there is “Hitler,” but he would only be a kind of culmination, in light of such a context.
Furthermore, the book “Political Ponerology” precisely details the stages that follow the moment an ideology is suggested to the population in a context of hysteria. The emergence of the leader occurs much later:
Initial distortion of character within the population
Exacerbation … Stacking
Very low general state … “Hysteria”
Emergence of whatever schizoid ideology
Acceptance by the population
Solidification of the pathocracy in the 3D
Emergence of a leader
Implementation of the pathocracy’s agenda in the 3D
Thus, my post aims to express all of this by emphasizing the necessity of studying the period preceding hysteria.
Second example: Stalin’s trans-generational analysis
Armed with this information (the idea of a trans-generational process), I turned my attention to Stalin.
“The schizoid that emerges,” is quite easy to spot. But something was missing, then : all the trans-generational background.
We’ll use the book “Chirurgia Slowa” by A. Lobaczewski, written before “Political Ponerology.” In the former, he provides an extensive explanation, similar to “William II,” which allows for a better understanding of the aforementioned transgenerational aspect.
Here are a few excerpts, in no particular order:
Andrew M. LOBACZEWSKI - “Chirurgia slowa”
The process of the historical genesis of a macrosocial pathological phenomenon is always long and complex. It becomes understandable when we trace and analyze it in ponerological terms. Its Russian roots reach back long before the Communist Manifesto was written. Back then, under the conditions of tsarist autocracy, negative selection was already taking place, when psychopathic individuals could rise to positions of influence. Since the Decembrists abandoned the idea of not opposing evil with evil, a similar process emerged in opposition circles.
In the revolutionary era, characteropathic individuals played prominent roles. Comparative studies lead to the conclusion that Lenin was a paranoid characteropath, and Stalin a typical case of frontal characteropathy. Over time, however, psychopathic individuals, with their characteristically different experiences, assume inspirational roles, while the latter are removed, exterminated, or subjected to appropriate control. This appears to be a general ponerological regularity.
(...)
The Western roots of the phenomenon were dominated by schizoid aberrations. The materialism of the era provided a fertile ground for an emotionally discolored rationalism, insufficiently controlled by a natural sense of psychological and moral realities. Grand doctrines, disregarding the inherent characteristics of human nature, thus acquired suggestive power, especially for the masses of people awakening to political life. One of these doctrines was to play a dramatic role, feeding a macrosocial psychopathological phenomenon and concealing its true nature. This doctrine has already lost its historical foundation, but others may yet play a similar role until humanity understands the essence and nature of the phenomenon.
(...)
At the end of the last century, semi-secret and clandestine organizations based on big capital began to implement their grand ideas, equally unrealistic from a psychological perspective. Russia became the terrain for their application in revolutionary form. Thus, these two trends of different origins merged in this country and gave birth to a bastard who gradually became independent of his inspirers and developed his inhuman existence. This was imposed on us in its mature form.
(…)
Communist ideology was the guiding vision for the revolutionaries of that time. However, at the highest inspirational level, it was from the outset an instrumental ideology, intended to pave the way for the conquest of countries through controlled revolutions. Sown in Russia, it fell on already contaminated ground, as internal relations there were already verging on pathocracy. At least two circumstances contributed to the rapid pace of the process of poneristic degeneration. The inspiring minds did not foresee this, nor did they foresee that revolutions would break free from such control.
(…)
A Western scientist can contribute data, too little known in Poland, concerning the genesis of so-called communism. It is already common knowledge there that the centers financing and inspiring the Russian Revolution from the outset treated communism as an instrumental ideology useful for sparking a revolution that was to remain under their control. Although time has brought a gradual liberation of the Soviet system from this control, raising awareness of this fact may prove effective shock therapy for some people.
Thus, from these quotations, I would particularly highlight the passages that attest to a prior development of some pathology:
Its Russian roots reach back long before the Communist Manifesto was written
Back then, under the conditions of tsarist autocracy, negative selection was already taking place
The materialism of the era provided a fertile ground for an emotionally discolored rationalism, insufficiently controlled by a natural sense of psychological and moral realities
Those quotes allow to consider a gradual, step-by-step, trans generational psychological inheritance.
Russia became the terrain for their application in revolutionary form
For instance, it seems that the Russian pathocracy operated according to a transgenerational inheritance of “susceptibility to revolution”. This “string” would thus have been developed beforehand, only to find an echo when a doctrine stimulated it, and this much later.
That’s all I can say regarding Russia. However, we can observe that there is a path for such a study. If we wanted to understand Stalin, or any other pathocracy, we would need to study things in this way.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I would say that what I observe here is a kind of epigenetics of psychopathology.
1) A. Lobaczewski studies this according to a precise classification. He tells us about several “types” of pathologies that can occur in people.
William II acted as a vector, as we have seen, and we can identify what type of pathology he contributed to: he “transmitted an initial inheritance of characteropathy.”
Characteropathy is a word that simply describes a “character distortion.”
It can occur when we associate with people who have abnormal ideas, or after an accident, or as a result of drug use. It seems that in the case of William II, he accustomed his people to the idea of dueling as a viable way to resolve problems. A minor characteropathy that was then exacerbated by subsequent pathologies.
A. Lobaczewski explains how the development of pathocracy follows a kind of gradual chronology, progressing towards more acute forms of pathology. He explains that characteropathy is the foundation. Then, later, other forms emerge and take control, and so on.
Conclusion : we find the term characteropathy in the excerpts, and it corresponds to something specific, when framed correctly.
2) Furthermore, characteropathy is significant: it seems to condition the population, right from the start. Here, it’s according to one leader.
Conclusion: It is possible that pathocracy will always start from a characterological development, but that the leader is not the only possible vector for this initial induction.
3) Model recap: “once the pathology has accumulated”, “if a phase of hysteria appears”, and an ideology is proposed for the situation, A. Lobaczewski explains that it is characteropaths who first adhere to the ideas of the manifesto…
Conclusion: I suppose that this pool of character-obsessed individuals is none other than this population, having gone through many decades of pathologies.
4) All of this leads me to the following consideration: when a pathocracy develops, we should observe the big boss who was there before, perhaps, even 50 years back, if we were to have a full understanding. We should observe if there was, whether he had an influence other than that of “normal people,” for example, whether he encouraged his people to be vindictive, or something similar. A. Lobaczewski hints at “characteropathy” here. So, whatever that which distorts the personality of normal people. If Hitler came to power around 1930, and the undermining work actually began around 1890, that’s no less than 50 years to study BEFORE. We would therefore tend to watch out not to define a too narrow scope, for our studies, so as not to miss the decisive and crucial elements (in this case, the very initial ones).
Conclusion : looking back – discerning an initial induction of characteropathy – framing the pathocracy completely according to the whole development
5) I must admit that it’s already quite an achievement to manage to study the simple context starting with a degenerate society , a schizoid individual appearing and proposing a manifesto (and so on)! In addition, in the bok, there are a whole host of developments that follow from the schizoid’s appearance. A. Lobaczewski devotes entire chapters to the development of pathocracy from that point onward.
Conclusion : We might therefore be tempted either to neglect the objective premises or to miss them entirely. My post was meant to show that.
6) There’s also something I’d like to say regarding all of this. My post, as you’ve probably noticed, focuses on an initial, “diluted” aspect of pathology (characteropathy), which stacks over time with new pathologies.
The book «Chirurgia Slowa» is very similar to “Political Ponerology.” However, it differs from the latter in that it is also a manual of psychotherapy. A. Lobaczewski has several chapters on his “therapeutic approach to the patient,” whereas “Political Ponerology” is more of a warning about a process that attacks the political layers in the world.
Conclusion : while A. Lobaczewski truly considers pathocracy as a transgenerational accumulation of pathologies, chances are high that the solution to the problems lies in treating this segment of the population affected by this accumulation.
The aspect of individual psychotherapy is more prominent in his book “Chirurgia Slowa.”
I wanted to point this out. When we read about political ponerology, there is indeed a passage that indicates one solution is to supervise people with hereditary factors (essential psychopaths, for example). The focus is on isolating people like Hannibal Lecter, isn’t it? In fact, that’s the feeling we may get when we read “political ponerology”: psychopaths are the ones who ruin everything.
And it’s true, but this may be partly true when considering “the trans-generational aspect” of “psychopathological stacking”, because, here, it’s about citizens - normal people...
Let’s forget about any sort of “hot potato” and let’s remain on a study mood.
Well, here, with this post, I’m proud to be able to demonstrate that things aren’t so black and white when it comes to psychopaths. Let me assure you that I don’t wish to absolve the influence of hereditary pathologies in the slightest.
Conclusion : there seems to be room to focus on actively treating normal people affected by pathologies “acquired through the environment” (characteropathies).
It’s clear from my post that the driving force behind the genesis of pathocracy lies here—and not exactly with “essential psychopaths” – who appear later.
I understand that it’s not that simple, because pathological factors are intertwined. But here’s more or less a line of reasoning that I don’t believe is flawed.
Hypothesis : the (most effective?) treatment for pathocracy would rely on our ability to address the cumulative pathologies within the population.
This suggests that pathocracy develops primarily among normal citizens—not psychopaths. The latter would intervene later, somewhat as unwitting catalysts.
Thank you for reading! I hope you found it interesting.