Introduction
This article is a question, along with some hypotheses. For some time now, I've been stumbling across phrases here and there, touching on psychology and sometimes spiritual principles.
These extracts concern the human condition in general, in ponerological aspects ("evil", study of "evil"): why do we suffer, what happens to us, why do things not work?
Alongside this effort, which I will attempt to summarize by presenting the excerpts I was able to find, my work initially rests on a series of a few (four or five) very specific quotations concerning “the pursuit of happiness.” It is these precise quotations that gave rise to this article.
I therefore attempt to study, firstly, the principle of the pursuit of happiness, and then, within a ponerological context, because it seems to me that the pursuit of happiness, the human affinity for this “quest,” suffers greatly: there are manipulations, it would seem, in this pursuit of happiness. Humans appear to be tossed about and manipulated to go in a certain direction. It also emerges that the pursuit of happiness is itself a concept to be defined, namely, whether it is something fundamental to human nature—or whether this pursuit is something artificial.
My study suggests that humans naturally aspire to peace and happiness, but that establishing happiness as a future goal to be achieved may be misleading, because happiness is something of the “present moment.” Thus, when the pursuit of happiness takes the form of a “future object,” there may be some element of manipulation involved. Yet, in itself, aspiring to happiness, again, does not seem to be something negative or artificial.
This study is ongoing, and rather than drawing conclusions, for the moment I am only able to present some ideas to the reader. I hope to be able to improve this work someday!
Three quotes
Andrew M. LOBACZEWSKI - “Political Ponerology”
Since a comprehension of the truly operational factors is beyond the ken of his natural world view, he generally relies on emotion: intuition and the pursuit of happiness.
Let’s take, for example, the fact that society is made up of 94% so-called “normal” people, with a so-called “healthy” psychology. There is an objective alignment at this level. Then, the remaining 6% consists of people born with hereditary psychopathological factors. Their psychology diverges fundamentally, for some, from the psychology of the 94%. There is therefore a gap within society, and this distinction conditions the natural worldview of people unaware of this fact: this is what A. Lobaczewski explains with “truly operational factors“.
Thus, when we lack knowledge of the important factors in our reality, we turn to the “consensual” view of things, the “natural” view, the so-called “people’s view”—and we are guided by intuition and the pursuit of happiness. A. Lobaczewski describes a situation (a “condition”) in which we are somewhat detached from reality and guided by these two principles (intuition and the allure of happiness).
Christophe DEJOURS - “Work, mental wear: from psychopathology to the psychodynamics of work” (FRENCH)
… the defensive strategy which, at the beginning, was only dedicated to defense against suffering is soon erected into a promise of happiness
This French psychiatrist explains that, following a long process of dishonest manipulation, the psyche of a normal human being tends to react to this trauma by adopting a "psychological defense strategy": this is a way of cooperating with a situation of inflicted suffering, and it is a natural defense mechanism of the psyche. Here, this French psychiatrist explains that when we find ourselves in a situation of artificially induced suffering, the psychological defense mechanism we have adopted becomes, in itself, a source of the promise of happiness. It must be considered that when we adopt a defense strategy, it is already a palliative to an artificial and dishonest scheme. We therefore observe a "sub-domain" type of context, in which "the pursuit of happiness" appears: it is impossible for any form of valid happiness to exist when we are so dependent on the exploitation of suffering. I am therefore pointing here to an artificial form of "search for happiness" - which could be compared to a form existing/appearing in a [more] "free" context.
Christophe DEJOURS - “Work, mental wear: from psychopathology to the psychodynamics of work” (FRENCH)
Whatever political regime is considered, to the extent that it claims to amend the socio-economic obstacles to “happiness”
It is rare that we are not naturally subject to some form of political power. Society and normal human interactions function optimally according to a hierarchy and distribution of “power.” The noun for “power” is “political.”
This quote illustrates that politics should, ideally, ensure people’s happiness.
Humans naturally trust their structures and accept a degree of political subordination for the sake of a cohesive, functional, and positive whole.
This quote is therefore very simple; it illustrates one of the fundamental roles of “politics.”
To introduce the rest of my article, I will present a very small aspect of a real problem.
We could ask ourselves about the presence of psychopaths in positions of power, because this would happen without the knowledge of most people, who trust their political system. What would the real situation look like in this specific case (psychopaths unidentified by the worldview), in terms of the pursuit of happiness?
You see, my article explicitly refers to this kind of situation. The reader will find below a collection of quotes, intended to provide explanations—but the core of my article concerns this kind of short-circuiting of the pursuit of happiness.
Psychopaths are a good example (though I'm not sure they represent the core of the problem): the existence of psychopaths, constituting a heterogeneous society, goes against many values (religious ones, for example), facts, and principles that the natural worldview has adopted: "everyone is born equal," "everyone is the same," "everyone should be considered and approached in the same way" (etc.).
Individual & collective aspect
Before delivering a series of quotes "in no particular order", here is what I painstakingly found after several years of careful research on this subject.
Christophe DEJOURS - “Work, mental wear: from psychopathology to the psychodynamics of work” (FRENCH)
However, recognition implies peer judgment, which is only possible if a collective or peer community is functioning. Thus, the collective ultimately appears as the crucial link and the sensitive point of the intersubjective dynamic of identity in the workplace.
Christophe DEJOURS - “Work, mental wear: from psychopathology to the psychodynamics of work” (FRENCH)
Thus, we may be able to examine what hinders not collective happiness—a suspect notion if ever there was one—but what constitutes a collectively experienced obstacle.
Peter TURCHIN - “End times : elites, counter-elites, and the path of political disintegration”
At the same time, I don’t want to limit the ideas and insights I discuss in this book to only tracking impersonal social forces. All social action is a result of summing together the acts of individual people. And impersonal forces shape the lives and attitudes of individuals. We want to understand both societies and people. So what to do?
The approach I chose for this book was to shift the focus of the narrative between the individual point of view and what happens at the aggregate, societal level.
While A. Lobaczewski expresses how the pursuit of happiness, as a personal quest, becomes altered as we navigate a world populated by naturally predatory individuals, I cannot help but observe how this phenomenon of subjectivity occurs within a collective context—despite being an individual process.
These three quotations illustrate the need to oscillate between these two aspects of research.
Peter TURCHIN provides the following quote:
The first question we need to ask about a system is: What is its structure—its internal composition?
Societies are not like containers with ideal gas beloved by statistical physicists. Unlike molecules,each human being is unique. Furthermore, all people belong to various kinds of groups, and those can belong to other, larger-scale groups. A society can be thought of as a group of groups of groups.
People belonging to the same group may share collective interests, which makes this collection of individuals an interest group. One particular interest group on which this book focuses is ruling elites, or the “ruling class.” These are the people who concentrate most of the social power within a state in their hands.
(…)
Interest groups vary in their ability to advance their collective interests.
This raises many of the issues that have preoccupied this article; the first sentence in bold expresses a specific characteristic that is difficult to observe in reality: that real power is "social" power—rather than other forms of power.
Who are the elites? You, reader, are you “elite”? If I were a betting man, I’d predict that 99 percent of my readers would answer “no!” So let’s define what I mean by “elites.” In sociology, elites are not those who are somehow better than the rest. They are not necessarily those who are more hardworking, or more intelligent, or more talented. They are simply those who have more social power—the ability to influence other people. A more descriptive term for elites is “power holders.”
For the record, Peter Turchin lists different forms of power:
The hardest —and crudest—form of social power is coercion: force, or a threat of force. Americans specializing in coercion, such as army generals and police officers, are generally thoroughly subordinated to other forms of power.
The second kind of power is wealth (or accumulated material resources, more generally). Wealthy people can hire people to do what they want (within limits).
In America, power is closely correlated with wealth. As a result, it is relatively straightforward to figure out who belongs to different ranks of power holders.
The correlation between wealth and political power is not perfect.
The third and more subtle kind of power is bureaucratic or administrative. Modern human beings belong to a variety of organizations. We have a variety of “bosses” whose orders we generally follow. There is an element of coercion to these relationships, of course, because not following orders may get you fired, fined, or arrested. But most of the time we follow orders simply because of the power of social norms.
The fourth and “softest” kind of power is ideological—the power of persuasion. Soft power, or persuasion, is an extremely potent force that can sway multitudes. It includes the realm of thought influencers, such as famous “public intellectuals,” columnists at major newspapers, and, more recently, social media figures with millions of followers.
We have already considered politics as a power structure influencing people (and therefore also social aspects) – and we find the power of the state as bureaucratic power, and also through the military aspect. I think the "social power" aspect, observed by Peter Turchin, makes a lot of sense, but this will not prevent us from considering "the political structure meant to amend the obstacles to happiness," thus referring to types 3 (bureaucratic) and 1 (military).
What is very interesting here is the consideration of social interactions as a major factor conditioning "objective power over people." The central/fundamental aspect of power (and therefore of all problems) would thus reside at this level, which corroborates some ideas already presented here. Society and its "worldview warfare" aspect:
https://barsoom.substack.com/p/the-reenchantment-of-the-world
to describe the political, economic, technological, ideological, and regulatory aspects of the narrative battlespace in which the struggle over the mind and soul of our species rages
…
a way out of the spiritual desert in which our society has wandered
https://ponerology.substack.com/p/the-long-road-of-degeneration
Official Western society today is practically 100% worldview warfare.
Once you learn to see it, it’s impossible to miss, (...) They can’t help but to repeat someone else’s words while convincing themselves that they’re their own.
It’s just “obvious,” and anyone saying otherwise is automatically seen as the one who is brainwashed.
Their worldview has in fact been shaped by some millennial staffer, psychological warfare officer, or corporate hack brainstorming in a conference room.
Peter TURCHIN - “End times : elites, counter-elites, and the path of political disintegration”
But most of the time we follow orders simply because of the power of social norms.
Let me return to the second sentence highlighted in bold above in an excerpt from Peter Turchin:
Interest groups vary in their ability to advance their collective interests.
94% of normal people find themselves in social interaction with psychopaths, whose psychology is entirely different and, for some, whose primary mode of operation is "predation on humans." Add to that the fact that the worldview considers everyone as strictly equal—you get a glimpse of a "problematic situation"... Essentially, the exchange and sharing of knowledge is impaired, and negative patterns "slip through the net."
And, of course, this would also be what conditions the objective power of our reality: somewhat less so, the military (etc.) – of course, they also interact directly at a level of social power. But the aspect of "collective influence in terms of worldviews" clearly emerges.
From this perspective, "how to achieve happiness" will be a principle, like a ship sailing on a sea of "collective," "social power," "psychopathology," and "worldview."
Who are the elites? (…) They are simply those who have more social power— the ability to influence other people.
Now for the quotes! The quotes listed above are included, but I plan to reorganize the rest of my article in the near future.
In any case, the reader should consider what follows as a supplement to the original idea, perhaps with a fundamental explanation (”pathocracy”), which comes last.
I'm wondering if I shouldn't cut my article short here, or keep some of the quotes that follow, because the most important points for me have already been made. So, listen: what follows is a kind of supplement to the development observed above. There is certainly a great deal of additional data, but my article would be perfectly fine without adding more. It would, of course, lack a conclusion and the "solutions" aspect. However, my article aims to define a specific problem. The other aspects of the essay are left to the discretion of the writer, and that represents considerable work with other objectives. I will, however, preserve the rest for the time being.
The human condition
Let's begin, then, with the following quote:
Rudolf Steiner - “Lucifer and Ahriman“
Human beings are dwellers in two worlds. Our uniqueness amongst the creatures of the earth lies in this role that we have as half beast and half angel.
A dynamic tension exists because of the contrary demands which living in each of these realms places on us.
We experience this on a daily basis, an internal tug-of-war, pulling first in one direction, then to the opposite pole.
This therefore touches on a major “metaphysical” aspect of “duality”. The quote may be vague, to some. I would kind of be digging a bit in the matters that we can feel - because it’s not the first time that I read similar quotes.
° I note the specific principles of [dynamics of] "tension," and also "contradictory demands."
I tilted on those two ones because i feel that this is sometimes that is part of my “reality”.
This is quite specific and indicates a kind of "negative flow," a sort of planet Earth where "there are contradictory demands being made on humans" (humans perpetually find themselves facing "contradictory" things).
A "condition," then, a temporary “state”.
So: is it normal? What is it? Etc.
Three more quotes:
https://www.starfirecodes.com/p/the-scroll-being-a-prisoner-of-your
The analogy it’s making regarding the worst case scenario of what has become a false human condition is apparent, and the way it mops up its own “blood” until it “dies” serves as a dire warning regarding how not to live, how not to be a machine winding itself down until it dies.
Overall - the human condition, and “a false human condition”. People made to believe that what’s taking place is “normal”, etc.
https://www.artofmanliness.com/character/behavior/ooda-loop/
any inward-oriented and continued effort to improve the match concept with observed reality will only increase the degree of mismatch.
Here, it is brought by that there exists a gap between observed reality and … well … “what we think of it”.
A “mismatch in regard of observed reality” may be the relevant bit.
Christophe DEJOURS – «Suffering in France - The banalization of social injustice» (FRENCH)
The experience of reality … translates into confrontation with failure
This last quote should serve as an addition to the previous ones; looks like I would like to study a bit the reality, when we “are”, out there … and that there seems to exist a recurring motion of “tension, contradiction, gap, mismatch, etc”.
As a basic. Why is nothing “flowing” peacefully? Etc.
See what I mean? Just a photography of something - the world features a sort of “framework”, with those elements popping up. Is this “fix”? is this temporary features?
Here, a variable could be highlighted - humans, society, and the world we are in.
I remember a nice take, from a podcast that I like, and it goes by “we are in the condition we are in … and …” (Laura K.-J. at Sott.net). So - a “condition” is a fitting word (again) - and “humans together” may be, too.
Let’s move on to a specific example that I found out was more or less gathering those elements.
This is specific, it has to deal with the work place. Let’s consider what follows as a “chunk”.
The idea here is to be able to get out of the “work place” consideration (afterwards): seeing if what the author says couldn’t be of use elsewhere… (The human condition, for instance).
This is lengthy - and full of data. Very lengthy. Sorry about that. But there are so many elements that it needs to be presented as such (until I find a better way).
The author is a French psychiatrist.
The work place
Christophe DEJOURS – «Suffering in France - The banalization of social injustice» (FRENCH)
Research in French-language ergonomics has revealed an unbridgeable gap between [the work] prescribed by the organization and the actual activity.
In fact, there is always a gap between what is prescribed and the concrete reality of the situation. This gap between what is prescribed and what is actually done can be found at all levels of analysis between technique and activity.
So:
the discovery of the irreducible gap between the work prescribed by the organization and actual activity
The gap between prescribed and actual organization of work can only be rationally managed by constructing compromises between distinct points of view on the functioning and state of the work process
A basic situation is taught, here: there sometimes exist various irreconciliable elements. For instance, the prescription and the real work. There can never be a 100% match. That’s big theory! This could be extended elsewhere, wherever there is some “work” to be done, according to a “manual” or directives.
What can take place, within such a context, is a commitment in going to the opposite direction of this irreconciliability. This can happen, for various reasons.
Seems that the Capitalist ideology went through several decades of operation, and that, unfortunately, it could not prevent a sort of pathology from sneaking in. Result has been a sort of decay, from the inside, leading to Capitalism to morph into “Neoliberalism”.
As such, several companies deliberately implement the gap at the work place (a commitment in going to the opposite direction of the irreconciliability):
We seek to characterize a particular form of distortion
a process of destabilization by the company
that is not only intentional, but strategic
This discourse is not the result of misjudgment or naivety, but of duplicity
Pretty sad, but this happens. I feel that there may be situation where this is not deliberate. The French psy says that it cannot be else than deliberate.
Several “features” / hints, when a commitment to ignore the gap is carried on:
By imposing total quality
Advertise total quality, not as a goal, but as a constraint
Those two elements are recurring features when a company is engaged in a dishonest management such as the above. Those are byproducts of it, and not necessarily implies that the company is engaged into a dishonest commitment.
So, basically, a company committing itself to damaging management principles. Precisely, the elements of “performance” and “total quality”, in organized structures.
Total quality is a dream, an impossible one, but it’s not “100% bad” per se.
Trouble arise if total quality is set as “constraint” - not as a “goal”. A whole chain of consequences, started because of the company commiting itself to ignore the gap:
generates a whole series of adverse effects that can have disastrous consequences
The denial of reality [of work] constitutes the basis
It is generally associated with the denial of suffering [in the relationship to work].
Indeed, the denial of reality, which implies the overvaluation of design and management, inevitably leads to interpreting failures [of ordinary work] as the expression of incompetence, a lack of seriousness, carelessness, a lack of training, malevolence, a failure or an error, related to human beings. This pejorative interpretation of human behavior …
Several interesting bits:
denial of reality (aiming to bypass an irreconcilibaility, for whatever reason)
the yielding of suffering because of a denial of reality
again, a concrete manifestation of the commitment, “overvaluation on design and management”
And, lastly, human nature itself is perceived as being the “source of the problem”
Several core features can thus be highlighted when that type of organization is in motion. Christophe DEJOURS has named the whole “the strategy of communicational distorsion”.
The sub-sequent psychological damages are extensive, and I tried to relay the big picture in another article.
To sum up quickly, as we saw, “suffering” is yielded, because reality is not respected. Seems much falls under this umbrella: ignoring the gap, requiring total quality without compromise, etc.
Suffering yields a defense mechanism - psychological defense mechanism
Employees must cope within such a context. It’s kind of impossible to solve, as long as the management is biased. Slowly, employees, in order to cope with this pressure (which is really evil), tend to build up a “defensive mechanism”. It’s a “strategy of of defense against suffering”. That’s something that human spontaneously do, in order to alleviate trauma.
A matter here is that two consensual defensive strategies have taken “the palm”:
“the false virility” model
“economical realism”
The former one more or less consists of coping with the suffering in trying to “become stronger than it”, fighting it.
A man is a truly virile man, one who can, without flinching, inflict suffering or pain on others, in the name of exercising, demonstrating or re-establishing domination and power over others; including by force. Of course, this virility is socially constructed and must be radically distinguished from masculinity
Although nowhere in moral philosophy treatises considered a virtue, virility is constantly held to be a value. Now, virility is undeniably a psychological trait referring to an attitude, a posture, a character, a behavioral modality, and therefore to a quality of the soul.
Not very fruitful, because it yields a cycle of violence.
That’s why, in my opinion, we see that many “thugs”, out there, and “the thug mentality”. The “criminal-mob-boss” mindset became valuable. I believe that this participates from such state of affairs - and that humans are tempted to grab that sort of defensive strategy. In addition, this specific strategy (being “virile”) is heavily promoted a bit everywhere. (We may perhaps correlate this strategy with the damages that the monoteistic masculine God did a bit everywhere - that would be an interesting angle)
The latter strategy of defense is “economical realism” and it’s the world view going by “be realistic man! You must bring bread at the table - so stand and shut up”. So, “earning money and ignoring suffering”. To be happy.
I won’t discuss the fact that people choose to do those things - because we don’t have the choice. If 99% of people are in a mood of “eat or be eaten” / “the law of the jungle” / “survival of the fittest” mindset - well, it’s kind of hard to go against it.
The goal of this post is to present a set of matters, and to find explanations. I cannot much try to expand on “solutions”. But it appears that when we reach the point of having most people adopting one or another strategy - the environment is “pathological”; so, it’s not “normal” and should never become considered as “normal”.
Changing job? Setting our qualifications below the peace aspect? I don’t know. It depends on people.
It appears that, technically speaking, the first strategy gives birth to the second one (we may thus ponder that if a person tells you about “economical realism”, a deeper programming sequence might be “accepting to inflict suffering to others”).
And here, an interesting matter, from Christophe Dejours, is that he named those: “collective strategies of defense“.
The collective aspect would be highlighted here.
When a defensive strategy is “on”, things follow their course, and what ultimately takes place is a psychological phenomenon named “alienation”, a sort of loop.
Logical: the employee must still “cope” with the suffering, nothing is done, it gets worse. This has consequences in the long run. Something yielding endless psychological decompensation.
Additional quote:
https://shs.cairn.info/article/TRAV_044_0195/pdf?lang=fr
Precarization that affects not only employment but, beyond that, the entire social and existential condition. In this very particular psychological configuration, the area of the world that is denied by the subject, and where the faculty of thought is suspended.
The fear of precariousness (loosing the job > ending up poor > synonym of illness etc) is one core of the problem. Triggering the fear of precarity may be sufficient to feed the mechanism.
Let us note the words: “psychological configuration”. I spoke of alienation, and those seem to be appropriate words.
Ultimately, employees end up like that:
Christophe DEJOURS - “Work, mental wear: from psychopathology to the psychodynamics of work” (FRENCH)
… the defensive strategy which, at the beginning, was only dedicated to defense against suffering is soon erected into a promise of happiness
Reality becomes a twisted and biased view. people would loose track of “what’s real” and would tend to have been brought to believe that this is all there is, that this is the normal way of functionning.
This last quote is something that will be of use in this present article of mine. I shall use it because of its mention of “happiness”. You will see how, a bit later, but this appears to be one of the most important cog, in my hypothetical puzzle. Another one is “collective”.
Let me add several observations to the above, before switching author:
This type of work generates a conflict between the activities carried out by the subject and the fact that he morally disapproves of them because they are in contradiction with his values.
Basically, a psychological “mechanic” has been set up, at some point:
conflicting relationship between the organization [of work] and the mental apparatus.
So, the problem has to be found inside the management, memos, principles, etc.
Thinking in broad terms, this situation applies wherever there is a management structure, managing a structure (sorry for this redundancy).
Another important consequence that I wanted to highlight is a forced system of relationships:
https://doi.org/10.3917/trav.028.0149 (FRENCH)
The imposed relational system competes with the network of relationships that the various actors would forge among themselves, if they were free.
The psychopathological consequences of this relational system imposed by the organization of work have not been clearly analyzed by occupational psychopathology.
Well - in whatever work situation, we end up with new colleagues and this is barely controllable by employees. But it appears that in a setting where those very negative management principles are set up, this aspect can become a real weight.
Okay - that’s the end of this important “chunk”. I believe that several elements can be of use for a broad study of “the human condition”.
The work place has to do with “work”, an essential task for the fulfilment of “man”. In addition. work is a core feature of society. What happens there matters for the health of the whole society. It’s not an impermeable context.
And so, I believe that the above-mentionned principles can be found elsewhere - or even “fractally”. Let me thus highlight the big elements:
irreconcilable gap
a commitment going against reality
organizational principles
If we scrutinize the last element, we could get oustide the restricted scope of the work place, as follows:
Christophe DEJOURS - “Work, mental wear: from psychopathology to the psychodynamics of work” (FRENCH)
Whatever political regime is considered, to the extent that it claims to amend the socio-economic obstacles to “happiness”
Core principles!
Political regime… Organization… Management… All those elements could be of use in different structures than simply “the work place”.
And here, again, “happiness” pops up…
Happiness
I would like to offer some further observations, within the context of the “conditions for humans” - so the elements described above, to clarify a number of points: specifically regarding the "collective" aspect—and perhaps to better understand the aspect of "happiness."
As I mentioned, I feel that "happiness" is a key element in this whole affair. The “collective”, too—so here are some elements that might support this hypothesis:
Christophe DEJOURS - “Work, mental wear: from psychopathology to the psychodynamics of work” (FRENCH)
However, recognition implies peer judgment, which is only possible if a collective or peer community is functioning. Thus, the collective ultimately appears as the crucial link and the sensitive point of the intersubjective dynamic of identity in the workplace.
Looks like the motion feeds upon the collective aspect.
If the dynamic of recognition is paralyzed, suffering can no longer be transformed into pleasure; it can no longer find meaning. In this case, it can only accumulate and engage the individual in a pathogenic dynamic ultimately leading to psychiatric or somatic decompensation.
Seems that “recognition” of objective efforts takes part in all of this.
The subjective situation is then expressed as if suffering were essentially the result of a weakening of the defensive strategy and not a consequence of work. Suffering can no longer be recognized as originating from work. Conversely, the defensive strategy, which initially was solely dedicated to defense against suffering, is soon elevated to a promise of happiness, and the defense of defense itself becomes an ideology. This is why we will then speak not of a collective defense strategy, but of a defensive ideology, insofar as defense becomes the program of collective action.
We shall keep that word - ideology - in mind, for later use (chapter “pathocracy”).
Thus, we may be able to examine what hinders not collective happiness—a suspect notion if ever there was one—but what constitutes a collectively experienced obstacle.
Collective happiness seems to be a suspicious notion. From my personal studies (and I will explain this a bit later), we may distinguish this, from the individual pursuit of happiness.
Man has a core impulse of happiness. This seems to be a positive feature of man - we seek happiness, we fulfil ourselves via happiness (and through work too) and it has been a great compass. We have a soul, a heart.
And so, here, the highlight is put on the collective aspect of happiness if we were to track down “troubles”, I suppose. Well - it seems that troubles rather stem from collective concept of the pursuit of happiness - rather than the individual one. Seems! Hypothesis. But, perhaps an interesting clue that I found out after (not hours) days of researching the whole.
At worse, there exists no such thing than “collective happiness“ and it is an artificial construct (I don’t believe so because there exist such thing than “being together and forming a good society“); at best, “collective happiness” is an existing feature and it’s what is being targeted in the above mechanism.
Happiness, the collective, slowly appearing within an equation of some sort.
Now, let’s pursue in our big study of things.
Two irreconciliable forces
Creating some “void” - a gap - a space
Here is a specific aspect. I would like to expand on “the gap”. At the work place, we saw that there is a “gap”, between theory and practice - and that it’s preferable to take it into consideration when deciding of organizational guidelines.
I found two quotes, illustrating what appears to be “a gap”, too. I am wondering if there would be anything in common.
First quote:
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/the-elite-overproduction-hypothesis-994
In the 1960s researchers in sociology and political science applied the concept of the revolution of rising expectations to explain not only the attractiveness of communism in many third world countries but also revolutions in general, for example, the French, American, Russian, and Mexican revolutions. In 1969 James C. Davies used those cases to illustrate his J-curve hypothesis, a formal model of the relationships among rising expectations, their level of satisfaction, and revolutionary upheavals. He proposed that revolution is likely when, after a long period of rising expectations accompanied by a parallel increase in their satisfaction, a downturn occurs. When perceptions of need satisfaction decrease but expectations continue to rise, a widening gap is created between expectations and reality. That gap eventually becomes intolerable and sets the stage for rebellion against a social system that fails to fulfill its promises.
The above quotes has the ability to illustrate a road when a gap is ignored. A sort of dystopian future takes place. We already know the words “cognitive dissonance” - so I just wanted to keep track of several key concepts.
Another completely unrelated quote:
Andrew M. LOBACZEWSKI - “Political ponerology”
Ever since ancient times, philosophers and religious thinkers representing various attitudes in different cultures have been searching for the truth regarding moral values, attempting to find criteria for what is right, and what constitutes good advice. They have described the virtues of human character at length and suggested these be acquired. They have created a heritage containing centuries of experience and reflection. In spite of the obvious differences of originating cultures and attitudes, even though they worked in widely divergent times and places, the similarity, or complementary nature, of the conclusions reached by famous ancient philosophers are striking. It demonstrates that whatever is valuable is conditioned and caused by the laws of nature acting upon the personalities of both individual human beings and collective societies. It is equally thought-provoking 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. It is also possible that whatever they thought or said about the true nature of evil was later expunged and hidden by those very forces they sought to expose.
The character and genesis of evil thus remained hidden in discreet shadows, leaving it to literature to deal with the subject in highly expressive language. But, expressive though the literary language might be, it has never reached the primeval source of the phenomena. A certain cognitive space remained as an uninvestigated thicket of moral questions which resist understanding and philosophical generalizations.
That one illustrates that philosophers, thinkers, tended to ignore a bit the evil side of things. In focusing too much on “the nice” aspect of things, one looses track of the study of evil, which is present, too. Just an imbalance.
The result is “an uninvestigated cognitive thicket”. Evil, would keep manifesting, that we know about it or not. That would be a sort of gap, somewhere. The above would be supplementing knowledge about “irreconciliable gaps” :)
Where it meets “the gap at the workplace”: “it leads to a situation where a chunk of reality is missing” - along with an imbalanced mechanism, and, why not, a re-balancing mechanism somewhere. When employees start to suffer, because they are facing “contradictory demands” - or even harsh directives - a real “cognitive space” is left out, if the employee does not manage to identify that what’s taking place is plain wrong.
Psychological “cleavage”? A “chunk”, an important “part” of reality remains on the side. “Cognitive dissonance” - things like that. Incomplete (processes of thought, for example). Incomplete “models”.
Overall, this touches “knowledge” in general, and if there’s something that we don’t know, still requiring attention, that’s how it may manifest if it is exploited. Overall, the problem specificall yhighlighted by A. Lobaczewski precisely hints at a lack of knowledge. That would be a big one.
The model of Christophe DEJOURS teaches that this is something that which is sometimes artificially induced.
Let me now introduce another random serie of quotes.
Another example of “irreconciliability” can be found in society itself
Society is composed of 94% of normal people and 6% of “psychopaths” (Lobaczewski).
Andrew M. LOBACZEWSKI - “Political ponerology”
After all, psychologically normal people constitute both the great statistical majority and the real base of societal life in each community. According to natural law, they should thus be the ones to set the pace; moral law is derived from their nature. Power should be in the hands of normal people.
Normal people. 94% of all people, everywhere.
A 6% type exists: people born with hereditary deficiencies (in regard of a calibration “normal people”).
We may use “discrepancies”, or “variations” if you will - but its’ DNA-based and is heavily reflected at the psychology: attitude towards the world, appreciation of human values etc etc. It’s difficult to not speak of “deficiencies” here. This wouldn’t shadow many genuine qualities that “psychopaths” would have.
For instance, an extremely polarized psychopathy features “predation over others”.
All together, society does not take this in consideration.
Very antagonistic people find themselves in the same mold, so to speak. This can only create friction. That’s an ignored “gap”.
Psychopaths don’t seem to exactly be the ultimate matter here. But, as long as their conditions are not recognized (and supervized), this will constitute a factor of irreconciliability; and friction… Their condition is sometimes very antagonistic in terms of “normal people”. And we are, all together, in society, without any knowledge about this. Psychopathies since birth, in some people.
A. Lobaczewski is clear on the matter: we must be as Christic as we can, in regard of DNA-based psychopathies.
Harrison KOEHLI, the boss in those matters, says:
https://ponerology.substack.com/p/supernatural-evil-and-ponerology
… those most predisposed to receive the x signal …
And so, before “psychopaths” become a real trouble for society in general, it appears that a “step” of some sort, occurs: a signal (qualified here with the words “x-signal”).
Psychopaths would be vectors of evil, after the reception of the x-signal.
We don’t know what’s the x signal - but it would be a sort of “evil activator”.
So, rather than being “evil itself”, psychopaths would undergo a step. They are not the ultimate origin of “evil”, it seems.
I shall first provide some bits highlighting how society features a forced antagonism - because of the non-supervision of DNA-based psychopathies:
Normal people need to retain the awareness that not all people are fundamentally good
The idea that "all men are created equal" and we are all fundamentally good is drummed into us from the time we are born.
Moreover, throughout history we have been divided into groups on the basis of physical, cultural, religious, or whatever other easily recognizable distinctions
Andrew M. LOBACZEWSKI - “Political Ponerology”
…, a certain hereditary anomaly isolated as “essential psychopathy” is catalytically and causatively essential for the genesis and survival of large scale social evil.
https://ponerology.substack.com/p/final-thoughts-on-the-persistent
Final Thoughts on the Persistent Predatory Personality
Mitchell’s PPP model posits that there is a single, overarching “dark” personality type that includes disorders and conceptualizations currently thought to be discrete phenomena. This includes psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism, which in this model are considered “partial conceptualizations” of the predatory personality.
https://www.sott.net/article/154258-A-Structural-Theory-of-Narcissism-and-Psychopathy
According to Robert Hare, Cleckley, Stout, Salter, Brown, Łobaczewski, and many other experts in psychopathy, a diagnosis of psychopathy cannot be made on the basis of visible behavioral symptoms to the exclusion of interpersonal and affective symptoms because such a procedure essentially makes psychopaths of many people who are simply injured by life or society, and allows the true psychopaths who have a well-constructed "mask of sanity" to escape detection.
Canucwhatic Blogspot - “Why do we love psychopaths and sociopaths?”
Psychopaths, however, are people who, at their very core, lack the capacity to make an emotional connection with others, who lack the capacity to empathize, but who have not broken with reality.
https://www.sott.net/article/204905-Ponerology-101-The-Psychopaths-Mask-of-Sanity
… what exactly psychopathy is. The term had come to describe individuals whose emotional life and social behavior were abnormal, but whose intellectual capacities were undisturbed.
Most people are familiar with the idea of the exceptional cunning of the madman, but psychopathy, in its several varieties, has an additional element: the Mask of Sanity.
Society is not homogeneous; people tend to think that we are all born the same. People opted for the general differences in terms of “size”, “color”, “ethnies”… It isn’t so, or, in other words, a big big relevant difference exists in terms of “psychology”.
Most people really don’t know - so everybody is together i the same bag. The critical matter in this is that the opinion of psychopaths is as valued as teh one of normal people. But psychopathies yield a different psychological “apparatus” - so perception of things, goals, reality.
Consequence: psychopathic world views tend to be adopted by normal people.
In my book, Without Conscience, I argued that we live in a “camouflage society,” a society in which some psychopathic traits- egocentricity, lack of concern for others, superficiality, style over substance, being “cool,” manipulativeness, and so forth- increasingly are tolerated and even valued.
Another consequence is “pathocracy”, a point that will be explained a bit later.
Another consequence:
Christophe DEJOURS - “Suffering in France. The banalization of social injustice”
… a process by which what is in fact the exercise of evil committed by some against others is passed off as misfortune
Here is the general picture of psychopaths in free wheels, in society:
Andrew M. LOBACZEWSKI - “Political ponerology”
… each society contains a small but active minority of persons with various deviant worldviews, especially in the areas treated above, which are caused either by psychological anomalies, to be discussed below, or by the long-term influence of such anomalies upon their psyches, especially during childhood.
Such people later exert a pernicious influence upon the formative process of the psychological world view in society, whether by direct activity or by means of written or other transmission, especially if they engage in the service of some ideology or other.
Many causes which easily escape the notice of sociologists and political scientists can thus be broken down into either the development or involution of this factor, whose meaning for the life of society is as decisive as the quality of their language of psychological concepts.
The last bolded quote seems to be an objective principle. As suggested before, let’s keep in mind “the x signal” - so that the overall big picture may be more complex. We could be tempted to eliminate all psychopaths… In doing so, we wouldn’t erase the root of evil.
Okay, this was just an example of one irreconciliable gap - people daily facing some “antagonisms”… daily confrontations … etc - without even knowing about it. A lack of critical knowledge… Negative evolution of the mental health… A specific psychological configuration in the minds of people etc.
Reminder:
Many causes which easily escape the notice of sociologists and political scientists can thus be broken down into either the development or involution of this factor, whose meaning for the life of society is as decisive as the quality of their language of psychological concepts.
This is no small fish here. And there, exists an antagonism, a gap, an irreconciliability - So I took note of it.
Variants
Sometimes, two forces are seemingly irreconciliable when in fact they aren’t:
David Ray Griffin - “Religion and Scientific Naturalism: Overcoming the Conflicts”
One popular view in recent times has been idea that scientific and religious beliefs are independent from each other in such a way that they cannot possibly come into conflict. There is, therefore, no need to try to bring them into harmony.
(…)
This two-truth solution, however, is difficult for most of us to accept. We feel that truth, ultimately, must all be of a piece.
(…)
Various attempts have been made, accordingly, to provide a more palatable version of the two-truth solution. One such position holds that, although truth is one, we are, at least in this life, incapable of seeing this unity.
From the same book:
This conviction lies behind the present book. If our religious impulses and our scientific impulses are indeed the two strongest general forces on our thought and behavior, and yet these two forces appear to be opposed to each other, then we are drawn in opposite directions. If we are thus divided, it will be difficult to motivate and organize ourselves to take the kind of concerted action that will be necessary if we are to meet the unprecedented challenges of our day, such as political and economic injustice, domestic and international insecurity, over-population and ecological deterioration. This internal division has become per-haps the central phenomenon of our political and cultural life, as those representing resurgent "religion" usually have radically different agendas from those representing "scientific rationality.'
The conflict between scientific and religious impulses, however, does not occur simply between two kinds of people, as if some were purely “scientific types” and others purely “religious types.” Rather, the conflict means that we as individuals are ourselves internally torn, drawn in opposing directions.
The mechanism of false stablehood
I recently found the following bits; I believe that here lies the missing piece of my puzzle (it’s “the collective“ as in “the collective mind”):
https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/lebrons-immunity
The Stable Inversion
In a previous essay, I described the mechanics of stable falsehood. A lie tilted slightly from truth requires constant energy to maintain—struts, supports, continuous adjustment against the pull of reality. But a lie fully inverted finds its own equilibrium. It doesn’t argue with reality; it replaces it.
https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/the-mechanics-of-stable-falsehood
Consider a pole balanced perfectly vertical. This pole represents truth in stable equilibrium. It requires no energy to maintain. Gravity holds it in place. Now tilt the pole twenty degrees. Enormous energy must flow into the base to prevent collapse. Struts, supports, constant adjustment—the structure becomes a project, an ongoing effort against the pull of reality. The Leaning Tower of Pisa has required eight centuries of engineering intervention to prevent its collapse—counterweights, soil extraction, cable anchors, structural reinforcement. A partial deviation from vertical demands perpetual maintenance.
This is how falsehood should work. A deviation from truth requiring continuous subsidy. Reality reasserting itself the moment support falters.
There is another equilibrium point.
Invert the pole completely. One hundred eighty degrees. What was north is now south; what was up is now down. The fully inverted pole also balances. Not because it has escaped gravity, but because the inversion is complete enough to create its own coherent structure. The weight distribution that held the upright pole in equilibrium now holds the inverted pole in equilibrium. The internal logic is consistent, even though every element points in the wrong direction.
A partial lie—the pole at twenty degrees—requires constant energy because it participates in both systems. It must account for the truth it partially acknowledges while supporting the falsehood it partially asserts. The contradiction is unstable.
A complete inversion has no such problem. It does not argue with reality; it replaces it. The internal coherence becomes its own stability. Once trillions of dollars of infrastructure are built around that inverted pole—careers, institutions, industries, identities—the structure can stand for generations.
stability proves nothing
I know of a similar situation, yielding a similar “structure”.
But let’s recap: a lie, yields an upside down (inverted <> perversion) structure.
We can see, too, the matter has to deal with science not following up:
https://conspiracysarah.substack.com/p/tom-cowans-interview-with-kim-iversen
I was hesitant at first to give it any attention because I honestly couldn’t wrap my head around a foundational premise of our current system being so…wrong.
And so fraudulent.
(…)
I began to realize that many things I had learned as fact, settled science, would need to be revisited.
(…)
How do we know what we know? How do we validate what we think we know?
We need a reliable, replicable way of understanding reality that is grounded in observable evidence and logic…not dogma or assumption or opinion.
Turns out that we have a method for this. It’s called the Scientific Method.
The scientific method involves formulating hypotheses, making predictions, and testing them through experiments. If a hypothesis is falsified, it is discarded or modified. This process of testing and revising theories is central to science…not to be confused with The Science™, which doesn’t appear to be terribly concerned with this method.
From Unbekoming:
https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/the-mechanics-of-stable-falsehood
the one who “doesn’t trust the science”—a phrase revealing the capture, since science is a method, not a catechism
Institutions are necessary; collective knowledge requires collective validation.
The last quote hints at the collective as a culprit. It seems that the root cause has to be found at this level. The “evil” in question would start within the institutions, then. This does not mean that the institutions are evil, but that this is where it would originate. That’s because the institutions are a shell for the collective - and because the collective is a target.
Addition: it is a target for the following reasons:
https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/the-mechanics-of-stable-falsehood
III. The Formula
The collective mind—the herd, the public, the masses—can only process simple formulas. Two variables connected by a single relationship. This is not stupidity. Individual members of the public are capable of sophisticated reasoning when they engage slowly and carefully. But the collective does not engage slowly and carefully. The collective runs on heuristics, on fast thinking, on pattern-matching shortcuts that evolved to help social primates navigate complexity without exhausting cognitive resources on every decision.
VI. The Mechanism
The herd-mind limitation: collective cognition cannot perform slow thinking. It holds only simple heuristics—two-variable formulas compressing reality into actionable shortcuts. This evolved because it works in most contexts. It creates vulnerability. Whoever controls the two anchor points controls the collective’s understanding. Fear accelerates this process. A population in fear reverts to faster thinking, simpler formulas, greater reliance on authority. The inversion exploits healthy cognitive machinery—pattern recognition, trust in expertise, social conformity—and turns it pathological. The smarter the heuristic system, the more cleanly it can be hijacked.
from https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/lebrons-immunity
The herd-mind limitation. Collective cognition runs on simple formulas. Two variables, one relationship.
Here, Unbekoming spotted “The collective”. His article is framing a very nasty motion - an inversion of values, passing off as the truth.
When we stared at employees, suffering from an alienation due to dishonest management principles - we noted how there was a temptation than to think that their reality is “all there is”.
This spec seems to match what Unbekoming says. Next quote possibly shed light on part of this strange phenomenon.
Perversion
A good yardstick
a twisted society, turned completely upside down
the principle of perversion is to go in one direction - to display a precise goal, when the real goal is in fact the opposite.
There’s the principle of inversion
There’s also the principle of duplicity
An example: some psychopaths have zero affect, but indulge in theatrical affect. This is duplicity.
Perversion has two main objectives:
dehumanization
self-destruction
Dehumanization, which is a loss of reference to inner unity, occurs through a kind of de-subjectivization: people become objects; there is an abandonment of consideration as a subject, with a history (and so on).
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
Very recently, an article published on ponerology.substack.com relayed the analysis of someone who appears to have studied several of the aspects that I have attempted to summarise in this article:
https://ponerology.substack.com/p/corruption-isnt-theftits-survival
The author describes a world that functions according to corruption, primarily and as the main mode of exchange and interaction.
The problem is that we have a valuable phrase: ‘When you contemplate a single tree branch, you are actually contemplating the entire universe.’
I will quote a few passages from the above-mentioned article, but I wanted to draw the reader’s attention to the idea that corruption as the main driving force cannot be ‘all that is’. Our immediate environment – in this case, nature – directly contradicts this and provides an objective example of what the Universe and reality are.
Of course, this is not contradictory to what the author says, or to reality. The difference therefore lies in a negative outcome, a ‘state of affairs’ - which means that corruption is seen as ‘the means’ of navigating reality.
We retain our free will at all times, I believe, and it is clearly unacceptable to give any licence to dishonest or criminal methods of any kind.
When people hear the word corruption, they usually think of money, envelopes, bribes, stolen budgets, officials living beyond their salaries. That image is convenient because it frames corruption as a moral defect, a flaw in character, a problem of bad individuals inside an otherwise normal system. And if that were true, the solution would be simple. Punish the bad people, clean the system, restore order.
But corruption survives for decades, not because people are immoral, and not because enforcement is weak. It survives because it quietly replaces something much more important than money. It replaces the relationship between a person and reality.
Those quotes come from a video and those quotes are relayed by the author of the ponerology blog, who explains:
As he puts it, corruption is not something one enters into consciously. Rather, it is absorbed unconsciously from childhood. One learns it through trial and error—what works and what doesn’t, which rules apply and which do not. This leads many to a profound disenchantment with official rules, forms, and institutions—with the surface of things in general
If the rules cannot be relied on to produce predictable outcomes
things like fairness become abstract, naive concepts, because the same rules yield different results
The article is full of similar ideas and I believe that it describes a “condition” - that would be a similar effort than this present article of mine. Many ideas to tap in, precise description of a “Service to self” global system.
I don’t have much time to extensively study this rght now but I shall excerpt some interesting passages to me:
In such a mindset, principle can seem like weakness and a rigid refusal to adapt to reality
competence becomes a measure of navigating broken systems
If something works, it worked somehow. If it fails, it failed objectively.
Honesty becomes detached from outcomes; lies become functional necessities.
“You can be honest and still lose. You can be dishonest and still sleep very well. The link between behavior and consequence weakens.” Morality becomes purely situational.
rules are negotiable
Over time, this erodes something fundamental. Expectation. People stop expecting institutions to work.
Corruption self-reproduces through millions of small, pragmatic choices under uncertainty.
In functional societies, procedures are boring, but they are real. You don’t need to negotiate with them. You don’t need to fear them. They may be slow, imperfect, frustrating, but they are predictable.
I assume that the motion has to deal with the fact that there exists a basic model, in the Universe: a basic way of functioning. This is something objective - and requirements for a perennial society. Good people of good will, gathering together, and building structures for positive growth. Big basics.
Here, the author sticks the finger on the fact that this aspect of “normal humans” kind of stops being the “norm”. But “this is an old one”! Taking what we see for granted does not account for the absolute reality; meaning that even if 90% of people start to steal others, it wouldn’t make it “legit”, positive, to be encouraged etc etc.
Note: I quote this article in the context of the “perversion” chapter, because in the definitional sense of the word, perversion means a [negative] twist of the initial condition (for whatever?).
As such, we may pictuire whatever “organism”, being, person, object - and study that a “corruption” (again, in the basic definitional sense of the word) would be the step, ultimately & potentially leading to a “perverted state”.
Those two words would be interesting ways for analyzing many many situations. I would lay down a basic model going by:
A) natural state > [corruption] > B) perverted state (upside down)
So, perversion is an ultimate “state of affair”, meaning the opposite of the initial natural state.
When corruption attacks an organism, it does not necessarily lead to a perverted state. That’s only if nothing is done. Resilience, fight, care & healing can twart the process.
Ok that would have been the elements I could speak of right now, and let me just quote a bit mor eof the article:
Here is an ode to corruption from within the system, written by (…)
Negative ways being valued, promoted and taught to normal people.
The “ode” to corruption is in fact “schizoïdal” and “characteropathizing”.
Characteropathy is the clinical word intended to match a normal person who saw the personality twisted by wrong ideas. Something came by, ideas, containing hidden bits of pathology, that were not spotted by the person - and the whole new idea was taken for granted as “useable” for the person, who adopted it. Consequences would be a slow distorsion in the “normal human, normal person” aspect, manifesting via various ways, especially on the surface at the level of the personality (the “character”) - and this being done by the hidden pathological bit. Like a foreing unwanted “body”, remaining in latency, somewhere, and exerting a nefarious influence.
Second - schizoïdy - refers to a DNA-based pathology. People born with this bit of pathology tend to have a different basic/native look at the world. Their gaze is characterized by a pejorative view on all-things humans, and, as such, they don’t automatically “grip” on the “normal human stance” which is;
“tug at a single branch of a tree, and you see the whole Universe”
“Look up at the stars and you will feel whole, pertaining to the tribe of good humans”
“it is important to cultivate the love of our kins, to be happy and to be a positive person in the society“
“the world of good people of good will”
“peace to the people of good will”
It seems that those aspects of simply “staying on the good road” don’t automatically find echo, in people born with schizoïdy. Result is thus another view on things, and all the hope & positive affinity for the Universe - does not take the first hand. In turns, schizoïds are sometimes tempted to give into what their pathology shows them - especially if an essential psychopath (another DNA-based psychopathy) is around:
Andrew M. Lobaczewski - “Political ponerology”
However, this anomaly [essential psychopathy] plays a disproportionate role compared to the numbers by saturating the phenomenon as a whole with its own quality of thought and experience.
… schizoidia are somewhat more numerous than essential psychopaths; although highly active in the early phases of the genesis of the phenomenon, … they are torn between such a system and the society of normal people.
The guy with his ode for corruption is probably a person who has been convinced by the influence of essential psychopaths, and he is perhaps a schizoïd. Result is that he teaches the world about how great this is - and this fits the model of spreading schizoïd ideas.
The world, normal people - are not about it. The world is primarily about “what the single branch” shows us. That it is not so is a thing, okay, but it seems to be the result of “a corruption”, and it sometimes reaches “a perverted state”.
Here is a supplemental quote:
Yuri Bezmenov’s Ghost on X
“Subversion works by importing an inverted moral frame and getting the target population to install it as its own conscience.”
Adding a new concept! Is the model:
“Corruption“ > “Subversion” > “Perversion”
?
Banalization of evil
It seems that, ultimately, the process described by Christophe DEJOURS amounts to people feeling mild to the exercise of evil:
Christophe DEJOURS – «Suffering in France - The banalization of social injustice»
Our hypothesis is that, since 1980, [...] society as a whole has undergone a qualitative transformation, to the point where it no longer reacts in the same way as it did in the past. To be more precise, we are essentially referring to an evolution in social reactions to suffering, misfortune and injustice. This evolution would be characterized by an attenuation of reactions of indignation, anger and collective mobilization for action in favor of solidarity and justice, while reactions of reserve, hesitation and perplexity, even outright indifference, would develop, along with collective tolerance of inaction and resignation in the face of injustice and the suffering of others. No analyst disputes this evolution. Many despair. Only the explanations for this phenomenon differ. It’s hard to understand how a political mutation of this magnitude could have taken place in such a short space of time.
In addition, the above quote specifically expresses that “something happened”, “along the course of events”. I know about that, and this is sometimes “a pathocracy”.
Pathocracy
Pathocracy is a negative process that is triggered almost automatically when mental health reaches a critical low. It is a long process, sometimes spanning decades, before “appearing” “publicly”. This means that a long concealed process exists.
This situation is possible and affects “groups”; by “groups,” we can include countries and civilizations.
Pathocracy is a specific and very serious degenerative process that follows an already existing degenerative process.
Andrew M. LOBACZEWSKI - “Political ponerology”
I shall accept the denomination of pathocracy for a system of government thus created, wherein a small pathological minority takes control over a society of normal people.
In practice, this means that management, and therefore politics, are characterized by psychopathology rather than by “normal people.”
As I have tried to point out, this is a situation that arises after a prior process of degeneration has taken place; pathocracy represents a kind of continuation of this, except that “a phenomenon” appears, of a fundamentally different/unknown nature, which has its own laws—and thus the identifiable characteristic is “the hold of pathology” as the new norm.
… no one has ever managed to identify it objectively because it would hide in one of the ideologies characteristic of the respective culture and era, developing in the very bosom of different social movements. Identification was so difficult
Two things here:
1) This is a phenomenon that has remained unidentified
2) This phenomenon is based on an ideology
So far, three variants of pathocracy have been identified, and one of them ("primary pathocracy") develops through an ideology created by normal people. I have tried to explain precisely the phenomenon 2) which employs an ideology in an article. The reader should refer to it for further details.
If I had to explain primary pathocracy quickly, I would say that there is a starting point, with an influence that alters the character of a large mass of people. This can be an emperor (I tried to explain this phase in a dedicated article).
This influence is technically called characteropathy because it consists of a modification of character. If nothing is done, further phenomena may arise.
Furthermore, it must be considered that societies go through cyclical phases of hysteria.
If there is an accumulation of characteropathy, and society is going through a cycle of hysteria, this sometimes stimulates an existing pathology that has remained latent until then: schizoid personality disorder.
Schizoid personality disorder, apparently a hereditary psychopathy, colors the perception of people who hold a pejorative view of humanity. “Schizoid” individuals tend to create suggestive ideologies for “normal” people, sometimes calling for revolution.
Schizoid individuals will therefore tend to produce manifestos, and these sometimes include a “revolutionary” phase. In a context of extreme hysteria, coupled with a transgenerational legacy of characteropathy (as I explained above), schizoids become active and believe they have found a way to repair/improve society. Normal people, generally suffering from significant psychological (mental) health issues, will tend to ignore all of this.
Initially, characteropaths will adopt schizoid ideas.
What usually happens in a primary type of pathocracy is that a revolution occurs. The existing power structure and order are overturned.
This happens within and because of a context of psychopathology, as we have seen. The outcome can only be a takeover by psychopathology, whereas the old order was one that was more dependent on “normal people.”
We know that schizoids disseminate an ideology that will be the starting point of pathocracy.
If we consider an analogous approach that observes a continuous growth of pathology in the background, as a global but hidden element, the schizoid ideology contributes to this, but will not necessarily be entirely pathological.
Pathocracy is a phenomenon that initially unfolds in the background. This ideology serves as the foundation for this growth.
There is a breaking point, often concealed from the public, that marks a transition between the initial ideology and a “pathological takeover” (a pathocratic regime).
So there is something developing, in parallel, but behind the scenes.
Andrew M. Lobaczewski - “Political ponerology”:
a psychological structure is created which can be considered a counterpart or caricature of the normal structure of society or a normal societal organization
When pathocracy takes hold, psychopaths are in charge, but to avoid showing themselves, they will employ a front leader.
Pathocracy therefore stems from a specific agenda, different from the original ideology which it uses as a support until its elimination.
… is formed by gradual adaptation of the primary ideology to functions and goals other than the original formative ones
A certain kind of layering … takes place […]. The outer layer closest to the original content is used for the group’s propaganda purposes, especially regarding the outside world
slipping a different meaning into the same names
“From this time on, using the ideological name of the movement in order to understand its essence becomes a keystone of mistakes”
Not only is a figurehead leader brought in, but the original name of the ideology is also preserved. Only the name.
Basically, pathocracy represents an uninterrupted process of degeneration in the psychology of so-called “normal people,” a process that always produces the same result: torture camps, mass extermination—for normal people.
Historians have identified and labeled this as totalitarianism, without realizing that it is the same phenomenon each time. Because pathocracy retains the name of the ideology that brought it about, and because there is a figurehead leader, it is difficult to perceive the phenomenon, which is truly something specific and little understood.
Differentiating the essence of the pathological phenomenon from its contemporary ideological host is thus a basic and necessary task
This is why historians persist, wrongly, in trying to explain Hitler, Stalin, Mao - and others, according to their respective ideologies (Nazism, Communism, Communism).
These intellectual structures served as a support for the development of the pathology, and then of a phenomenon with a specific agenda.
Now, let’s get to my article!
In the 1960s, capitalism was adopted as an ideology by the West. It appears that a pathocracy began to develop there. This is probably what gave rise to these dishonest management techniques in the 1980s and 90s.
It has been shown that if Joe Biden had not been replaced by Trump, there is a strong likelihood that the US would be, right now, in the grip of the ultimate agenda of pathocracy (mass murder). See this article.
We can therefore deduce that Western society went through a preliminary phase of mental degeneration, before observing a kind of aggravation towards a true pathocracy.
In my opinion, it is in this context that many things can be explained regarding the topsy-turvy world.
However, thanks to the theory of pathocracy, it is possible to find explanations for a number of things: pathology has appeared as a "norm".
Christophe DEJOURS – «Suffering in France - The banalization of social injustice» (FRENCH)
… The experience of reality … translates into confrontation with failure
Final quote
Okay, so we noticed a lot of things. Basically, what I wanted to get at was more or less all those ideas of “gap”, impossible situations where we are seemingly made to suffer. Imposition of domination, etc.
In addition, I wanted to provide an idea as to why it happens (pathocracy - a slow degeneration of the mental health in general, slowly pushing society towards a normalization of pathology).
And how this has to deal with our basic human feelings - especially “happiness”. I have been showing motions that are simply the opposite of a Hobbit place.
Perhaps, the following quote can be of use:
Andrew M. LOBACZEWSKI - “Political Ponerology”
Since a comprehension of the truly operational factors is beyond the ken of his natural world view, he generally relies on emotion: intuition and the pursuit of happiness.
Well - this explains that when we don’t know about the real motions conditioning processes, we will be slightly under the Truth (“truly operational factors”).
In addition, this quote shows that normal people basically rely on the smell of happiness to orient themselves, make decisions [and navigate in a society featuring many irreconciliable gaps & things].
For instance, the existence of psychopaths (6%) represents one factor that normal people don’t know about. It plays a role, in terms of “permanent tension”, etc.
It can happen, in a society, that pathology becomes more of a norm, kind of overriding the stable & normal people world. This has a name, “pathocracy”.
Specific “methods” (dishonest management techniques) relating to mental pathology - are largely unknown to the general public.
Normal people seemingly end up manipulated. It seems that the pursuit of happiness is the element that which gets “attacked” - a privileged target.
As shown by several authors, the pursuit of happiness intermixes at the collective level, too - and it may be that it’s where trouble arise, and less at the personal level of this “quest”.
Now - let’s go “innovative idea”: what if happiness isn’t to be set up as a goal (or a destination)? This would reconcile many interrogations.
Happiness, or even seeking it - would not be wrong, per se, but the real “deal” of “happiness” would be “on the fly”. We can seek it as much as we can, but setting it as a “goal” would make it “an object of the future” - while happiness has to be “felt” / experienced. In other words, happiness is to be found in the present moment (things like that), so, setting it as a “goal” can become dodgy.
This suggests that some of those manipulations may be really dishonest as they would function as a sort of “bait”.
And, again, seeking happiness is not wrong per se, and I understand that it’s its erection in the form of “future promise” (sine qua non condition - future, never right now) that which may be the culprit.
Conclusion
This article intends to gather ideas. It starts featuring “the clash of two irreconcilable forces”.
I tried to write an article more or less explaining/showing “what’s happening to us”.
What comes out clearly is that “we are not happy”, despite the pursuit of happiness seemingly being something not abnormal for humans. Why so, then. I wouldn’t go to a road where felicity & happiness are not virtues. Of course, we must strive to not seek “easy comfort”.
It sometimes feel that there is a normal, instead of being the exception: people are angry, frustrated - we suffer a lot.
° I just wanted to present this gathering of data to the reader - and the result of this effort made me isolate several elements.
If I was to sum up, I would say that what I have been noticing is that there is a twist, taking place, at the collective level, and that it’s specifically affecting the pursuit of happiness. My take would be that when in a social situation, as nobody really knows that there ever exists a 6% of pathological individuals, things are taken for granted. It could be that when on “herd mentality” mode, people tend to act like sponges and that all is like a big mess: all world views interact and pathological ones, too. As one goal of the natural world view is “happiness” and “learning to navigate”, pathological models would appear (and become integrated as valid) during collective interactions.
The collective, here, has been highlighted.
This would matter in term of pathocracy, because pathocracy refers to a type of pathology, specifically evil-izing collective motions. It seems that it’s overall the effect of it. Its essence is collective (“macrosocial”) & pathology.
And so, as shown, when a pathocracy kicks in, chances are that what Christophe Dejours describes - can take place. I do believe that this management problem was due to a pathocracy specifically infiltrating the Capitalist ideology.
Harrison KOEHLI - “Depathologizing America”
Once a sufficiently saturated ponerogenic group gains a sufficient hold on a political system, that pathological structure extends downwards throughout the entire system. It is not just in the national leadership. A pathological system needs agents at all levels of society, down to the local: schools, banks, small businesses, and the institutions governing them.
And, lastly, something that which came to mind: Peter Turchin, in his book, explains how people sometimes take decisions that are counter to their interests. And, specifically individual interests.
What he points out is a sort of process, during which the individual interest is X, and what ultimately primes - is collective interest Y…
A sort of transmutation took place, here, and I believe that this article of mine wanted to show this. I just found that out recently, so adding this here in this lengthy conclusion made up of many elements & aspects.
So: let us hypothesize that starting from individual pursuit of happiness, something happens, and pushes a consensual & collective motion, overriding individual interests (along with the personal pursuit of happiness).
The matter here is that people are social: for the greater good, people accept to discard some things & make sacrifices.
The big matter would thus be a manipulation of this altruistic motion, serving fews who’d twist the individual > collective aspect in a negative way.
“Psychopaths” would be representative of a tool, used to twist the indidivual pursuit of happiness, so at the in-between level. That’s because nobody knows about DNA psychopathies.
Pathocracy would be when this situation is too decayed.
Thinking of this: 6% of psychopaths provide the social stratum with their own “models”. But those are not applicable to normal humans.
This would constitute a factor for the twist of the question “what are my personal interests?”.
Most people would head for “Money” & wealth - and discriminate spiritual values (for example). Well, more specifically, the predation aspect of essential psychopathy may be a huge temptation. After all, our world is kind of “law of the jungle”. This is a negative evolution of course, and “the Planet of the kind animals” is a reality. We just only think of “accumulation of resources”. So - predation and imperialist “world views” just “work” in the present context. But this does not mean that this is positive, or what we need to do!
I hope that I was able to pinpoint a bit this “location”, in-between the individual and the collective, in terms of “world views” and the affinities, goals and directives that we set. And how this “area” may be sensitive and how it seems bound to modifications.
Let me add some fresh quotes from Peter TURCHIN here:
People can also act against their material interests because they misunderstand them, or are misled by manipulative others.
That would be a bit what this article is about, too: people acting against what is good for them, having been led to this and having been convinced that in doing so they would be on the right road.
This brings me to the last issue we need to resolve—lying.
People interested in Christophe Dejours will see, here, that he nailed down that concept, too. Lying seems to be a big feature, not to be dismissed, located somewhere and playing an essential part.
I don’t claim that people always act in their self-interests. (I wrote a whole book about it, Ultrasociety.) But when investigating interest groups (rather than individuals), and especially elite ones, it’s the approach I take in this book.
This last quote emphasizes again the matter that a group’s activity conflicts with individual interests. This is interesting, for instance in the context of an impartial study of Capitalism vs Communism, because those two ideologies are antagonistic to each others, and yield straight big basic guidelines for “the individual” and “the collective”. I relayed an article about this here, but the author believes that Communism is all-bad. I do believe that both are very polarized ideologies and that none is better than the other.
The above raises teh matter of people coming together and deciding to leave a bit of individual freedom for the sake of the whole. This is positive, and it may be touching a spiritual aspect of “humanity”. In the collective, the spiritual body of humans would be expressing itself. But in normal times, thsi should not represent a negative override of individual positive aspects.
The existence of “psychopaths” would constitute a starting point, suggesting how negative individual elements would, firstly first, make the whole “humanity“ heterogneneous: we cannto speak of a cohesive and homogeneous “whole” any more if foreign elements are in it. So - question is: are there? Yes of course, are we being told by people studying out-of-Earth sciences.
Okay - that would be it for now, and I must bring by an additional concept here: STO vs STS. STO - Service To Others, is one of the two polarities in motion in the Universe. The other one is called STS - Service To Self.
It appears that the Planet Earth is right now subjected to the STS polarity. Thinking of it - a veil of “Service to self”. Self-serving as a norm, with its structures & things.
I dont’ believe this is all it has ever been, especially in the light of the ”single branch of the tree”.
Still, it provides an objective take as to why corruption is the “norm”, here.
So - while Venus may be STO or partly STO, Earth has a STS “cloaking”. Reasons vary etc etc and if we get outside of the Earth periphery, it could be that the polarity would change.
The Planet suffers from ancient karmic bonds, relating to Atlantis, when a civilization turned nuts in terms of technology and started to enslave its people. I understand it was at a mass scale. This empire got hit by comets, and various destructive motions, and it put an end to it. Not all were favouring their ways, but it was very active and negative, ultimately.
There seems to exist various “heirs” of this old empire - passing down hidden knowledge and tech gears, up to today. The present state of suffering would be relating to this “old affair”.
Overall, this boils down to me staring, initially, like many do - at the current “condition”: suffering, corruption, badness.
And then, the how’s & why’s, seems to be an avenue worth exploring. Eh! Logical! Again, many try to go that road. I tried to, and I hope that I was able to not loose myself in all of that obscure jungle.
To then be able to reach a conclusion - THE conclusion - is difficult! We can see how it’s a big interaction of several elements:
Service To Self as an imposed spiritual layer
Interference by unknown entities/people/beings (and foreign tot he concept of “normal people", “normal humans”)
And of course all the symptoms: greed, lust, negativity, accumulation of wealth for self purposes, domination, predation, enslavement, etc etc etc etc etc
It can be that “Corruption > Perversion” has to be factored in such a context: a normal person born into this world would start up like a pristine & Christic individual, but soon to become affected, tempted, confronted - by an initial source of corruption.
Somehow, this is not relating to a world giving 100% of chances to all. And that’s because “all” is not an homogeneous “whole”, like we would be tempted to feel (everybody is kind)…
The big picture remains to be seen, then, and we have wrong appreciations of our reality. Seems there exists a basic “STS layer” over reality and that it conditions much.
What allows perenity of a structure is the adoption of a STO orientation. The STS layer becomes unnacceptable, especially since it overrides the indigenous “way”, which constitutes a “basics” - the branch of the tree. I don’t believe that this matter can be negated within the perspectiv eof the Universe. It could be temporarily “blinded” but would not constitue “proof” that this is how we need to “go”. Unfortunately, when the norm becomes one of those negative ways, like “an ode to corruption”, it is difficult to understand that there exists somethign else. We are made to believe that this is all there exists, etc etc.
Just knitting from the concepts we have at hand.
Slowly, a picture emerges: the homogeneity of the Service To Self frequency, akin to a layer hovering an initially homogeneously human world & reality. Result being an heterogenous society, composed of:
normal humans
psychopaths, perhaps, those, being part of nature, so not part of the STS layer. Some people are born discrepant to the normal human state but does it make them foreigners to Earth? Asking.
STS layering - aliens, STS beings
In other words: in removing the STS “curse”, what would remain? What would appear?
That would be what I am coming up with right now in terms of intellectual digression, on those matters. Feel free to comment, negate, better my ideas!
That’s all I can say right now in terms of conclusion. I would like to publish this, and, with time, I feel that I will be able to correct / update / improve several parts.
It seems that there exists a condition which goes by institutionalized predation; it would be the consequences of upstream motions, so that it would remain a sort of symptom - at least a consequence.
We would be tempted to conflate “the human condition” with institutionalized predation”. I would say that this is what there is, but that this is a temporary condition, and never the basics of humans in general. People may be tempted to accept several statements via the idea that “humans will lead to it” - but it ain’t so.
Let’s dissociate, then, the genuine human fabric, from the negative evolution of “something”. Motions and processes lead to a structure in which humans are forced to commit evil acts, and even turn evil themselves. This is not the same than accounting for a definite intrinsic evil feature in humans.
Thanks for reading!
(partly translated with Google, DeepL, from French)
