Andrew Lobaczewski - Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes

direct proportion to the intensity of egotism.

72 What or who does it advance? Who does it serve? What’s the point?

POLITICAL PONEROLOGY

149

We close the door to a causative comprehension of phe-

nomena and open it to vengeful emotions and psychological

error whenever we impose a moralistic interpretation upon

faults and errors in human behavior, which are in fact largely

derived from the various influences of pathological factors,

whether mentioned above or not, which are often obscured

from minds untrained in this area. We thereby also permit these

factors to continue their ponerogenic activities, both within

ourselves and others. Nothing poisons the human soul and de-

prives us of our capacity to understand reality more objectively

than this very obedience to that common human tendency to

take a moralistic view of human behavior.

Practically speaking, to say the least, each instance of be-

havior that seriously hurts some other person contains within

its psychological genesis the influence of some pathological

factors, among other things, of course. Therefore, any interpre-

tation of the causes of evil which would limit itself to moral

categories is an inappropriate perception of reality. This can

lead, generally speaking, to erroneous behavior, limiting our

capacity for counteraction of the causative factors of evil and

opening the door for lust for revenge. This frequently starts a

new fire in the ponerogenic processes. We shall therefore con-

sider a unilaterally moral interpretation of the origins of evil to

be wrong and immoral at all times. The idea of overcoming this

common human inclination and its results can be considered a

moral motive intertwined throughout ponerology.

If we analyze the reasons why some people frequently

overuse such emotionally-loaded interpretations, often indig-

nantly rejecting a more correct interpretation, we shall of

course also discover pathological factors acting within them.

Intensification of this tendency in such cases is caused by re-

pressing from the field of consciousness any self-critical con-

cepts concerning their own behavior and its internal reasons.

The influence of such people causes this tendency to intensify

in others.

~~~

Paramoralisms: The conviction that moral values exist and

that some actions violate moral rules is so common and ancient

a phenomenon that it seems to have some substratum at man’s

150

PONEROLOGY

instinctive endowment level (although it is certainly not totally

adequate for moral truth), and that it does not only represent

centuries’ of experience, culture, religion, and socialization.

Thus, any insinuation framed in moral slogans is always sug-

gestive, even if the “moral” criteria used are just an “ad hoc”

invention. Any act can thus be proved to be immoral or moral

by means of such paramoralisms utilized as active suggestion,

and people whose minds will succumb to such reasoning can

always be found.

In searching for an example of an evil act whose negative

value would not elicit doubt in any social situation, ethics

scholars frequently mention child abuse. However, psycholo-

gists often meet with paramoral affirmations of such behavior

in their practice, such as in the above-mentioned family with

the prefrontal field damage in the eldest sister. Her younger

brothers emphatically insisted that their sister’s sadistic treat-

ment of her son was due to her exceptionally high moral quali-

fications, and they believed this by auto-suggestion. Paramoral-

ism somehow cunningly evades the control of our common

sense, sometimes leading to acceptance or approval of behavior

that is openly pathological.73

Paramoralistic statements and suggestions so often accom-

pany various kinds of evil that they seem quite irreplaceable.

Unfortunately, it has become a frequent phenomenon for indi-

viduals, oppressive groups, or patho-political systems to invent

ever-new moral criteria for someone’s convenience. Such sug-

gestions often partially deprive people of their moral reasoning

and deform its development in youngsters. Paramoralism facto-

ries have been founded worldwide, and a ponerologist finds it

hard to believe that they are managed by psychologically nor-

mal people.

73 Many examples of recent years include children beaten to death by their

parents for “religious reasons”. The parents may claim that the child is demon

possessed, or that they have behaved so loosely that only beating them will

“straighten them out”. Another example is circumcision, both for boys and

girls by certain ethnic groups. The Indian custom of suttee, where the wife

climbs on the funeral pyre of her husband; or in Muslim cultures where, if a

woman is raped, it is the duty of her male family members to kill her to wipe

away the shame from the family name. All of these acts are claimed to be

“moral”, but they are not, they are pathological and criminal. [Editor’s note.]

POLITICAL PONEROLOGY

151

The conversive74 features in the genesis of paramoralisms

seem to prove they are derived from mostly subconscious re-

jection (and repression from the field of consciousness) of

something completely different, which we call the voice of

conscience .

A ponerologist can nevertheless indicate many observations

supporting the opinion that various pathological factors partici-

pate in the tendency to use paramoralisms. This was the case in

the above-mentioned family. When it occurs with a moralizing

interpretation, this tendency intensifies in egotists and hyster-

ics, and its causes are similar. Like all conversive phenomena,

the tendency to use paramoralisms is psychologically conta-

gious. That explains why we observe it among people raised by

individuals in whom it was developed alongside pathological

factors.

This may be a good place to reflect that true moral law is

born and exists independently of our judgments in this regard,

and even of our ability to recognize it. Thus, the attitude re-

quired for such understanding is scientific, not creative: we

must humbly subordinate our mind to the apprehended reality.

That is when we discover the truth about man, both his weak-

nesses and values, which shows us what is decent and proper

with respect to other people and other societies.

~~~

Reversive blockade : Emphatically insisting upon something

which is the opposite of the truth blocks the average person’s

mind from perceiving the truth. In accordance with the dictates

of healthy common sense, he starts searching for meaning in

the “golden mean” between the truth and its opposite, winding

up with some satisfactory counterfeit. People who think like

this do not realize that this effect is precisely the intent of the

person who subjects them to this method. If the counterfeit of

the truth is the opposite of a moral truth, at the same time, it

simultaneously represents an extreme paramoralism, and bears

its peculiar suggestiveness.

We rarely see this method being used by normal people;

even if raised by the people who abused it; they usually only

indicate its results in their characteristic difficulties in appre-

74 See note p. 46.

152

PONEROLOGY

hending reality properly. Use of this method can be included

within the above-mentioned special psychological knowledge

developed by psychopaths concerning the weaknesses of hu-

man nature and the art of leading others into error. Where they

are in rule, this method is used with virtuosity, and to an extent

conterminous with their power.

~~~

Information selection and substitution : The existence of

psychological phenomena known to pre-Freudian philosophical

students of the subconscious bears repeating. Unconscious

psychological processes outstrip conscious reasoning, both in

time and in scope, which makes many psychological phenom-

ena possible : including those generally described as conver-

sive, such as subconscious blocking out of conclusions, the

selection, and, also, substitution of seemingly uncomfortable

premises.

We speak of blocking out conclusions if the inferential

process was proper in principle and has almost arrived at a

conclusion and final comprehension within the act of internal

projection, but becomes stymied by a preceding directive from

the subconscious, which considers it inexpedient or disturbing.

This is primitive prevention of personality disintegration,

which may seem advantageous; however, it also prevents all

the advantages which could be derived from consciously elabo-

rated conclusion and reintegration. A conclusion thus rejected

remains in our subconscious and in a more unconscious way

causes the next blocking and selection of this kind. This can be

extremely harmful, progressively enslaving a person to his own

subconscious, and is often accompanied by a feeling of tension

and bitterness.

We speak of selection of premises whenever the feedback

goes deeper into the resulting reasoning and from its database

thus deletes and represses into the subconscious just that piece

of information which was responsible for arriving at the un-

comfortable conclusion. Our subconscious then permits further

logical reasoning, except that the outcome will be erroneous in

direct proportion to the actual significance of the repressed

data. An ever-greater number of such repressed information is

collected in our subconscious memory. Finally, a kind of habit

POLITICAL PONEROLOGY

153

seems to take over: similar material is treated the same way

even if reasoning would have reached an outcome quite advan-

tageous to the person.

The most complex process of this type is substitution of

premises thus eliminated by other data, ensuring an ostensibly

more comfortable conclusion. Our associative ability rapidly

elaborates a new item to replace the removed one, but it is one

leading to a comfortable conclusion. This operation takes the

most time, and it is unlikely to be exclusively subconscious.

Such substitutions are often effected collectively, in certain

groups of people, through the use of verbal communication.

That is why they best qualify for the moralizing epithet “hy-

pocrisy” than either of the above-mentioned processes.

The above examples of conversive phenomena do not ex-

haust a problem richly illustrated in psychoanalytical works.

Our subconscious may carry the roots of human genius within,

but its operation is not perfect; sometimes it is reminiscent of a

blind computer, especially whenever we allow it to be cluttered

with anxiously rejected material. This explains why conscious

monitoring, even at the price of courageously accepting disin-

tegrative states, is likewise necessary to our nature, not to men-

tion our individual and social good.

There is no such thing as a person whose perfect self-

knowledge allows him to eliminate all tendencies toward con-