World State Policies III: The Scientific Technique

“Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen…”

Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society

Science is in crisis. A product of our official culture, fraud, corruption and a scientific thought police continue to circumscribe academic evaluation, shackling the best scientists and maintaining a materialist gridlock on open-minded and multidisciplinary approaches.  Consequently, in many quarters, the state of science resembles an authoritarian religion rather than a quest for truth. Where money and inflated academic egos dominate.

Capitalising on the Age of Reason firmly set in place by the Illuminism and “Enlightenment” of the 18th Century, the “scientific method” or “technique” grew out of Germany and Prussia of the 1800s embracing the theories of the new scientific rationalists such as John Locke and Jean-Jacque Rousseau. This was to inaugurate a new educational system never before seen. Children would become the nuts and bolts of the State, bludgeoning generations of young people into a rigid prison of rationale and reason. Feelings would be irrelevant.

Hegel was one of the most influential philosophers of the modern age and the culmination of the German idealistic philosophy school of Immanuel Kant. Like the Prussian militarists who inspired utilitarian schooling so beloved of the corporatists, there was only one way to live and be – through the world of reason and a rejection of the heart as an organ of perception. To Hegel the state is the ideal of Absolute Reason where citizens gained their freedom from being subservient to the state. Hegel viewed the State through a lens of religious fascism where it: “… has supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the state.” It is therefore unsurprising that both fascism and communism have their philosophical roots in Hegelianism and Illuminism – flag bearers of the present Global Establishment. [1]

To bring all this up-to-date we need to introduce another mechanistic thinker who was to provide a massive contribution to our understanding of behaviour which was absorbed into the cult of control in the West of the 20th Century. His name was Burrhus Frederic (“B.F.”) Skinner who took his cues from Ivan Pavlov’s research into temperament conditioning and involuntary reflex actions. A scientist who sincerely wanted his ideas to benefit humanity he nonetheless, fell into the belief trap that populations could be controlled by a positive reinforcement which was simply a concealed method of coercion. In fact, Skinner was an early technocrat in his thinking and believed in a utopia of science and technology that could control populations rather than encouraging free-will. He stated: “It is a mistake to suppose that the whole issue is how to free man. The issue is to improve the way in which he is controlled.”


A Clockwork Orange (1971) which drew heavily from the ideas behind behaviourism. Theatrical release poster by Bill Gold (wikipedia)

Skinner was Influenced by the Age of Reason and its advocates. His social contract was to be extended to include a scientific elite which would make sure that populations stayed within certain parameters set down by an agreed upon “scientific technique.” It is for that reason that he held with the belief that specialists as “reinforcers” should impose “codified contingencies” to ensure that people – as the instinctive machines he believed them to be – should follow prepared lines of behaviour just as rats in his experiments were encouraged to go down certain paths in a maze.

Skinner introduced us to the ideas of behaviour therapy which included his discoveries of operant conditioning, aversion therapy, and desensitisation. Operant conditioning involves the reinforcement of certain behaviour accompanied by a stimulus such as light or sound. Reinforcement depends on the frequency and occurrence of the response and what type of reinforcement mechanisms are found in the immediate environment. Skinner used rats to illustrate his thinking by using simple experiments with food and water as rewards. When a rat depressed a bar it was rewarded with food. Regardless of how the bar was depressed is irrelevant, operant conditioning shows that it is the frequency or rate at which the operation is carried out (how many times the bar is pressed within a given time and how rapidly) which determines how successful operant conditioning has been.

Aversion therapy is exactly as it sounds: the individual is exposed to a stimulus alongside some form of reinforcement discomfort which is designed to create an aversion to the initial desire. This technique was used in the past to try and cure homosexuality or alcoholism. It was also graphically featured in Stanley Kubrick’s film A Clock-work Orange (1971) as a means of mind control. Skinner’s experiments with rats and pigeons were extraordinarily instructive and offered new insights into how our environment shapes our behaviour. However, he wanted to graduate to humans in a bid to find the perfect automaton, so he took the liberty of using his own daughter. (We don’t know what his mother had to say about this of course). The baby was placed him in a large, sound-proof box with one window where the temperature was carefully controlled. “The Skinner Box” as it would later be known, would go on to be used in many laboratories so that reinforcement and operant conditioning studies could be reliably employed. Skinner was untroubled by the use of his daughter in the experimentation proclaiming that: “crying and fussing could always be stopped by slightly lowering the temperature” and since the box was sound-proofed, everyone was a winner according to Skinner, as “… soundproofing also protects the family from the baby.”

Desensitisation describes a psychological technique whereby the subject is placed in a relaxed and suggestive state and exposed to images and /or accompanying sounds which are designed to evoke mild stress or anxiety. The images gradually become stronger in content until finally the image is so strong that the person shows no anxiety. He has been slowly desensitised to feeling associated with that particular imagery. As the reader can appreciate these methods induce both positive and negative results based entirely on the intent of the experimenter. Furthermore, he discovered that the level and frequency of the rewards determined how the required behaviour could be maintained.

Skinner at the Harvard Psychology Department, c. 1950 (wikipedia)

It was a breath of fresh air for those in Elite circles and enthusiastically incorporated into the psychological warfare of the emerging National Security State. The emphasis on instincts  espoused by Freud, the social engineering modalities of the Frankfurt School and the biological determinism of humans and life itself as nothing more than components of a machine all provided grist to the mill which psychopaths used to keep spinning their reality. Since Skinner’s main focus was developing a society that could be controlled, his contribution in the understanding of how behaviour operated in the modern world was seen by the Pathocrats in this context. The behaviourists were welcomed into the fold and put to work which has led to behaviourism as one of the most accepted and revered forms of psychology in authoritarian perception, not least because ethical science seems to be inimical to its applications. Changing behaviour and belief is vital to changing society with – and preferably without – consent.

Since B.F. Skinner’s experiments, aversive stimulation and knowledge of operant conditioning has been explored through the Cold War to the War on Terror, MKULTRA to the PSYOPS in Media propaganda and the black ops of regime change. Society itself is the new Skinner Box and official culture is both the cause and effect. With the advent of mass surveillance and SMART society, with an ever more integrated functionality from infrastructure to social networks, the behaviourists ethos of managed reflexes has evolved into new technocratic blueprints of managed societies and the ability to carefully control both the inner and outer environments of the human mind.

Perhaps the best representation of elite thinking on the “science technique” to shape society came through the intellectual leviathan that was British philosopher, educational theoretician and mathematician Bertrand Arthur William Russell. The mythology surrounding this man ensured that he was an ardent humanist, socialist and advocate of peace. His controversial views on the future of society have been largely air-brushed from the rose-coloured worship which periodically takes place in the halls of academia and the peace movement. Yet, there is ample evidence that he was one of the most scheming Machiavellian figures of the 20th Century who knew exactly how to play the public and leaders alike with his misanthropic views.  As Lyndon La Rouche summarised in his  1994 Schiller Institute article Russell’s mindset incorporated:  (1) a racism as virulent as Adolf Hitler’s; (2) a feudal-aristocratic socialist’s Ruskin-like hatred for modern European civilization; and (3) a utopian’s obsessive commitment to bringing about civilization’s descent into a parody of pre-Renaissance feudalism, or sometimes even pre-civilized barbarism.”

Russell channelled his beliefs into the Pugwash Movement which he founded in London July 9, 1955 using the Russell-Einstein Manifesto. This led to the first meeting in 1957 attended by many renowned scientists. He received many awards throughout his career and was highly influential in Elite circles. The impetus for creating Pugwash was drawn from his wish to give a scientific justification for world government by using the threat of the Cold War as pretext. Indeed, in his famous treatise: The Impact of Science on Society (1953) he makes his position clear regarding the nature of science and its purpose: “I do not believe that dictatorship is a lasting form of scientific society – unless (but this proviso is important) it can become world-wide.” [2]Whether the members of the movement held exactly the same beliefs as Russell remains to be seen. But as we know, there was certainly strong mass appeal for such ideas, Russell being one of a number of great minds to give vent to his authoritarian sentiments.

Russell believed that the empires of the past lost control over their dominions due to an inefficient social programming which should have been in embedded in the development of the centralised structure. He claims that the “Scientific technique” had removed this limitation. The future would be open for the establishment of a successful world government (Empire) if a “unifying principle” could be found that superseded the fear of war: “… unification under a single world government is probably necessary unless we are to acquiesce in either a return to barbarism or the extinction of the human race.” [3]

While explicating the evils of the Soviet era he clearly saw this as the forerunner of a more streamlined and cohesive social structure where: “… the very evils of the system help to give it stability. Apart from external pressure, there is no reason why such a regime should not last for a very long time.” [4]

As is the case with such a mind-set, it is always the rabble-rousing masses that are the cause of the chaos rather than the institution and creation of strictures that develop from it. Or as Russell mentions, “evil passions in human minds …” that stand in the way of a World State. The philosopher wishes to replace one society and dictatorship driven by the fear of war with another that would make war unnecessary due to the dumbed down compliance of the ordinary man-made stupidity. War would disappear but so would the basic human condition of love, creativity, freedom and spirituality, though this would only be a right and fitting state of affairs according to Russell, since the Elite were eugenically destined to dispense these qualities amongst the plebeians through a strictly behaviourist and Darwinist belief-set:

“War has been, throughout history, the chief source of social cohesion; and since science began, it has been the strongest incentive to technical progress. Large groups have a better chance of victory than small ones, and therefore the usual result of war is to make States larger. […] There is, it must be confessed, a psychological difficulty about a single world government. The chief source of social cohesion in the past, I repeat, has been war: the passions that inspire a feeling of unity are hate and fear. These depend upon the existence of an enemy, actual or potential. It seems to that a world government could only be kept in being by force, not by the spontaneous loyalty that now inspires a nation at war.” [5]

Could it be that these same “passions that inspire hate and fear” are primarily due to the very centralised systems Russell intends to enforce on the rest of us? No doubt we have the very manifestations of just such an “enemy, actual or potential” in the form of the War on Terror and false flag operations to keep the public allegiance to the State. The existence of an enemy has always been fabricated by authorities in order to maintain their power base, a state of affairs that became progressively ponerised once that door was opened. Russell’s solution to the creation of that “loyalty” is not by force but through a type of education that would result in a populace made suitably docile and unthinking. He understands very well the importance of mass psychology and believes it to be “immensely important” and “politically useful”. If Russell’s scientific dictatorship is to work, then modern methods of propaganda must target education. Instead of the threat of war we now have the children as the target of indoctrination. Mass psychology is to be used to this end:

This subject will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists under a scientific dictatorship. Anaxagoras maintained that snow is black, but no one believed him. The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakeable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at. First, that the influence of home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. But I anticipate. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark grey. [6]

We see exactly the same vision of children as products envisaged by the American National Education Board and the Rockefeller mind-set where children’s minds are there to be beaten into shape so that they conform to a carefully prepared aversive conditioning. Is it not interesting to see the same perception appearing from a representative of the British intelligentsia bridging the same belief in the minds of industrialists and Fabians more than half a century before? Then of course, we have the same pattern appearing in the forces behind Illuminism and the outgrowth of Empires which underlie the sub-stratum of psychopathy as the unchanging progenitor.

It seems Russell is unable to step outside his own philosophical trap that State and science offers a panacea for human evolution despite the very presence of government always indicating otherwise. The comprehensive overthrow of freedom and the individual mind for peace and the “greater good” is in evidence once again:

It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fichte [German Philosopher] laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished. But in his day this was an unattainable ideal: what he regarded as the best system in existence produced Karl Marx. In future such failures are not likely to occur where there is dictatorship. Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.”  [7]  [Emphasis mine]

Now, if you are blinking your eyes at these statements and thinking perhaps such a noble laureate is not advocating such a position and is merely indicating a future state of affairs, you are mistaken. Remember that the goal of Bertrand Russell and others of his kind has always been the imposition of a scientific World State determined by an Elite. Any intellectual philosophising around that point with the accompanying nuggets of undoubted wisdom mean nothing when set against the framework of what is an authoritarian desire finally let off its leash and buffered by the security of his intellectual status.

Russell’s vision aligns closely with Aldous Huxley’s dystopian novel Brave New World (1932) which describe developments in reproductive technology and sleep-learning that combine to change society. The scientific technique is exacted so precisely that it produces mechanized human beings who are sealed into a tightly controlled artificial environment, separate from nature and the “perils” of intellectual creativity or free thinking. Science is only used as medium for social control just as Skinner and Russell advocate, where dehumanisation will ensure ignorance and weakness, which will thus ensure the end of war.

The framework of science under pathocratic control, sterilizes the natural rhythms of life, replaced with prescriptive values which have little to do with freedom or free-will. It is interesting that science – perceived as an entirely rational subject – can be employed to indoctrinate irrational inclinations. While it is science that the State uses to control its citizens, it is also science that brought about the need for totalitarian control in the first place. The degradation of normal people under the scientific dictatorship will be inevitable so that threats from creative individuals who can offer alternative visions would be inhibited, as is the case in any Pathocracy. And it is here that we see the same process occurring under the “democracies” of many political and academic institutions of the United Kingdom, America and other European countries. This knowledge about the existence of susceptible individuals and how to work on them will continue to be a tool for world conquest as long as it remains the secret of such “professors”.

As Andrew Łobaczewski observed, when ponerology becomes skilfully popularised science, it will help nations to develop immunity. Science can serve as liberator or prisoner of human consciousness, something which seems to have escaped Bertrand’s ambitious scope for world government. As Huxley wrote in BNW: “… we have our stability to think of. We don’t want to change. Every change is a menace to stability. That’s another reason why we’re so chary of applying new inventions. Every discovery in pure science is potentially subversive; even science must sometimes be treated as a possible enemy. Yes, even science.” [8]


Bertrand Arthur William Russell

This brand of vertical collectivism demands the erosion of national sovereignty necessary to usher in global governance, the start of which begins with the introduction of economic unions (European Union, Africa Union, Asia Union etc.) that will later be interlocked into one Global Union under the hammer of closer world integration. Russell shows an idealistic belief that in order to prevent the “barbarism” of war conducted by nation states: “Means must be found of subjecting the relations of nations to the rule of law, so that a single nation will no longer be, as at present, the judge in its own cause,” and where “… national liberty will have to be effectively restrained.” While preferring not to mention the obvious manipulations by industrialists and Zionist interventions, he goes on to state that once Russia and the United States have come under effective control of collectivism where:

“… either by victory or by an obvious military superiority, the preponderant Power can establish a single Authority over the whole world, and thus make future wars impossible. At first, this Authority will in certain regions, be based on force, but if the Western nations are in control, force will as soon as possible give way to consent. When that has been achieved, the most difficult of world problems will have been solved, and science can become wholly beneficent.” [9]

Of course, we must place our trust in Western nations and the rule of law and science as the beneficent arbiters of reality for the masses and bow down to their imposed “welfare.” The best answer for Russell is a Global Authority since he is a man cast from the authoritarian mould. Similarly, ensuring the comprehensive dilution of the genetic stock of normal human beings must be implemented and parallel methods of population control introduced through ostensibly benign reasons. Hence, the emphasis on the population explosion, its causes and effects.

Over 40 years later the same theme is in evidence, this time from one time US foreign policy advisor to President Jimmy Carter Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (1997). Brzezinski, CFR and Trilateral Commission member eloquently offers the same solution for American Hegmony under cover of United Nations protocols.

He states:

“In brief, the U.S. policy goal must be unapologetically twofold: to perpetuate America’s own dominant position for at least a generation and preferably longer still; and to create a geopolitical framework that can absorb the inevitable shocks and strains of social-political change while evolving into the geopolitical core of shared responsibility for peaceful global management. A prolonged phase of gradually expanding cooperation with key Eurasian partners, both stimulated and arbitrated by America, can also help to foster the preconditions for an eventual upgrading of the existing and increasingly antiquated UN structures. A new distribution of responsibilities and privileges can then take into account the changed realities of global power, so drastically different from those of 1945.” [10]

The overwhelming imperative is always global governance whether for ideology, power, greed, or psychopathic propagation. If we follow the beliefs of the Russells and Rockefellers of this world the kind of financial-scientific feudalism they so desperately desire will be very soul-less environments indeed and is precisely why they will always break down. As he exclaims: “The completeness of the resulting control over opinion depends in various ways upon scientific technique,” which means an array of suitable scientifically-based techniques must be found to ensure the resulting education will reflect their minority mind-set with all its psychological anomalies. Such people have no problems experimenting in altering the genetic structure of animals, plants and Nature itself in order to dominate and control rather than to work with or co-create. It is inevitable that under a Pathocracy and the knowledge of the Human Genome, the experimental bar on humans will rise, both in secrecy and in public.

It is interesting that like Rockefeller, Stalinist Russia is so often the example in Russell’s mind:

“When such methods of modifying the congenital character of animals and plants have been pursued long enough to make their success obvious, it is probable that there will be a powerful movement for applying scientific methods to human propagation. There would at first be strong religious and emotional obstacles to the adoption of such a policy. But suppose (say) Russia were able to overcome these obstacles and to breed a race stronger, more intelligent, and more resistant to disease than any race of men that has hitherto existed, and suppose the other nations perceived that unless they followed suit they would be defeated in war, then either the other nations would voluntarily forgo their prejudices, or, after defeat, they would be compelled to forgo them. Any scientific technique, however beastly, is bound to spread if it is useful in war – until such time as men decide that they have had enough of war and will henceforth live in peace. As that day does seem to be at hand, scientific breeding of human beings must be expected to come about.” [11]

And no doubt this “scientific breeding” to produce only the best and strongest will adhere to the same “beastly” precepts that gave rise to the legion of authoritarian principles down through the ages. But Russell doesn’t seem to be worried about that since his white, Oxford-educated Anglo-Saxon genes are beyond reproach and can only lead to a scientific destiny wholly in line with the same kind of British Empire perfection which so captured Cecil Rhodes.

Let’s remember what Russell wrote about education and his regime for the compliant child where: “… Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.” And finally, the justification for applying the vertical collectivist dream: those totalitarian governments were not so bad … They just needed the right quality of intellectual steerage. Let’s not be too hasty. Russell may not be advocating explicitly such a state of affairs but by inference he means to suggest that such “atrocities” are nevertheless highly practical for an emerging World State and encouraging maximum stability:

“A totalitarian government with a scientific bent might do things that to us would seem horrifying. The Nazis were more scientific than the present rulers of Russia, and were more inclined towards the sort of atrocities that I have in mind. They were said – I do not know with what truth – to use prisoners in concentration camps as material for all kinds of experiments, some involving death after much pain. If they had survived, they would probably have soon taken to scientific breeding. Any nation which adopts this practice will, within a generation, secure great military advantages. The system, one may surmise, will be something like this: except possibly in the governing aristocracy, all but 5 per cent of males and 30 per cent of females will be sterilised. The 30 per cent of females will be expected to spend the years from eighteen to forty in reproduction, in order to secure adequate cannon fodder. As a rule, artificial insemination will be preferred to the natural method. The unsterilised, if they desire the pleasures of love, will usually have to seek them with sterilised partners.

Sires will be chosen for various qualities, some for muscle others for brains. All will have to be healthy, and unless they are to be the fathers of oligarchs they will have to be of a submissive and docile disposition. Children will, as in Plato’s Republic, be taken from their mothers and reared by professional nurses. Gradually, by selective breeding the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organised insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton. (The Aztecs kept a domesticated alien tribe for purposes of cannibalism. Their regime was totalitarian.)

To those accustomed to this system, the family as we know it would seem as queer as the tribal and totem organisation of Australian aborigines seems to us… The labouring class would have such long hours of work and so little to eat that their desires would hardly extend beyond sleep and food. The upper class, being deprived of the softer pleasures both by the abolition of the family and by the supreme duty of devotion to the State, would acquire the mentality of ascetics: they would care only for power, and in pursuit of it would not shrink from cruelty. By the practice of cruelty men would become hardened, so that worse and worse tortures would be required to give the spectators a thrill.” [12] [Emphasis mine]

Neither democracy nor “The Rights of Man” are sufficient to avoid such “scientific horrors” only a World State determined by socialist principles. A world government with psychopaths at the helm would revel in just such a future.

Bertrand Russell was briefly a member of the Fabian society and resigned over the issue of “entente” or alliances that could lead to war. However, liberalism, socialism and pacifism were just labels for Russell stating: “I have never been any of these things, in any profound sense.” [13]It was his reaction against idealism and his work as a logician which defined his distaste for war and classical totalitarianism. Ironically, he merely advocated another form of dictatorship, its only difference being that it was inverted. He conforms to the Fabian worldview that society must be gradually “shattered to bits” on the anvil of socialism in order to be reformed into a world where a global scientific elite would dominate. Russell is an intellectual genius and knew exactly what he is saying. And though he includes profound insights into the nature of democracy and education his disdain for the common man and his myopic view of science used to dominate and enforce is crystal clear throughout. Though he falls short of recommending certain Dystopian conclusions his vision for enforcing peace through a scientific Elite is the defining reason for his book. And from an undoubted conscientious objector no doubt he really believed his own perceived altruism as so many do. All the same, they lead us down the path of destruction by offering an antidote that is merely more of the same.

One of the first targets of an emerging Pathocracy is within education and in particular the sciences. Łobaczewski had direct experience of this kind of “scientific” induction which was carried out under state Communism in Poland. Based on specific psychological knowledge only the psychopath could harbour and use, he described the process of personality disintegration which occurred as “transpersonification” dispensed from University professor as new tools of the State. According to Łobaczewski, these professors “… knew in advance that he would fish out amenable individuals, and even how to do it, but the limited numbers disappointed him. The transpersonification process generally took hold only when an individual’s instinctive substratum was marked by pallor or certain deficits. To a lesser extent, it also worked among people who manifested other deficiencies in which the state provoked within them was partially impermanent, being largely the result of psychopathological induction.” [14] *

It is the intellectual spellbinders from the Neo-Conservative movement to the Fabian and corporate libertarians of the past and present who act through the MSM as conduits for transpersonification and ponerogenesis. We place highly intelligent men like Russell on the pedestal of laudability, whilst disavowing their toxic legacy which can only encourage the receptivity of authoritarian minds. Such complacency in resisting seductive beliefs dressed up in surrounding wisdom sets up a verdant psychic landscape for future pathogens to flourish and should never be underestimated. Learning the language of psychopathic beliefs is vital, as they will inevitably give rise to state-mandated actions which have been given the veneer of time-honoured respectability.


* Drawn from Łobaczewski’s own experiences as a student in Communist Poland, a detailed explanation of the transpersonification process as seen through the scientific academia of the time. The extract is taken from the introduction in Political Ponerology: The Science of the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes.

 Pathocracy and “Transpersonification”

An extract from Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes By Andrew M. Łobaczewski, edited by Laura Knight-Jadczyk:

May the reader please imagine a very large hall in an old Gothic university building. Many of us gathered there early in our studies in order to listen to the lectures of outstanding philosophers and scientists. We were herded back there – under threat – the year before graduation in order to listen to the indoctrination lectures which recently had been introduced.

Someone nobody knew appeared behind the lectern and informed us that he would now be the professor. His speech was fluent, but there was nothing scientific about it: he failed to distinguish between scientific and ordinary concepts and treated borderline imaginings as though it were wisdom that could not be doubted. For ninety minutes each week, he flooded us with Naïve, presumptuous paralogistics and a pathological view of human reality. We were treated with contempt and poorly controlled hatred. Since fun-poking could entail dreadful consequences, we had to listen attentively and with the utmost gravity.

The grapevine soon discovered this person’s origins. He had come from a Cracow suburb and attended high school, although no one knew if he had graduated. Anyway, this was the first time he had crossed university portals, and as a professor, at that!

“You can’t convince anyone this way!” we whispered to each other. “It’s actually propaganda directed against themselves.” But after such mind-torture, it took a long time for someone to break the silence.

We studied ourselves, since we felt something strange had taken over our minds and something valuable was leaking away irretrievably. The world of psychological reality and moral values seemed suspended as if in a chilly fog. Our human feeling and student solidarity lost their meaning, as did patriotism and our old established criteria. So we asked each other, “are you going through this too”? Each of us experienced this worry about his own personality and future in his own way. Some of us answered the questions with silence. The depth of these experiences turned out to be different for each individual.

We thus wondered how to protect ourselves from the results of this “indoctrination”. Teresa D. made the first suggestion: Let’s spend a weekend in the mountains. It worked. Pleasant company, a bit of joking, then exhaustion followed by deep sleep in a shelter, and our human personalities returned, albeit with a certain remnant. Time also proved to create a kind of psychological immunity, although not with everyone. Analyzing the psychopathic characteristics of the “professor’s” personality proved another excellent way of protecting one’s own psychological hygiene.

You can just imagine our worry, disappointment, and surprise when some colleagues we knew well suddenly began to change their world view; their thought-patterns furthermore reminded us of the “professor’s” chatter. Their feelings, which had just recently been friendly, became noticeably cooler, although not yet hostile. Benevolent or critical student arguments bounced right of them. They gave the impression of possessing some secret knowledge; we were only their former colleagues, still believing what those “professors of old” had taught us. We had to be careful of what we said to them. These former colleagues soon joined the Party.

Who were they, what social groups did they come from, what kind of students and people were they? How and why did they change so much in less than a year? Why did neither I nor a majority of my fellow students succumb to this phenomenon and process? Many such questions fluttered through our heads then. It was in those times, from those questions, observations and attitudes that the idea was born that this phenomenon could be objectively studied and understood; an idea whose greater meaning crystallized with time.

Many of us newly graduated psychologists participated in the initial observations and reflections, but most crumbled away in the face of material or academic problems. Only a few of that group remained; so the author of this book may be the last of the Mohicans.

It was relatively easy to determine the environments and origins of the people who succumbed to this process, which I then called “transpersonification”. They came from all social groups, including aristocratic and fervently religious families, and caused a break in our student solidarity to the order of some 6 %. The remaining majority suffered varying degrees of personality disintegration which gave rise to individual searching for the values necessary to find ourselves again; the results were varied and sometimes creative.

Even then, we had no doubts as to the pathological nature of this “transpersonification” process, which ran similar but not identical in all cases. The duration of the results of this phenomenon also varied. Some of these people later became zealots. Others later took advantage of various circumstances to withdraw and re-establish their lost links to the society of normal people. They were replaced. The only constant value of the new social system was the magic number of 6 %.

We tried to evaluate the talent level of those colleagues who had succumbed to this personality-transformation process, and reached the conclusion that, on average, it was slightly lower than the average of the student population. Their lesser resistance obviously resided in other bio-psychological features which were most probably qualitatively heterogeneous.

I found that I had to study subjects bordering on psychology and psychopathology in order to answer the questions arising from our observations; scientific neglect in these areas proved an obstacle difficult to overcome. At the same time, someone guided by special knowledge apparently vacated the libraries of anything we could have found on the topic; books were indexed, but not physically present.

Analyzing these occurrences now in hindsight, we could say that the “professor” was dangling bait over our heads, based on specific psychological knowledge. He knew in advance that he would fish out amenable individuals, and even how to do it, but the limited numbers disappointed him. The transpersonification process generally took hold only when an individual’s instinctive substratum was marked by pallor or certain deficits. To a lesser extent, it also worked among people who manifested other deficiencies in which the state provoked within them was partially impermanent, being largely the result of psychopathological induction.

This knowledge about the existence of susceptible individuals and how to work on them will continue being a tool for world conquest as long as it remains the secret of such “professors”. When it becomes skillfully popularized science, it will help nations to develop immunity. But none of us knew this at the time.

Nevertheless, we must admit that in demonstrating the properties of this process to us in such a way as to force us into in-depth experience, the professor helped us understand the nature of the phenomenon in a larger scope than many a true scientific researcher participating in this work in other less direct ways.


As a youth, I read a book about a naturalist wandering through the Amazon-basin wilderness. At some moment a small animal fell from a tree onto the nape of his neck, clawing his skin painfully and sucking his blood. The biologist cautiously removed it — without anger, since that was its form of feeding — and proceeded to study it carefully. This story stubbornly stuck in my mind during those very difficult times when a vampire fell onto our necks, sucking the blood of an unhappy nation.

Maintaining the attitude of a naturalist, while attempting to track the nature of macro-social phenomenon in spite of all adversity, insures a certain intellectual distance and better psychological hygiene in the face of horrors that might otherwise be difficult to contemplate. Such an attitude also slightly increases the feeling of safety and furnishes an insight that this very method may help find a certain creative solution. This requires strict control of the natural, moralizing reflexes of revulsion, and other painful emotions that the phenomenon provokes in any normal person when it deprives him of his joy of life and personal safety, ruining his own future and that of his nation. Scientific curiosity therefore becomes a loyal ally during such times.



[1] p. 133; Philosophy of Right, “The State”, By Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel 1821 Trad. S. W. Dyde, 2008. Cosimo, Google Print, p. 133.
[2] p.57; The Impact of Science on Society by Bertrand Russell, Published by Routledge; New edition edition, 1985 | ISBN-10: 041510906X
[3] Ibid. (p.27)
[4] Ibid. (p.51)
[5] Ibid. (p.27)
[6] Ibid. (p.31)
[7] Ibid. (p.52)
[8] Brave New World by Aldous Huxley (1932).
[9] op. cit. Russell (p.97)
[10] op. cit. Brzezinski (1997)
[11] op. cit. Russell, (p.29)
[12] Ibid. (p.53)
[13] p. 260; The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell, By Bertrand Russell. Published by Routledge January 1950
[14] op. cit. Lobacwezki (p..27)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s