gender roles

Strive For Simplicity, Economise on Energy (4)

© Creator76 | Dreamstime.com

“A man builds a fine house; and now he has a master, and a task for life: he is to furnish, watch, show it, and keep it in repair, the rest of his days.”

— Ralph Waldo Emerson


Reading time: 15-18 mins

Energy Conservation

To conserve our energy in the way we think, feel and act we need to know how they might all relate in simple terms. So, let’s simplify it.

Think of energy efficiency (upgrades) and energy conservation (energy use) leading to the correct economy for your life. The home can be thought of as a metaphor or symbol of your mind and body. (If you like, this is an extension of Jordan Peterson’s thinking of tidying up your room).

Energy conservation involves using less energy by changing your behaviours and habits. Energy efficiency, on the other hand, involves using techniques, traditional systems of knowledge and new technologies that requires less energy to perform the same function.

Energy efficiency = all those qualities and techniques you can find to maximize your potential and minimize chaos. Accumulate energy for creativity and minimize loss from internal and external entropy.

Energy Conservation = simplifying your life through judicious, careful attention and limiting unnecessary drains on energy. employing measures which ensure you are not only efficient but have a constant supply on tap. Conservation sometimes means getting very creative. The more you conserve, the more likely that can be!

In other words, to be energy efficient means looking at ways your personality system can be upgraded so that less energy is needed to perform certain functions and which provides qualitatively better results. This can be “costly” in the short-term but requires much less effort in the long-term. This includes insulation, replacements, careful monitoring and upgrades.

Energy conservation involves actively seeking new ways to on your internal efficiency. You change your relationship to energy within your home. You seek ways to receive energy for minimum loss and a minimum amount of effort. It is strategic, long-term and eminently practical. It requires a re-calibration of existing appliances (organs of perception; centres) in order to extract a maximum amount of energy. The energy that you have is used wisely.

In other words, it means a change in overall behaviour through commitment and a creative application of knowledge.

How might we use our energy more efficiently?

Insulate, upgrade and monitor.

Insulate your mind and body from that which would drain but remain porous enough to let constructive influences through. And if you have good quality insulation then you have more energy to produce warmth and proper flow of electricity and therefore creative potential. (It might be stretching this metaphor to its limit but it’s no coincidence that key brain areas found to have more nerve fibre insulation or “myelination” equates to advantageous personality traits!)

(more…)

Advertisements

Feminism or Infiltration? III: Libido of the Ugly

1973951Feminism, if not infiltrated has without doubt become infected by the same strains of pathology as any other ideology or belief that has the seeds of truth within it and thus a threat to the Pathocracy. Nowhere is this more evident than in its response to the many dissenters of the new feminism that was riding the wave of acceptance in the early seventies.

One antidote which provided plenty of vitriolic critique came from Argentine-German Esther Vilar whose book: The Manipulated Man made plenty of fresh-faced feminists even more apoplectic with rage and shock. Rather than white, middle-class women being the object of oppression and exploitation Vilar claims that the reverse is true – it is women who employ a sophisticated mixture of emotional manipulation, blackmail and psycho-strategy to gain the upper hand in a relationship of which most men are not aware. Some of the strategies she believes women use include luring men with sex and specific seduction strategies; using praise to control men administered at optimal moments for maximum effect and the use of love and romance to mask real intentions.

Though it might seem obvious now, it was heretical stuff and mightily controversial at the time. As regards men in contemporary society, Vilar listed some of the disadvantages she saw for men compared to women:

  • Men are conscripted; women are not.
  • Men are sent to fight in wars; women are not.
  • Men retire later than women (even though, due to their lower life-expectancy, they should have the right to retire earlier).
  • Men have almost no influence over their reproduction (for males, there is neither a pill nor abortion — they can only get the children women want them to have).
  • Men support women; women never, or only temporarily, support men.
  • Men work all their lives; women work only temporarily or not at all.
  • Even though men work all their lives, and women work only temporarily or not at all, on average, men are poorer than women.
  • Men only “borrow” their children; women can keep them (as men work all their lives and women do not, men are automatically robbed of their children in cases of separation — with the reasoning that they have to work). [1]

Vilar’s book certainly caused a veritable storm of indignant protest in its day, mostly from feminists. Admittedly, even by today’s standards decrying all women as essentially “bitches” and “stupid” is as extreme as generalising that all men are chauvinist thugs. This serves only to polarise gender issues rather than offer progressive understanding. It is an extreme book by anyone’s standards, not least the reaction it caused including death threats and the most abject vitriol that understandably took Vilar by surprise. However, not only did the book provide a counterpoint to the unassailable feminist movement as a whole, it also acted as a mirror for narcissistic feminists and their unfortunate trajectory.  It certainly got people talking and allowing more moderate versions of Vilar’s critique to emerge.

Regardless of the psychological reasons for writing such a work, in her 1998 preface to the new edition she stated:

As absurd as it may sound, today’s men need feminism much more than their wives do. Feminists are the last ones who still describe men the way they like to see themselves: as egocentric, power-obsessed, ruthless and without inhibitions when it comes to satisfying their instincts. Therefore the most aggressive Women’s Libbers find themselves in the strange predicament of doing more to maintain the status quo than anyone else. Without arrogant accusations, the macho man would no longer exist, except perhaps in the movies. If the press stylise men as rapacious wolves, the actual sacrificial lambs of this ‘men’s society’, men themselves, would no longer flock to the factories so obediently.

So I hadn’t imagined broadly enough the isolation I would find myself in after writing this book. Nor had I envisaged the consequences which it would have for subsequent writing and even for my private life — violent threats have not ceased to this date. A woman who defended the arch-enemy — who didn’t equate domestic life with solitary confinement and who described the company of young children as a pleasure, not a burden — necessarily had to become a ‘misogynist’, even a ‘reactionary’ and ‘fascist’ in the eyes of the public.[2] [Emphasis mine]

Though conveniently brushing aside her tendency to reduce issues down to simplistic, hackneyed white-washing she nevertheless raises important points in the above. Is a woman allowed to be all the things that feminism seems to squash? Or have we indeed arrived at a strange point where much of feminism in the modern Western world is unyielding to the point that it has indeed become another belief without the ability to evolve? It certainly seems that way.

Though economic shifts have played an enormous part in twisting the gender roles, of far more importance is the effects of an anti-human world on our core selves. In post-modern societies of cynical materialism and fake spirituality everything is filtered through this narcissistic façade where the perfection of the body is sought for and according to the whims of advertising, fashion and the stale clichés of male and female stereotypes. The effects of this on women are processed differently.

Studies show that emotional intelligence or a social cognition is higher in women with logical/mathematical intelligence and IQ tests persistently higher for men. [3] Does that mean women are more stupid? Absolutely not. Knee-jerk reactions from academics and media commentators feed into preconceived definitions of what it means to be male and female, each grinding their respective axes on the wet-stones of their own visions of emancipation.

In the same way, recent studies have confirmed the obvious assertions (obvious accept to the financiers of this research) that when either sex shows more flesh they are considered less intelligent. Once again, for both sexes it is the body and the mind as separate entities just like the functioning of male and female that promotes erroneous conclusions:

The new research suggests we see others as having two aspects of the mind – called agency and experience. Agency is the capacity to act, plan and exert self-control, while experience is the capacity to feel pain, pleasure and emotions. Interestingly, the amount of skin shown can determine if we see another as one of ‘experience’ or ‘agency’. During the study, men and women who focused on the body regarded that person as ‘experience’ with little capacity to plan and act. Professor Gray suggested this was because people automatically think of minds and bodies as separate things, even opposites. The capacity to act is more often tied to the ‘mind’ while experience is linked to the body.”[4]

Could it have anything to do with the strictly rationalist and reductionist brand of science still holding sway in the halls of academia? [5]

The above findings says much about our conditioned learning that sees mind and body as separate rather than a holistic system. This also explains why both sexes are trapped in their respective mirrors.  If showing more skin immediately equates women with the “experiencer” label and man with “agency” this not only confirms how disconnected we have become from our natural bodily state but a culture that glorifies commodity and quantity over quality and substance. It is little wonder that women will be placed in the “bimbo” with “little capacity to plan and act” while feeling “pain pleasure and emotions,” and thus “sexually available”. Conversely, men will automatically confirm the sporty, alpha male as well as being sexually available rather than the sensitive, “touchy-feely” type.

With the onset of largely iconic gay influences which have helped to encourage the uniform brand of gym-bodies in the last several years, this describes the upward curve of narcissism and vanity rather than health and fitness based on useful service to others. More gender clichés are served up for consumption from a technophilic society keen to keep it that way.

If women are suffering inside from a battery of historical and feminist led modern influences then men’s role as an emotionless robot with pectorals bigger than his porn-rag fantasy and the excess feminisation that produces the little boy syndrome unable to do anything but watch TV and play video games is directly related. But both sexes have been responsible for its continued fixation as they try on new ways of viewing their relative positions without awareness of natural predispositions.

For instance, women’s beauty is both a complex mix of power and pariah. Naomi Wolf illustrates on the one hand, the relentless push to find love and appreciation from readily available masks which women have donned as much for competition with other females as the goal of material acquisition which drives some men’s ambition. She explains:

Whatever is deeply, essentially female — the life in a woman’s expression, the feel of her flesh, the shape of her breasts, the transformations after childbirth of her skin–is being reclassified as ugly, and ugliness as disease. […]  At least a third of a woman’s life is marked with aging; about a third of her body is made of fat. Both symbols are being transformed into operable condition–so that women will only feel healthy if we are two thirds of the women we could be. How can an ‘ideal’ be about women if it is defined as how much of a female sexual characteristic does not exist on the woman’s body, and how much of a female life does not show on her face?” [6]

When men respond to the facade it often acts as a mirror of his narrowing values and lack of authenticity. Or in the words of H.L. Mencken, he has been directed to worship “the libido for the ugly” and take this as reality. Wolf comments: “What becomes of a man who acquires a beautiful woman, with her “beauty” his sole target? He sabotages himself. He has gained no friend, no ally, no mutual trust: She knows quite well why she has been chosen. He has succeeded in buying something: the esteem of other men who find such an acquisition impressive.”

Despite Wolf’s assertions in her writings that this is all about men oppressing women the truth is somewhat more complex which should become evident as we continue. And let’s not pretend that women do not do exactly the same by setting the “trap” for such mutually satisfactory contracts while claiming innocence. Nonetheless, it is little wonder that women are still seen as sexual objects when relationships at both ends of the spectrum are determined by sex as “fast food” trail-blazed by the mainstreaming of pornography and online dating.

Again, do women really want to be “equal” when that equality is dysfunctional at the outset?

Wolf reverses the male objectification:

Women could probably be trained quite easily to see men first as sexual things. If girls never experienced sexual violence; if a girl’s only window on male sexuality were a stream of easily available, well-lit, cheap images of boys slightly older than herself, in their late teens, smiling encouragingly and revealing cuddly erect penises the color of roses or mocha, she might well look at, masturbate to, and, as an adult, “need” beauty pornography based on the bodies of men. And if those initiating penises were represented to the girl as pneumatically erectible, swerving neither left nor right, tasting of cinnamon or forest berries, innocent of random hairs, and ever ready; if they were presented alongside their measurements, length, and circumference to the quarter inch; if they seemed to be available to her with no troublesome personality attached; if her sweet pleasure seemed to be the only reason for them to exist–then a real young man would probably approach the young woman’s bed with, to say the least, a failing heart.” [7]

And such a “training” for the young woman has already been taking place for many years. “Failing hearts” are occurring in both men and women though expressed differently.  Sure, the above sexual objectification occurs on a daily basis. But  let’s not forget the same toxic effects from the narcissistic arsenal of damaged women who objectify men through manipulation and dangerous emotional games which have nothing to do with appearance but everything to do with a deeper imperative, whether it be the biological urge for birthing or the need to have emotional control., the effects of which can be highly toxic in both marriage and partnership. But because the “fairer sex” are historically “oppressed” then it cannot be possible that covert forms of female induced oppression against the male exist…

What remains true is that our identity – whether we are gay, lesbian, straight, bi or transgender – is under attack from social engineering where movements become progressively hollowed out by pathological individuals who corrupt the purity of intent and replace it with a counterfeit version – a form of psycho-subversion, if you will.  It is truly a “group-think” which derives its energy from an Orwellian “double think” where paramoralisms and paralogic reign supreme.  (You’ll see why if you keep up to date with future series).

Feminism isn’t the only one.

MAN-AND-WOMAN_2-1024x656

TAMARA KVESITADZE: opening ceremony of statue |‘Man and Woman’ on October 30th, 2010 in Batumi, Georgia (Effigies)


Women in the West have finally clawed back many of their rights to find that they are ironically mirroring the male who was already a victim of an economic and social contract drawn up by those who cannot be considered in anyway “normal”.  When you fight for the right not to be objectified, to have a place in politics or to be treated as an intellectual equal – this is right and proper. But such a wish has gone much further so that the same quality of injustices are visited upon the male the recognition of which is largely swept away by a form of narcissism masked by largely white, Western feminism.  Whether in the family courts or the toxic effects of feminist belief within relationships, this is not going anywhere good for either sex.

We are spiritually and psychologically compromised in ways we are only just beginning to fathom. And feminists are in danger of fighting for the right to be exploited at a higher rung of the ladder that actually leads nowhere.

Whatever has been “deeply, essentially female” and male is in danger of being comprehensively discarded by the feminism of the 21st century.  A new way to perceive ourselves and the material world is desperately needed.  It is not the lack of material power, freedom in the work place or the red herring of gender equality but the toxic effects of a body-centrism that claims both male and female – the objectifying of the female form and women’s embrace of such a caricature and the disempowerment of both gender roles. This may be one reason that women’s narcissism is through the roof whilst the recognition of the female paedophile, child abuser, pathological narcissist and psychopath are only just managing to break through the cultural bias so that deep research can take place.

A recent report distinct for its large demographic analysis confirmed the emergence of women “reclaiming their power”  both in the market place and in relationships. The objective of the project was to: “… find out how close, intimate relationships vary over a lifetime.” The results of the study which were published by Professor Robin Dunbar of Oxford University, UK in the Journal of Scientific Reports came from the analysis of the texts of mobile phone calls of three million people incorporating the age and sex of callers providing a very “big picture” of people’s lives.  It gave overwhelming evidence that “romantic relationships are driven by women” based on “pair-bonding” proving that this is much more important to women than men. From the data as a whole, researchers determine that: “…a woman’s social world is intensely focussed on one individual and will shift as a result of reproductive interests from being the mate to children and grandchildren.” [8] 

The project also wanted to “…find out how the gender preference of best friends, as defined by the frequency of the calling, changed over the course of a lifetime and differed between men and women.” Professor Dunbar’s team reported that: “… women start to switch the preference of their best friend from about the mid-30s, and by the age of 45 a woman of a generation younger becomes the ‘new best friend.’ Men tended to choose a woman (a girlfriend or wife) as a best friend much later in life and for a shorter time.

“Women, however, choose a man of a similar age to be their best friend from the age of 20. He remains for about 15 years, after which time he’s replaced by a daughter.” At the beginning of a relationship women call their spouse more than any other person, but as their daughters become old enough to have children, the focus is transferred and they become the centre of the woman’s life.  In the words of Professor Dunbar: “…at root the important relationships are those between women and not those between men.” [9]

Let’s re-visit Esther Vilar’s somewhat wild musings on this issue back in 1971:

… only women exist in a woman’s world. The women she meets at church, at parent-teacher meetings, or in the supermarket; the women with whom she chats over the garden fence; the women at parties or window-shopping in the more fashionable streets; those she apparently never seems to notice – these women are the measure of her success or failure. Women’s standards correspond to those in other women’s heads, not to those in the heads of men; it is their judgment that really counts, not that of men. A simple word of praise from another woman – and all those clumsy, inadequate male compliments fall by the wayside, for they are just praises out of the mouths of amateurs. Men really have no idea in what kind of world women live in; their hymns of praise miss all the vital points. [10]

This extract at least, is not quite as extreme when there is some statistical and socio-biological data to back it up.  Professor Dunbar believes this proves that we are returning to a more matriarchal based society. However, if under psychopathological dominance it is unlikely to resemble the kind of “equality” that human society yearns for.

With this in mind, could the real shift that ripped the sexual and emotional inheritance from our daily lives have buried a truth that there was something sacred and mutually empowering in the sexual act and by extension, the relationships between men and women – and other sexual orientations?

Eisler and many others believe so:

The search for this lost wisdom by mystics – and by women and men throughout the ages – is the search for reconnection with our partnership roots. It is the search for a way of relating that is the antithesis of the dominator mode, where in both reality and myth polarization and strife, conflict and separation, winning and losing, dominating and subduing, dismembering and disembodying, conquering and controlling, in short, force, fear, and violent disconnection, are the central themes. And its very essence, as mystical writings have so often brought out, is the search for a means of healing what was so brutally rent asunder with the shift to a dominator world: the fundamental erotic, and with this also spiritual, connection between women and men. [11]

Perhaps the only thing that will change the fortunes of both sexes is the recognition that male and female understanding lies beyond the terminal dance within the society’s economic, corporate and political framework. The success of one gender over another in order to retain the same consequences of mass pathology perpetrated by high level psychopaths and stepped down to endemic narcissism, must be seen for what it is if we are to free ourselves from a perception that men and women are constantly equated with inferiority or superiority – my rights as opposed to your rights. Perhaps we need to obtain a big picture view of the forces that shape us, otherwise, all the wonderful creative ideas that lie within so many great minds will prove to be still-born, yet again. That necessarily means an equally radical shift in perception that saw the division between the sexes all those years ago, so that a bridge may once again be formed.

The devaluation of women is a disaster for men. The devaluation of men is a disaster for women. Our misplaced anger and its projection into the external world are too easily channelled into causes and beliefs that temporarily mollify but ultimately benefit no one. The psychological knowledge of the psychopathic trickster that exists to create division between the two must form part of our collective education for young and old. Until we begin to see the culprit is the institutional and ceremonial psychopath – the embodiment of natural evil – that loves to create ideologies to divide and rule, then the true roles of men and women – heterosexual and homosexual – will continue to be obscured and pathologised.

In the next post we’ll have a look at some of the causes and effects of our present confusions in order to observe what we may call the “Sex Establishment” and how it not only benefits from such gender divisions, but has grown to distort and subvert the very concept of sex and sexuality.

 


Notes

[1] The Manipulated Man by Esther Vilar Published by Abelard-Schuman 1972 | ISBN-10: 0200718754
[2] Ibid.
[3] ‘Men cleverer than women’ claim BBC News, August 25, 2005.
[4] ‘Cover up to look smart: Men and women who bare more flesh are regarded as less intelligent, study finds’ By Lauren Paxman, The Daily Mail, Femail, 11 November, 2011.
[5] For more on this do read The Science Delusion by Rupert Sheldrake.
[6] p.232; The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty Are Used Against Women by Naomi Wolf. Published by Harper Perennial, 1992 Reprint: 2002 | ISBN-10: 0060512180.
[7] Ibid (p.154)
[8] ‘Phone data shows romance ‘driven by women’ BBC News, April 2012.
[9] Ibid.
[10] op. cit. Vilar.
[11]
Eisler, Riane; Sacred Pleasure: Sex, Myth, and the Politics of the Body, Published by Harper Collins, 2012.


Note: (February 2018) This 3 part essay on Feminism was written in original form more than ten years ago. Since then, Third Wave Feminism has metastasized into something much worse. Postmodernism and its neo-Marxist roots; gender and women studies; Social Justice Warriors; left authoritarianism and the blindness of many liberals have fused together turning a growing number of universities and even schools into indoctrination centres. Victimhood is the new ideology, a product of cultural stagnation and social engineering which is now threatening free speech and what is left of democracy in the West. It seems ponerological infiltration is occurring through the extreme left more rapidly than the far right. For more on this subject and its root causes and effects see the series: The Hissy Fit Generation And The Loss of Free Speech.

Feminism or Infiltration? I

By M.K. Styllinski

“…after an injury, narcissists may self-medicate with drugs or alcohol or make a mad dash to find alternative sources of attention and admiration. But mostly, they become enraged that others don’t go along with their entitled demands. They strike out like a despot whose subjects threaten a revolution. They may be up-front with their rage or be more passive aggressive about it. In divorce, narcissists may fight to get things they may not even want just so their ex-partner can’t have it. This includes custody of the children.”

– Randi Kreger, quoted in Psychology Today


On a feminist blog called Feminspire we are treated to an image of a leather/PVC-clad woman brandishing a whip in true S & M style with “Misandrist Sex Tips” as a title for its latest post. It’s meant to be satire and presumably puts the male firmly in his place to get an idea what it must feel like for women. If you read the list it is neither funny or clever but merely adding to the noise and misandry it claims to be lampooning. Sadly, within feminism as a whole, it has become something quite apart from the original “women’s rights” it was meant to espouse.

From the standpoint of Official Culture and the psychopath, traditional feminine and masculine roles are polarities to play with, so it comes as no surprise that real creative freedom for the sexes has been comprehensively ponerised. The way that psychopathy has done this is to create “movements” that finally end up resembling everything other than the original idea which was offered as a sensible template. In the modern, urban world men and women are being expertly played off against each other based on a fabricated myth of a “battle of the sexes.”

Like so many labels and “-ism’s,” the Women’s Liberation Movement or “feminism” has many groupings under its auspices, meaning a variety of things for a variety of people. Understanding sex and gender issues, women’s rights in education, the workplace and politics are just some of the topics explored with a myriad of organisations and charities based around women’s emancipation. Feminist activism focuses on voting, contract law, property, equal pay for women, raising awareness of sexual exploitation (domestic violence, sexual abuse / harassment and assault) reproductive rights, gender neutrality in English, access to contraceptives; the right to an abortion and campaigns against forms of discrimination. The battle for basic equality in terms of human and civil rights in the developing world is much needed as religious fanaticism in the guise of female genital mutilation in Africa, the Hindu caste system in India and the dogmas of fundamentalist Islam are only a few examples where women are still firmly under the yoke of patriarchy. Female infanticide, honor killings and cases of rape can all be funnelled into feminist discourse.

However…If we are able to grasp the implications of ponerology we’ll discover that Matriarchy and feminism isn’t the answer either.

In the West, what has become a way in for a progressive loss of validity for the feminist movement is the issue of gender equality – at any cost – which has been an open door for  misguided, narcissistic, misanthropic and even psychopathic elements, corrupting the movement as a whole. When we understand the principle of psychopathic inculcation that exists in our culture where both women and men have been placed under its programming, we will see that to focus on one sex at the expense of the other is to play into the game of divide and rule.

index

To say that periods of cyclic oppression and subjugation of women has not taken place by men for thousands of years and still continues, would be a denial of reality. What is labelled “Feminism” in countries such as Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, India, Africa and Asia and across the developing world is actually about basic human rights and has become a force for real change against male-dominated, socio-religious discrimination and abuse. In the West, there have been great strides to rid ourselves of our Victorian patriarchal echoes and move onto a more equal footing. Yet, there are still some myths floating about that suggest there is more to cries of gender discrimination against women than meets the eye. One example: it is said that many women still receive a salary far below that of their male colleagues simply because of their gender. Is that true? Perhaps, but not for the reasons feminists would have us believe. According to Payscale Human Capital: “men do earn more than women on average, but not that much more when they work the same job and they have similar experience and abilities.” Furthermore, it appears to be much more a case of a natural gravitation toward a job sector that naturally pays less based on economic factors rather than a consistent discrimination.

However, like the gay rights movement, feminism and radical expressions within the movement from a Western, white, middle-class perspective have gone in a very different direction, the culmination of which has seen women less happy and with more incidences of narcissism and other mental illnesses than ever before. [1]  Some groups within feminism have been accused of misandry, a strange inversion of emancipation using the very same tools of the original male dominator. There are even reports that some groupings within feminism have resorted to racketeering where women’s “rights” have been distorted into a tried and tested formula of ad homein attacks on any and all those with an opposing view. As one commentator described it: “The MO of these feminist organizations is to threaten with lawsuits and threaten with embarrassment. They don’t care about women, they care about their own power.” [2] 

With any individuals concerned with power as the primary addiction, it doesn’t matter if its politics or women’s studies, this intellectual acid will dissolve the camouflage of post modern platitudes revealing the actions behind the mask. When feminism and political correctness for instance, meet in the  bastions of the law courts it can be a highly toxic mixture with male chauvinism and feminism clashing blindly. Depending on who the judge happens to be it is effectively a lottery of lies and manipulation. You rarely see the median since Hegelian divisions are designed that way and quickly absorbed as cultural norms.  (For an instructive narrative on how bad it can get, try reading Michael McConaughey’s The Mirror).

The promotion of women’s interests above men’s and the belief that men are inherently irredeemable concerning the treatment of said women merely creates more mountains of separation and confusion which everyone has to climb. It also plays directly into the hands of ultra-conservative, authoritarian personalities for whom a legion of repressive tenets closely linked to religious fundamentalist doctrines are deemed the only answer. Aside from radical feminist extremism, it has to be said that many false assumptions underpin the standard feminist drive from which this radicalism hails, most notably the notion of gender equality, a misnomer since it can never be achieved.  The way men and women process stress, intellectualise, manage negative emotions, and how we react to danger show that we are very different, physically and neurophysiologically. [4] Which means the notion of absolute equality is a nonsense since the above factors will determine to a large degree what will work and what is appropriate in society and what isn’t. Sometimes, you can’t buck biology but you can adapt and compromise provided we accept our gender strengths and weaknesses.

Though he may have underestimated how bad the situation is, the author, therapist and father of two daughters Michael Gurian offers something constructive to the debate. He acknowledges that individual differences do indeed exist, yet this needn’t be problematic – it should be understood and celebrated. For instance, girls’ brains are coded to secrete more serotonin than boys’ brains, which means there is a greater amount of the chemical to equalize unregulated impulses. Gurian says this may be one reason why toddler girls are often calmer than toddler boys. He also mentions the vital chemical we looked at previously: oxytocin, that jewel in the crown of female neurochemistry responsible for bonding and “maternal instinct.” If female brains secrete more oxytocin, for instance when little girls play with dolls or when women hear a baby cry in a crowded cinema, then it shows that the effects will be heightened within intimate activities such a sex, where oxytocin’s bonding response will really kick in. For men there is almost zero secretion which goes some way to explaining why one-night stands are often a more difficult prospect for women. Not that this implies it’s a healthy option for men either. Males are much slower to respond physiologically than women but it does not mean that the ability to care about such things is absent.

Then we have the brain’s hippocampus, a centre responsible for memory storage. Studies have found that it is larger and works more efficiently in girls than in boys, which means when it comes to remembering large amounts of information which is inputted in reasonably quick succession girls seem to have a built-in edge. Gurian uncovered the latest findings in brain imaging which revealed a tendency for boys’ brains – especially during puberty – to focus on one task at a time while girls’ brains are able to process larger amounts leading to a greater success for intuitive decision-making. He mentions that the downside of this ability is that young, adolescent girls may develop a “malleable self” with a reliance on others when it comes to concrete decision-making. The cause of high levels of males to be diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) can also be seen in a new light when we realise that female brains have 15 percent more blood flow volume and larger distribution than male brains. This bestows a greater ability to both think things through, though also increasing the likelihood of indecision. [4]

There are many more differences which Gurian eloquently describes for our edification. Yet, these very differences, instead of producing friction can surely create a “third force” of context and the creativity which can follow when the harmonious joining of the two polarities takes place. That takes knowledge of our individual “issues” and a wider comprehension of the pathologies presently shrouding our world. As third wave feminist author and social activist Naomi Wolf mentions in quoting Helen Fisher’s findings in the Anatomy of Love: “… nature designed men and women to collaborate for survival. ‘Collaboration’ implies free will and choice; even primate males do not succeed by dominating or controlling females. In her analysis, it serves everyone for men and women to share their sometimes different but often complementary strengths – a conclusion that seems reassuring, not oppressive.” [5]

Indeed it is. We can also say that some women in modern, Western societies are already dominating and controlling men – they just do it in entirely different ways. The rise of narcissism seen most strongly in the female population suggests this is having major consequences across all societies and places a crucial part in Official Culture as a whole. If Western women really want to make their undoubted exploitation and oppression of the past stay in the past, then perhaps jettisoning the wish to “have it all” at the expense of men’s rights is also necessary. To increase choice and equality is possible but this does not mean we seek to do and be the same things in a society that are already straining under the weight of narcissism and worse. This appears to be happening in much the same way that some sectors of the Jewish community use the phrase of “anti-semitism” to blockade constructive criticism of the treatment of Palestinians. The culture of victimhood does not encourage new visions.

There are also rights for men that are being eroded in ways that are not acknowledged, especially in the family courts. Notions like gender equality are effective in creating endless circular conflicts that attract dysfunctional minds with axes to grind. Men and women TOGETHER must forge their way to better choices, true freedom and human equality on a vast range of issues. But these divides will worsen if we do not acknowledge and tackle the true enemy which is a war against normal people directed from those in positions of power who largely conform to categories of psychopathy. THAT is the real issue here and one which affects all of us regardless of our particular “-ism” onto we have latched.

What is more, it is precisely because there is always present the creative tendency to embrace the best of men and women without creating divisions that it may have been subverted by CoIntelpro * along with so many other movements in the 1960s and 70s.  As it stands,  modern, Western feminism does not serve women rights in the way that we think and is ironically in danger of replacing one exploitation with another.

Enter: radical feminism.


*  “COINTELPRO is an acronym for a series of FBI counterintelligence programs designed to neutralize political dissidents. Although covert operations have been employed throughout FBI history, the formal COINTELPRO’s of 1956-1971 were broadly targeted against radical political organizations. In the early 1950s, the Communist Party was illegal in the United States. The Senate and House of Representatives each set up investigating committees to prosecute communists and publicly expose them. (The House Committee on Un-American Activities and the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, led by Senator Joseph McCarthy). When a series of Supreme Court rulings in 1956 and 1957 challenged these committees and questioned the constitutionality of Smith Act prosecutions and Subversive Activities Control Board hearings, the FBI’s response was COINTELPRO, a program designed to “neutralize” those who could no longer be prosecuted. Over the years, similar programs were created to neutralize civil rights, anti-war, and many other groups, many of which were said to be “communist front organizations.” As J. Edgar Hoover, longtime Director of the FBI put it.”  http://www.cointelpro.org. [What the public may not be aware of is these operations did not simply cease, but were utilised for all social domains. Of particular note is the New Age or Human Potential Movement, the foundations of which may have been purely a creation of intelligence agencies].

Notes

[1] ‘The narcissism of consumer society has left women unhappier than ever’ by Madeleine Bunting, The Guardian, July 26, 2009.
[2] ‘Author Accuses Women’s Groups of Racketeering’ Fox News, October 23, 2002.
[3] ‘Men Are From Mars: Neuroscientists Find That Men And Women Respond Differently To Stress’ Science Daily 2008.
[4] ‘Girl Wonders: Michael Gurian defines his post-feminist vision’ By Ceceilia Goodnow, Seattle Post Intelligencer, March 8, 2002. / The Wonder of Girls: Understanding the Hidden Nature of Our Daughters by Michael Gurian, Published by Simon & Schuster International; Reprint edition, 2003.|ISBN-10: 0743417038.
[5] ‘Feminism and the Male Brain’ By Naomi Wolf, May 29 2009. Project Syndicate, http://www.project-syndicate.org

The Rape of Conscience: I, Psychopath

By M.K. Styllinski

“It seems impossible to convince people that private behavior cannot be predicted from public behavior. Kind non-violent individuals behave well in public, but so do many people who are brutal behind the scenes.”

– Anna C. Salter PhD.


Deaths

Perpetrator

Country

Year

32 – 70+ million

Mao Ze-Dong

China, Tibet

1958-61, 1966-69

12+ million

Adolf Hitler

Germany

1939-1945

8+million

King Leopold II of Belgium

Congo

1886-1908

6+million

Jozef Stalin

USSR

1932-1939

5+million

Hideki Tojo

Japan

1941-1944

2+million

Ismail Enver

Turkey

1915-1922

1.7million

Pol Pot

Cambodia

1975-79

1.6 million

Kim Il Sung

North Korea

1948-1994

1.5 million

Menghistu

Ethiopia

1975-1978

1 million

Yakubu Gowon

Biafra

1967-1970

900,000

Leonid Brezhnev

Afghanistan

1979-1982

800,000

Jean Kambanda

Rwanda

1994

 Genocides 19th – 20th Century / source: scaruffi.com


Dr. James W. Prescott Ph.D. one time developmental neuropsychologist with the US National Institute of Child Health and Human Development agrees there is direct link between economic disparity, poverty, mental instability and the manifestation of abuse. Indeed, the present foundations of our societies may even ellicit such imbalances. He states: “The problem of child abuse is not just a problem of certain adults assaulting certain children, but rather it is deeply rooted in the fabric of our entire society. Why do husbands beat their wives? Why do so many of us support capital punishment? Why do we find so much entertainment and enjoyment in films and television programs that depict physical violence? The answer is that we are a physically violent society and that child abuse represents merely one aspect of that violence.” [1]

Is that true?

From genocides of Maoist China to the Gulag’s of Stalinist Russia, the massacres in Rwanda and ethnic cleansing of the former Yugoslavia, is it a natural part of the human psyche, an indelible flaw in our evolution that demands the survival of the fittest at any cost? Are we less than animals operating on instinct alone, intermittently out of control because our ancient limbic brain demands it? Or does the cause have its roots in monotheistic religions which program us to see violence and separatism as part of a Divine justice? If it is in sown into the very fabric of our societies then is it a genetic pre-disposition that we all share?

Or is there something or someone loading the dice?

Well, that’s a lot of questions which we may or may not answer over this series but let’s see where it takes us…

On November 26th 2013, The Independent’s Heather Saul published a piece entitled: ‘Young children ‘are committing sex abuse on other children as part of gang violence.’’ Saul highlighted evidence cited as “profoundly distressing” from a report by the Office of the Children’s Commissioner for England which found that children aged carrying sexual abuse and sexual assault on victims aged 11 or younger with shocking levels of sexual sadism in evidence. The commission report confirmed the awareness of paedophilia but realised the subject of: “… children abusing each other through gangs or groups is rarely acknowledged by society.” Perhaps most significantly, the commission found that rape was considered “normal” with sexual violence occurring across all levels of class from deprived areas to the more affluent areas of England. The article rightly commented: “The scale and nature of sexual attacks – including rape – indicates a “deep malaise” within society that needs to be addressed.”

This suggests something that is sourced not just from the accessibility of internet technology and multi-media images but a progressive psychological infection derived from an Official Culture of addiction and implanted psychopathology. The idea of fantasy, sexual violence and rape are being blurred, as is the line between consensual and forced sexual activity. Teenagers who are sexually active are hopelessly confused and children, while being peer-pressured into experimenting with sex so early, are doing so under the influence of glamourised and distorted messages, where violence and coercion is a normal part of sexual experience. (See: Pornucopia: Cult of the Body)

Sex and violence are fast becoming an integral part of a new rites of initiation in the young. The report is a vital warning that society is comprehensively failing our children in ways that adults cannot process. Where no suitable role models exist and with the ubiquity of distorted sexual messages underpinned by a deep materialism to be found literally everywhere, it is inevitable that new forms of meaning will be found to fill the emptiness.

Gender roles are being pushed where the young male must be the brutal macho rapist and the girl a submissive whore or feminist liberator who generally desires such abuse. The provocative dress code is now a normal part of pre-teen fashion thanks to advertising and marketing.

So, where is the rise in gang culture and sexual violence coming from?

In his ground-breaking book: Political Ponerology – A Science on the  Nature of Evil Adjusted for political Purposes (2007) the late Clinical Psychologist Andrew M. Łobaczewski discovered that psychopathy has a pathogenic quality, the seeds of which cyclically penetrate otherwise balanced social systems that may ordinarily have had a much greater probability of success. So much so, that he believes a basic understanding of the psychology of the psychopath and defences against the encroachment of such individuals into our public and private lives is essential for a healthy society to evolve. Without this understanding and knowledge all human endeavours will fail, just as an organism will eventually deteriorate both in vitality and functional ability if measures are not taken to counteract the symptoms of ill health.

Psychopathy has been traditionally studied from the victim’s experience rather than from the perpetrator’s view. After all, psychopaths do not seek help as he perceives nothing wrong with his immorality as a natural state of being. A new conceptual framework is desperately needed in order to place the magnifying glass firmly over the actions of evil and its genesis.

Rather than lapsing into the past habit of creating a theological construct over a psychological theory, Łobaczewski called this new science, “Ponerology” which the dictionary defines as: “n. division of theology dealing with evil; theological doctrine of wickedness or evil; from the Greek: poneros – evil”. Whether an organisation or an individual, the full expression of one or more psychopaths can obliterate the chances of mental, emotional, physical and spiritual harmony in the entity in question, leading to chaos and disequilibrium so severe that failure and death may eventuate. With this in mind we can realise that it is not any one “-ism” in any particular belief system that determines the eventual collapse into chaos – at least, not as a primary cause. Rather, it is the lack of awareness concerning the pathogenic factors involved which give rise to erroneous believes and which serve as channels for evil to evolve. Accordingly, Religious authoritarian personalities for instance, offer a perfect platform for the psychopath. Unless we become aware of the nature of psychopathy and the ways in which it can seed itself in our relationships and our government candidates we will continue to see the disastrous results manifesting in the world and explained away as a consequence of “human nature.”

If by “evil” we mean extreme negativity as a natural pathway then the psychopath is a perfect embodiment. Certain fashionable beliefs in New Age circles that evil does not exist and that we just need to pray for peace and send love and light has played a part in adding to the sophisticated cover afforded to these creatures who bear little resemblance to human souls and who lack any potential for higher emotion.  The advances in brain scan technology has allowed us to see the major neurological even physical differences in psychopath’s brains, in particular the amygdala and prefrontal cortex. Observing the bloody course of history and the abject misery and suffering that has resulted when the psychopath gains positions of power is ample proof that these psychological dynamics, despite frequent warnings from the past, has remained largely camouflaged from normal peoples’ perceptions. We might say that they are the vampires and werewolves of folklore; the collective shadow made manifest. Perhaps the real hope for a more just and equitable world lies in education: the understanding of basic psychology and the rise of psychopathy in our social systems.

But it is right and proper that we don’t go down a eugenics path of neurological “pre-crime” whereby everyone is scanned for possible deficiencies. It may be that because the horse has bolted and we are currently seeing a genetic rise in psychopaths the danger of such technology in the wrong hands is very real indeed. However, surely an ethical balance can be achieved as part of a wide-ranging remedy of prevention? It is also characteristic of materialist science – just the kind of science we need to guard against – that all the answers are to be found in the brain. This is surely not the case and thus represents another avenue ripe for distortion. We need to take a highly multi-disciplined approach to this problem bring our intuition, innovation and intelligence to bear from a wide range of specialisations, from social science to psychology, history to neurology.

The social environment in which the individual finds himself appears to have a large part to play as well as the genetic component. Psychopaths may be born that way and negative environmental influences may make them “super-charged.” This may be especially true for “garden variety” psychopaths who go about their business as part of the herd instinct without overt predatory behaviour. Brain damage can also cause serious degradation in personalities which can result in the same set of behaviours characteristic of pathological narcissists and psychopaths, so due caution in this complex field is not misplaced.

Conversely, when a high proportion of psychopaths inhabit positions of power then it stands to reason that society will be progressively shaped, causing a feedback cycle of negative human behaviour as a reflection of those power centres which in turn, are emboldened by the disintegration and fragmentation of higher human values. This is the central premise of this blog after all. Looking at the incarceration rate of US prisons and the high number of psychopathic personalities who reside there; as more abusive childhoods occur and the socio-cultural influences become more and more degraded by pathological influence – sometimes helped by social engineering implemented by similar psychopathic perception – then it is not hard to fathom why we have ended up in the mess we have.

The kind of society we wish to create for the future must take on the possibility that the values of the psychopath have taken over that of the human being who values conscience.  As psychologist Martha Stout has mentioned in her book The Sociopath Next Door, why else would there be higher numbers of sociopaths in the Western world than in most other cultures and societies? With Eastern cultures sharing between 0.03% and 0.14% of psychopaths and the rising numbers reaching at least 5% in America (not counting pathological narcissists and other mental illnesses) there seems to be a very fertile ground for such genes to be cultured. This leads to many of us adopting psychopathological traits to varying degrees based on the insidious influence of normalising what was originally a pathological “infection” spreading through societies over differing time spans.

In Łobaczewski’s book Political Ponerology he lays out the background as to why we find ourselves dominated by a minority of psychopaths and psychological deviants. The cornerstones of Western civilisation’s beliefs are derived from Greek, Roman and Christian schools of thought which have been hopelessly inadequate in coping with both spirituality and psychology since they are largely rooted in materialism, authoritarianism and the Rule of Law. This had serious repercussions in the way we perceived reality and therefore our ability to recognise the methods and processes which gave rise to evil in our societies.

Greek culture drew its inspiration from nature, mythology and the literary tradition and Rome incorporated them into an overarching monolith of administration, politics and law, where the inherited Greek philosophy was designed to have real world applications with little room for psychological awareness. The legacy was a continuing impoverishment for knowledge of human psychology and devolution of morality at the individual and collective level. Instead of integrating the best of psychology and philosophy of the ancient cultures of the Middle East, which seemed to flower for the first few centuries of its existence, Christianity was subverted into something quite different to its original intentions, a long-term victim of a progressive “ponerisation.”

Łobaczewski takes up the story:

A civilization thus arose with a serious deficiency in the area which is supposed to protect societies from various kinds of evil, and we are the inheritors of this defect. This civilization developed formulations in the area of law – national, civil, and canon – which were conceived for invented beings, not human beings, and which gave short shrift to the total contents of the human personality and the great psychological differences between individual members of the species Homo sapiens. For many centuries, any understanding of certain psychological anomalies found among individuals was out of the question – even though such anomalies cause disaster.

Thus, Western Civilization is insufficiently resistant to evil, which originates beyond the easily accessible areas of human consciousness and takes advantage of the great gap between formal or legal thought and psychological reality.

In a civilization deficient in psychological cognition, individuals with dreams of imposing their power upon their environment and their society are not recognized as being fundamentally different, and they all too easily find a ready response in individuals with insufficiently developed consciousnesses. […] [2]  [Emphasis mine]

Although there are signs and portents in our cultural heritage that psychopathy followed a cyclic manifestation best expressed through empire-building, the core reasons for its domination has been cleverly concealed for eons. It is for this reason that Łobaczewski stresses the deep importance of cultivating correct psychological knowledge of our inner and outer environment in order to counter the effects of the psychopath and other inherited pathologies.

Since we are embedded in the society in which we find ourselves, the notion of free-will is somewhat a misnomer by the time we have unknowingly unlocked the predator’s cage. Once free, it begins to weave a spell that creates an array of seductive belief-traps which permit the illusion of freedom when in fact, it allows a Global Predator consciousness to progressively to corral its prey. As Łobaczewski tells us: “Human beings have a tendency to repress from their consciousness any associations indicating a causative conditioning of their world-view and behavior,” so the shadows of negative behavior both in ourselves and then the outer world are the first to be painted over. On top of this, is the “natural psychological, societal, and moral world-view” into which we are sheep-dipped from infant to adult. This raises some fundamental questions concerning the validity of our views about the world drawn from a natural tendency to follow a subjective set of principles so often cultivated by figures of authority and furnished with a sufficient amount of sweeteners to keep us there, if it is in their best interests to do so.

It is our emotions which dictate the direction we choose to take regarding the nature of reality. Psychopaths in power are not creative in the pure sense. But they have animal cunning and an innate understanding of human emotion, knowing perfectly how to mimic and inflame those emotions so that they can be used against us.

Łobaczewski continues:

It is thus significant that the main values of this human world-view of nature indicate basic similarities in spite of great spans of time, race, and civilization. It is thus suggested that the ‘human world view’ derives from the nature of our species and the natural experience of human societies which have achieved a certain necessary level of civilization. Refinements based on literary values or philosophical and moral reflections do indicate some differences, but generally speaking, they tend to bring together the natural conceptual language of various civilizations and eras.

People with a ‘humanistic’ education may have the impression that they have achieved wisdom, but here we approach a problem; we must ask the following question: Even if the natural world-view has been refined, does it mirror reality with sufficient reliability? Or does it only mirror our species’ perception? To what extent can we depend upon it as a basis for decision making in the individual, societal, and political spheres of life?

Experience teaches us, first of all, that this natural world-view has permanent and characteristic tendencies toward deformation dictated by our instinctive and emotional features. Secondly, our work exposes us to many phenomena that cannot be understood and described by natural language alone.

Considering the most important reality deforming tendency, we notice that those emotional features which are a natural component of the human personality are never completely appropriate to the reality being experienced. This results both from our instinct and from our conditioning of upbringing. This is why the best traditions of philosophical and religious thought have counseled subduing the emotions in order to achieve a more accurate view of reality. [3] [Emphasis mine]

Łobaczewski highlights the process of our natural egotism drawn from an insufficiently objective system of values which has become entrenched in our social customs. And it is the lack of attention to our emotions and instincts which have acted as an open door. This has led to the world being plagued by a phenomenon which is so outside the natural experience of normal human beings that we have refused to contemplate such predatory evil exists while gradually taking on its subtle traits – and we have done so through ignorance and pride. Meanwhile, psychopaths have consolidated their position and hunkered down for the long-term.

If, as Łobaczewski mentions: “Developing and popularizing the objective psychological world-view could thus significantly expand the scope of dealing with evil via sensible action and pinpointed countermeasures”, then now is the time to begin the process of knowledge dissemination if we as the majority are to wrest back control. But for us to do this we must recognize that we already live in the psychopaths’ world and are, to varying degrees, products of their reality.

In the last post we looked at the possibility of exploring “countermeasures” against the pathologies currently gripping our societies. Łobaczewski reiterates the challenge of understanding just how deep this recognition needs to be. Indeed, it stretches back through time, through myth and history:

Ever since ancient times, philosophers and religious thinkers representing various attitudes in different cultures have been searching for the truth as regards moral values, attempting to find criteria for what is right, for what constitutes good advice. They described the virtues of human character and suggested these be acquired. They created a heritage … which contains centuries of experience and reflections. In spite of the obvious differences among attitudes, the similarity or complementarity of the conclusions reached by famous ancients are striking, even though they worked in widely divergent times and places. After all, 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, however, 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. lies, similarly like health is the opposite of an illness.

The character and genesis of evil thus remained hidden in discreet shadows, leaving it to playwrights to deal with the subject in their highly expressive language, but that did not reach the primeval source of the phenomena. A certain cognitive space thus remains uninvestigated, a thicket of moral questions which resists understanding and philosophical generalizations. [4] [Emphasis mine]

The resistance to the comprehension of evil is profound. It penetrates into the heart of our cultures and represents a complex matrix of psycho-social blockades built over centuries. Ponerological disease has had a very long time to adapt to normal humans’ psychology and strategies have developed to transpersonify * particular sections of our modern societies, most of which we will explore over the coming months.

The pendulum always swings to extremes if we are unable to find the median point of creative tension. Forcing the issue and preferring to trust our insignificant human perceptions rather than the natural universal laws and rhythms of life has led to more and more excesses in search of an ideal that doesn’t exist and which has fed self-aggrandizement and personal power. It may be that humans function best in networked clusters of communities with service to others as the byword for a spiritually nourishing and sustainable future. Łobaczewski makes one of the most important insights into the nature of evil and how, in the future, we can prevent psychopathy from attaining widespread influence. Once the pursuit of exclusive pleasure for the self alone has become habitual and community cohesion forsaken then an endless cycle of “good times, bad times” ensues and which is reflected in the narcissistic psyche of 21st Century humanity. It is during these good times, according to Łobaczewski, that: “… people lose sight of the need for thinking, introspection, knowledge of others, and an understanding of life.”

The following crucial points are the primary reasons why psychopathy begins to insinuate itself into normal societies, a period of cyclic change Łobaczewski called the “Hysteriodal Cycle” which he describes in the following passage:

When things are ‘good’, people ask themselves whether it is worth it to ponder human nature and flaws in the personality (one’s own, or that of another). In good times, entire generations can grow up with no understanding of the creative meaning of suffering since they have never experienced it themselves. When all the joys of life are there for the taking, mental effort to understand science and the laws of nature – to acquire knowledge that may not be directly related to accumulating stuff – seems like pointless labor. Being ‘healthy minded’, and positive – a good sport with never a discouraging word – is seen as a good thing, and anyone who predicts dire consequences as the result of such insouciance is labeled a wet-blanket or a killjoy.

Perception of the truth about reality, especially a real understanding of human nature in all its ranges and permutations, ceases to be a virtue to be acquired. Thoughtful doubters are ‘meddlers’ who can’t leave well enough alone. ‘Don’t fix it if it ain’t broke.’ This attitude leads to an impoverishment of psychological knowledge including the capacity to differentiate the properties of human nature and personality, and the ability to mold healthy minds creatively.

The cult of power thus supplants the mental and moral values so essential for maintaining peace by peaceful means. A nation’s enrichment or involution as regards its psychological world-view could be considered an indicator of whether its future will be good or bad.

During good times, the search for the meaning of life, the truth of our reality, becomes uncomfortable because it reveals inconvenient factors. Unconscious elimination of data which are, or appear to be, inexpedient, begins to be habitual, a custom accepted by entire societies. The result is that any thought processes based on such truncated information cannot bring correct conclusions. This then leads to substitution of convenient lies to the self to replace uncomfortable truths thereby approaching the boundaries of phenomena which should be viewed as psychopathological.” [5] [Emphasis mine]

It seems we are presently navigating through the after effects of an Hysteriodal Cycle where the outcome is unknown. While conscious awareness of this psycho-biological phenomena has been inadequate at best, there are signs it is beginning to cause ripples across public consciousness and fields of academia. As such this “Cult of Power” is at a decisive point in its influence across human awareness.

In the next few posts we’ll start to explore the behaviour and effects of the psychopath in order to better understand how he has re-ordered the world in his own image and what we may expect in the future.


* Transpersonification is a word coined by Łobaczewski to describe the negative effects on the mind and personality from persons with certain inherited or acquired psychopathologies.

Notes

[1] ‘Child Abuse in America: Slaughter of the Innocents’ By James W. Prescott, Ph.D. From Hustler, October, 1977.
[2] p.35; Łobaczewski; Political Ponerology.
[3] Ibid. (p.38)
[4] Ibid. (p.69)
[5] Ibid. (p.62)