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

and deform its development in youngsters. Paramoralism facto-

ries have been founded worldwide, and a ponerologist finds it

hard to believe that they are managed by psychologically nor-

mal people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POLITICAL PONEROLOGY

151

The conversive74 features in the genesis of paramoralisms

seem to prove they are derived from mostly subconscious re-

jection (and repression from the field of consciousness) of

something completely different, which we call the voice of

conscience .

A ponerologist can nevertheless indicate many observations

supporting the opinion that various pathological factors partici-

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

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

interpretation, this tendency intensifies in egotists and hyster-

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

the tendency to use paramoralisms is psychologically conta-

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

individuals in whom it was developed alongside pathological

factors.

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

born and exists independently of our judgments in this regard,

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

quired for such understanding is scientific, not creative: we

must humbly subordinate our mind to the apprehended reality.

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

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

with respect to other people and other societies.

~~~

Reversive blockade : Emphatically insisting upon something

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

mind from perceiving the truth. In accordance with the dictates

of healthy common sense, he starts searching for meaning in

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

up with some satisfactory counterfeit. People who think like

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

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

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

simultaneously represents an extreme paramoralism, and bears

its peculiar suggestiveness.

We rarely see this method being used by normal people;

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

indicate its results in their characteristic difficulties in appre-

74 See note p. 46.

152

PONEROLOGY

hending reality properly. Use of this method can be included

within the above-mentioned special psychological knowledge

developed by psychopaths concerning the weaknesses of hu-

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

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

conterminous with their power.

~~~

Information selection and substitution : The existence of

psychological phenomena known to pre-Freudian philosophical

students of the subconscious bears repeating. Unconscious

psychological processes outstrip conscious reasoning, both in

time and in scope, which makes many psychological phenom-

ena possible : including those generally described as conver-

sive, such as subconscious blocking out of conclusions, the

selection, and, also, substitution of seemingly uncomfortable

premises.

We speak of blocking out conclusions if the inferential

process was proper in principle and has almost arrived at a

conclusion and final comprehension within the act of internal

projection, but becomes stymied by a preceding directive from

the subconscious, which considers it inexpedient or disturbing.

This is primitive prevention of personality disintegration,

which may seem advantageous; however, it also prevents all

the advantages which could be derived from consciously elabo-

rated conclusion and reintegration. A conclusion thus rejected

remains in our subconscious and in a more unconscious way

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

extremely harmful, progressively enslaving a person to his own

subconscious, and is often accompanied by a feeling of tension

and bitterness.

We speak of selection of premises whenever the feedback

goes deeper into the resulting reasoning and from its database

thus deletes and represses into the subconscious just that piece

of information which was responsible for arriving at the un-

comfortable conclusion. Our subconscious then permits further

logical reasoning, except that the outcome will be erroneous in

direct proportion to the actual significance of the repressed

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

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

POLITICAL PONEROLOGY

153

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

even if reasoning would have reached an outcome quite advan-

tageous to the person.

The most complex process of this type is substitution of

premises thus eliminated by other data, ensuring an ostensibly

more comfortable conclusion. Our associative ability rapidly

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

leading to a comfortable conclusion. This operation takes the

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

Such substitutions are often effected collectively, in certain

groups of people, through the use of verbal communication.

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

pocrisy” than either of the above-mentioned processes.

The above examples of conversive phenomena do not ex-

haust a problem richly illustrated in psychoanalytical works.

Our subconscious may carry the roots of human genius within,

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

blind computer, especially whenever we allow it to be cluttered

with anxiously rejected material. This explains why conscious

monitoring, even at the price of courageously accepting disin-

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

tion our individual and social good.

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

knowledge allows him to eliminate all tendencies toward con-

versive thinking, but some people are relatively close to this

state, while others remain slaves to these processes. Those

people who use conversive operations too often for the purpose

of finding convenient conclusions, or constructing some cun-

ning paralogistic or paramoralistic statements, eventually begin

to undertake such behavior for ever more trivial reasons, losing

the capacity for conscious control over their thought process