As long as the characteropathic individuals play a dominant role within a social movement affected by the ponerogenic process, the ideology, whether doctrinaire from the outset or later vulgarized and further perverted by these latter people, continues to keep and maintain its content link with the original prototype. The ideology continuously affects the movement’s activities and remains an essential justifying motivation for many. In this phase, therefore, such a union does not move in the direction of criminal acts on a mass scale. To a certain extent, at this stage, one can still define such a movement or union by the name of its original ideology.
In the meantime, however, the carriers of other (mainly hereditary) pathological factors become engaged in this already sick social movement and proceed with the work of final transformation of the contents – both ideological and human - of such a union in such a way that it becomes a pathological caricature of its original ideology. This is effected under the ever-growing influence of psychopathic personalities of various types, with particular emphasis on the inspiration role of essential psychopathy.
Such a situation eventually engenders a wholesale showdown: the adherents of the original ideology are shunted aside or terminated. (This group includes many characteropaths, especially of the lesser and paranoidal varieties.) The ideological motivations and the double talk they created then are utilized to hide the actual new contents of the phenomenon. From this time on, using the ideological name of the movement in order to understand its essence becomes a keystone of mistakes. [...]
Psychopaths are conscious of being different from normal people. That is why the “political system” inspired by their nature is able to conceal this awareness of being different. They wear a personal mask of sanity and know how to create a macrosocial mask of the same dissimulating nature. When we observe the role of ideology in this macrosocial phenomenon, quite conscious of the existence of this specific awareness of the psychopath, we can then understand why ideology is relegated to a tool-like role: something useful in dealing with those other naive people and nations. Pathocrats must nevertheless appreciate the function of ideology as being something essential in any ponerogenic group, especially in the macrosocial phenomenon which is their “homeland”.
This factor of awareness simultaneously constitutes a certain qualitative difference between the two above-mentioned relationships. Pathocrats know that their real ideology is derived from their deviant natures, and treat the “other” – the masking ideology - with barely concealed contempt. And the common people eventually begin to perceive this as noted above.
Thus, a well-developed pathocratic system no longer has a clear and direct relationship to its original ideology, which it only keeps as its primary, traditional tool for action and masking. For practical purposes of pathocratic expansion, other ideologies may be useful, even if they contradict the main one and heap moral denunciation upon it. However, these other ideologies must be used with care, refraining from official acknowledgement within environments wherein the original ideology can be made to appear too foreign, discredited, and useless.
The main ideology succumbs to symptomatic deformation, in keeping with the characteristic style of this very disease and with what has already been stated about the matter. The names and official contents are kept, but another, completely different content is insinuated underneath, thus giving rise to the well known double talk phenomenon within which the same names have two meanings: one for initiates, one for everyone else. The latter is derived from the original ideology; the former has a specifically pathocratic meaning, something which is known not only to the pathocrats themselves, but also is learned by those people living under long-term subjection to their rule.
Doubletalk is only one of many symptoms. Others are the specific facility for producing new names which have suggestive effects and are accepted virtually uncritically, in particular outside the immediate scope of such a system’s rule. We must thus point out the paramoralistic character and paranoidal qualities frequently contained within these names. ... Anything which threatens pathocratic rule becomes deeply immoral. ...
We thus have the right to invent appropriate names which would indicate the nature of the phenomena as accurately as possible, in keeping with our recognition and respect for the laws of the scientific methodology and semantics. Such accurate terms will also serve to protect our minds from the suggestive effects of those other names and paralogisms, including the pathological material the latter contain.
