Political Ponerology 'The Book'

SeekinTruth

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
In addition to the issue of "progress" which has been pretty much addressed already (and Gurdjieff had a lot to say about people believing in "progress), I really agree with Laura that it is so curious that with all the technology that was supposed to free up time and energy for people to be able to do more fulfilling things and less toil, it didn't turn out that way. There's an old film directed by Orson Wells, "The Magnificent Ambersons" (based on a novel by Tarkington) where during the opening sequence, Wells is narrating and mentions about the fact that the faster people are able to travel, the less time they seem to have (paraphrasing) -- the film is taking place when cars are first appearing on the scene.
 
Yes SeekinTruth, that is a good question and I recall discussions about this in the early '70s. The assumption was that with all the "technology" around humans would have much more leisure time, and the arguments were about what would we do with all of that time? Largely due to the use of data processing machines, the workplace did become much more efficient and also profitable during the early '70's, but the workforce neither saw these profits nor the time off they had anticipated. Big business pocketed the difference. Wages actually declined from that time until now, and the workforce worked harder, more hours and part time job, to maintain their purchasing power. When the workforce could not work enough hours to keep up, they started using credit to maintain the lifestyle that they had been told they were entitled to. And then they started remortgaging their houses in order to buy all the toys that they no longer had time to play with. Of course, they were prompted by the rich and famous to do this. All of this crashed in 2008 when working too much, credit cards, remortgaging the house, and on and on...was not enough to keep up and everything came tumbling down. I read one interesting study that one factor in all of this was that people were buying houses further and further away form where they worked because that was all they could afford. Then when gas prices spiked the extra burden put them under and many defaulted on their house payments.

So we were left with a few incredibly wealthy people and corporations and an exhausted, in debt, and unemployed workforce popping pills and antidepressants to keep going. Add to this we had two generations of traumatized latch-key kids that hardly knew their own parents or much of anything else, besides video games and the like. At least half of America is now living pay check to pay check, on the very edge of going under. The emotional and economic toll of all of this is incalculable and we will be living this for a very long time.
 
Robert Kirkconnell said:
Thanks Criostoir for your input. We think so differently that sometimes I have trouble understanding your points. I can say, however, that my research has led me to vastly different conclusions.

Thank you as well. But, if you would like to understand my perspective better and know where I am coming from, then I would suggest that you read, if you haven't already, Gharles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" and Konrad Lorenz's "Behind the Mirror." From my perspective, they complement Lobaczewski's "Political Ponerology" and provide a framework that his theory fits perfectly into.

Robert Kirkconnell said:
For example, there have been some technical gains in agriculture but not much.

From the information given on this website:

https://www.agclassroom.org/gan/timeline/farm_tech.htm

You can see a timeline of agricultural advancement. The site states that in 1950 "One farmer supplies 15.5 persons (est.)" and in 1990 "One farmer supplies 100 persons (est.)." Those are some pretty significant gains in only 40 years. As far as the rest of your post, I agree with you that it is a toxic system and I don't think it is sustainable. The earth has a carrying capacity and if things continue on this course at the same rate, we will probably reach it soon. And, I also agree that the agribusiness' dealings over GMOs is appalling and I think that WE will reap what THEY sow. Pun intended.

Robert Kirkconnell said:
We also have people living longer than Americans all over the world. We also have one of the highest infant mortality rates, even in developed countries.

According to the United Nation's "World Population Prospects: The 2012 Revision, Volume I: Comprehensive Tables"

http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Documentation/pdf/WPP2012_Volume-I_Comprehensive-Tables.pdf

in Table S.13 for the years 2010-2015, the Life Expectancy at Birth United States is 78.9 years and that is up 1.8 years from 2000-2005. When compared to Japan, the country with the highest Life Expectancy at Birth in the table, which is 83.5 years, the United States is only behind by 4.6 years, but, more to the point, it is steadily increasing in the Life Expectancy at Birth.

For sure, the United States has a higher Infant Mortality Rate than most European and some other developed countries, for example, take Sweden in Table S.14 for the years 2010-2015, it has a rate of 2.3 deaths per 1,000 live births. Compare that to the United States, which has 6.1 deaths per 1,000 live births. But, this also shows that the United States is down from 7.0 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2000-2005. More to the point, this indicates a steady decrease in Infant Mortality Rates for the United States. I would also point out that having 'higher' Infant Mortality Rates than many other developed countries is a far cry than saying that the United States has "one of the highest infant mortality rates, even in developed countries." That just simply isn't true. Perhaps you worded it wrong. There are other developed countries, depending on what you consider 'developed' is, that have higher Infant Mortality Rates than the the United States. For example, if you look at Table S.14, in the same time period (2010-2015) you will find: Russia (9.7), China (13.0), Mexico (14.2), Romania (10.5), Saudi Arabia (11.2), and then scroll up and down the table and see the scores of other countries, most of them are not considered to be 'developed', in the double digits and triple digits. The United States does have high Infant Mortality Rates in comparison to other developed countries, but it does not have the 'highest', not by a long shot, and, more importantly, it is improving.

Perceval said:
Yeah, economic systems by themselves don't destroy societies, but certain economic systems seem to 'select for' destruction more so than others. Capitalism, in theory, isn't necessarily any worse than any other economic 'ism', but when you take into consideration the nature of those leading society, the 'captains of industry', and the way they spread their pathology throughout society, capitalism - as in trade, industry and the means of production in the hands of private individuals with the mandate to make as much money as possible, - is a disaster that is happening right now rather than waiting to happen.

Industry and the means of production have always been and always will be in the hands of individuals, whether private or public and laws and regulations seek to bind them both and hold them accountable, in theory at least. A government bureaucracy is no safeguard against those that "spread their pathology throughout society." The way I see it, is that social predators will adapt to any economic system in a similar way that an animal predator adapts to any changing environment. If the prey of an animal predator is changed, then the predator that is best suited to catching that new prey will increase in the population and those that are not best suited will become extinct. The same goes for the natural selection of the prey and they both, predator and prey, continue to adapt and evolve. I think it is the same with social predators of the human species. Capitalism is essentially a free market and private ownership of property. Communism is essentially a centralized economy and public ownership of property. But, social predators will try, and have succeeded in the past, in both systems, to centralize their control over society.

Perceval said:
I think that 'people are living longer' claim is a myth, or at least a distortion. What seems to be true is that children today have a better chance of survival than they did 100 years ago, but actual life-expectancy has not increased that much.

Well, I don't think it is quite a myth, especially when you consider the exponential rise in the global population is such a short time. Although the statistics may be somewhat fudged, I do think that life expectancy has increased. Using just the United States as an example, according to the Social Security Administration's website

http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html

in Table 1, you can see that the Percentage of Population Surviving from Age 21 to Age 65 for males has increased from 60.6% of the population in 1940 to 72.3% of the population in 1990. For females, the Percentage of Population Surviving from Age 21 to Age 65 has increased from 60.6% of the population to 83.6% in 1990. Those are pretty significant numbers, especially when you factor in the total population increase during that time period.

Perceval said:
I'd say that technological advancement, especially in the way it has been happening where it fuels productivity at the cost of rising unemployment and ever lower wages and living conditions for those forced to take whatever job they can get, is the child of capitalism. At least, it's continually filling the pockets of the most ruthless and conscienceless.

Even without psychopaths, people will continually adapt to their situations and try to improve their circumstances. Unfortunately, what is good for one, is not always good for another. If certain adaptions are good for a population then those adaptions will continue until they are no longer good for them.

If you read Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" and compare it to Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations," you can see that the similarities between natural selection and market forces are striking.

However, I would point out, which I'm sure you will agree, that the "most ruthless and conscienceless" are not regarded highly among most people and they will not be able to endure if the people's awareness of them and their dissatisfaction reaches a critical mass. As to the rest of your post, I agree with you.

Laura said:
Of course not. It's how it is implemented. Probably the most beneficial way to run things would be for tribes to be communist, local communities to be capitalist, and federal governments to be socialist; BUT, each in a particular sphere.

That is an interesting take, but people are different and one size will not fit all. However, I do think that various forms of communalism mixed with private ownership at the local community level would probably work for most people in varying mixtures. I think the key to making it work is whatever is most practical for a given local community. I think that there are good people that would voluntarily give to their local community for benefit all, but would still want to have private ownership, whereas others would prefer to have communal ownership. But, still I think that in most cases it could work out.

Interesting that you mention these types of communal arrangements. I have recently read some books that give some historical examples of these kinds that you might find very useful: Lisa M. Bitel's "Isle of the Saints," William A. Chaney's "The Cult of Kingship in Anglo-Saxon England," Frank L. Owsley's "Plain Folk of the Old South," and Grady McWhiney's "Cracker Culture: Celtic Ways in the Old South."

I would like to add that if inherited instincts are a factor in optimal human communities, which I suspect they are, then I think that these books are valuable in presenting some systems that have worked for those that descended from the British Isles and may also work for their descendents today, but in modified forms.

To illustrate what I mean by "communalism mixed with private ownership at the local community level" here is an example of communal pasture lands and private ownership of livestock from "Cracker Culture: Celtic Ways in the Old South":

In Mississippi and elsewhere in the South, the Celtic open-range tradition determined both law and policy. Judge Handy pointed out that there were "large bodies of woodlands and prairies, which have never been enclosed, lying in the neighborhoods of the plantations of our citizens, and which, by common consent, have been understood, from the early settlement of the State, to be a common pasture, or, in the phrase of the people, the 'range,' to which large numbers of of cattle, hogs, and other animals in the neighborhood… have been permitted to resort. These large numbers of cattle and other animals are necessary to the wants and business of the people, … and the large and extensive tracts of land suitable for the pasture of stock, are most generally not required by the owner for his exclusive use. If so required, no one questions his right to fence them in. … But until he does so, by the universal understanding and usage of the people they are regarded as commons of pasture, for the range of cattle and other stock of the neighborhood.

[…]

By contrast, the southern system of raising livestock on the open range was simple and easy. Aside from marking or branding their animals, Southerners had little more to do than round them up in the fall and either sell them to a local buyer or drive them to market. One could even raise livestock without owning land.

[…]

The traits that Jordan said characterized southern herding were traditional in Scotland, Ireland, and Wales long before they were practiced in the American South. Unlike the English, the Celtic peoples of the British Isles disdained tillage agriculture, preferred instead to let their livestock make their living, and worked little except to mark or to drive their animals to market. In these and other ways their herding practices were almost exactly those that preveiled throughout the Old South, including open-range herding, overland trail drives, and the neglect of their animals.

[…]

That was the key to how the plain folk lived: in the literal sense of the phrase, they lived "high off the hog." When the larder got low they simply stuck another hog. For vegetables, almost no tillage was necessary, since green gardens in the southern soil and climate, once planted, grew wild, reseeding themselves year after year if they were appropriately neglected, as was also the case with "pumpkins, sweet potatoes, and several other vegetables." In 1854 a startled German, who found the South far different from his own culture, wrote to friends back home: "There are such fine fruits and plants here. The forest is a veritable vineyard, for grapes of all kinds grow in the wild forest as well as such things as are planted in the fine gardens of Germany. All such things grow in the woods here… You can also keep as many cows here as you wish, for feed does not cost a penny. Cattle feed itself in the woods in winter and summer, no cattle here is fed in the barn. Grass grows six to eight feet high in the woods and one person has as much right there as the other. Similarly you can keep as many pigs as you wish, and you need not feed them. The same is true of chickens… We do not want to go on, for we can live here like lords.

There are many other good examples in these books of how such systems were effective and some of their drawbacks and other tradeoffs.

Laura said:
Críostóir said:
The global population is exponentially rising and with it, is technological advancement.

More food and goods can be manufactured and produced today with far fewer workers than previously, due to robotics and agricultural technology.

Those two sentences above effectively cancel each other out.

They don't cancel each other out from where I am sitting. That is what is going on, that is what we're looking at from what I'm seeing anyway. Perhaps I just don't quite understand what you are getting at.

Laura said:
And actually, there is a limit to food production and resources and we have already not only used up what was "ours", but have used up most of what belongs to future generations. You might want to read Lierre Keith's book "The Vegetarian Myth" and some of the sources she refers to about the limits to growth and how we have basically pillaged the planet and what is going on now is, ultimately, resource struggles/wars.

I totally agree.

Laura said:
The fact is that life force is being preserved in a lot of people who have no quality of life whatsoever. I don't think that's an improvement. And mortality rates have not declined. Don't know where you are getting you stats, but they are wrong.

Mortality rates have declined and populations have increased. I have given the sources of my statistics and I have no compelling reason to suspect that they are grossly inaccurate at this time. Now, I don't know where you are getting your stats, so I cannot compare them. But, based on the information I have, my statement is logical.

But, I also agree with you that a lot of people in the world that have no quality of life, especially when compared to others. You may find this article interesting:

http://www.economist.com/news/21566430-where-be-born-2013-lottery-life
 
The so-called technical gains in agriculture are not really “technical” at all. For every food calorie that U.S. agriculture gets out, there are ten calories of fossil fuel that go in. This model was spread all over the world in the so-called “green revolution,” and it is unsustainable. Things that cannot go on forever, don’t go on forever.

I don’t care to go into a lot of detail about life expectancy, but there are some simple facts, such as a poor country like Cuba having a much lower infant mortality rate than the U.S. and that roughly 27,000 people in the U.S. died because they had no health care coverage. Figures like that should raise flags. The number of fire arms fatalities in the U.S. is way over the top, and should also be cause for concern.

Back to Political Ponerology, the thesis in my book was that “the mask was off” the Pathocracy when JFK was assassinated. There is no doubt that it was a coup that went to the highest levels of government. I went into this in enough detail in my book and other authors have also done so, such as Mark Lane, Laura, and several others that this is now an established fact. My take was also that it was in a most public place, in front of the whole world, to make the point that “If we can kill the U.S. President in broad daylight we can kill anyone.” Also, I believe the message to all of America was that “You do not run this country, we do.”

Lyndon Johnson reversed just about everything that JFK was doing and in most cases he took a 180 degree turn. He did these things within days, and sometimes hours of being sworn in. He set the American ship of state on a course correction and back to racism, militarism, and genocide and the U.S. has not deviated from this to this day. But at least LBJ went to the trouble of lying to us. The presidents now don’t even bother except maybe when they are campaigning. Once in office, forget it. Not only did Obama not fulfill one of his campaign promises, but he did not even bother to lie about it. I don’t recall him even saying one word about why he has not closed the torture prisons in Guantanamo. Maybe he did and I missed it, who knows.

The last two presidents apparently think that killing thousands of people, including American GI’s is something to joke about. George W. Bush did a little skit where he make quips about looking for weapons of mass destruction and everyone was supposed to laugh. Although many reporters thought that was real funny, I doubt that any of the families that lost a family member because Bush and his goons said there were “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq that threatened the entire world thought it was funny. Of course it turned out that there was not one single weapon of mass destruction, so I guess the joke is on us. And Obama apparently thinks that sending drones to kill people is funny. This has more than offended the entire world but these preposterous fools are so out of touch that they don’t even know that, or maybe they do. Maybe they are also telling us not to get any silly ideas like politicians are answerable to the people.

We also had the likes of an attorney general by the name of Alberto Gonzales who stated that the US Constitution did not “give the American people the writ of habeas corpus.” Of course it didn’t you jack-ass. That would be the Magna Carta that delineated this right over 700 years ago. Further, Alberto, you might want to read the Declaration of Independence again, because you might have missed something the first time. There is something about rights not being given by any document or government – something about rights being “endowed by their (our) creator….” There are a few smart people who seem to think this is important in that since governments do not give rights, they have no right to take them away. Odd that the attorney general of the United States did not know this, or at least thinks we don’t know that.
We are at a point now that these pathocrats seem to think they can lie, cheat, steal, murder, and just do anything they please with no consequences. This is a sad state of affairs.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
One has to be careful using official sources for data. They can and do "cook the numbers."
 
Re: Political Ponerology 'The Book' -- Ponerology and Global Collapse

One of the “seeds of destruction” that I followed from Jamestown to the JFK assassination was racism. This is one column of political ponerology that holds up the pathocratic American empire. The contrast between reality and the overwhelming denial of it is an example of what I believe Łobaczewski was talking about when he described the public reaction to political ponerology as “hysteria.”

A contemporary issue that illustrates this all too well is “reparations,” The mere mention of this word evokes a wellspring of irrational emotions across the entire U.S. population. Just say this word and you can turn a room full of people into absolute pandemonium. Most Whites will say that they were not responsible for slavery, so they are not going to pay for it…Latinos say something like “How about us and what we have gone through…” Black are automatically put on the defensive in that it is not possible to explain this issue in an ad-hoc and largely hostile forum. It is curious that those who are not Black automatically jump to only the issue of slavery.

Why is this the assumption when slavery was only the beginning? America started with roughly two hundred fifty years of slavery, and followed this up with ninety years of Jim Crow, sixty years of separate but equal, thirty-five years of “James Crow,” and also racist housing policy. The compounding moral debts of the above are with us now, and America will never be whole until the damage is repaired.
Just the racist housing policy in itself has been shoved right in America’s face but most fail to even see it. A recent article in the Atlantic illustrates this issue very well:

“High levels of segregation create a natural market for subprime lending,” Rugh and Massey write, “and cause riskier mortgages, and thus foreclosures, to accumulate disproportionately in racially segregated cities’ minority neighborhoods.”

Plunder in the past made plunder in the present efficient. The banks of America understood this. In 2005, Wells Fargo promoted a series of Wealth Building Strategies seminars. Dubbing itself “the nation’s leading originator of home loans to ethnic minority customers,” the bank enrolled black public figures in an ostensible effort to educate blacks on building “generational wealth.” But the “wealth building” seminars were a front for wealth theft. In 2010, the Justice Department filed a discrimination suit against Wells Fargo alleging that the bank had shunted blacks into predatory loans regardless of their creditworthiness. This was not magic or coincidence or misfortune. It was racism reifying itself. According to The New York Times, affidavits found loan officers referring to their black customers as “mud people” and to their subprime products as “ghetto loans.”

“We just went right after them,” Beth Jacobson, a former Wells Fargo loan officer, told The Times. “Wells Fargo mortgage had an emerging-markets unit that specifically targeted black churches because it figured church leaders had a lot of influence and could convince congregants to take out subprime loans.”

In 2011, Bank of America agreed to pay $355 million to settle charges of discrimination against its Countrywide unit. The following year, Wells Fargo settled its discrimination suit for more than $175 million. But the damage had been done. In 2009, half the properties in Baltimore whose owners had been granted loans by Wells Fargo between 2005 and 2008 were vacant; 71 percent of these properties were in predominantly black neighborhoods.

If you ask Americans what caused the global crash of 2008, I doubt that institutionalized racism that goes back to the very beginnings of America would be the most frequent answer, and this just happened! In fact you might not hear it at all. The continuous denial of reality in this area is emblematic of the hysteria put forth in Political Ponerology. This is why America is undergoing unavoidable collapse, and is also leading the way for a just as inevitable global collapse of epic proportions.

America’s legacy of racism, genocide, and militarism has fueled the tremendous economic “gains” of the last two hundred years. However, this process is not only unsustainable but is fueling the inevitable global collapse that we are just now starting to wrap our minds around, some of us that is. These “gains” for a small minority of mankind have resulted from an outright destructive assault on global resources and the environment. This assault is unprecedented not only in the history of mankind, but the planet has never seen anything like this. Sure, there have been mass extinctions before, but the one we are now in is likely to be the most destructive ever. Half of the species on the planet will not be here at the end this century, and no, life cannot adapt in one hundred years or even one thousand to the changes that are happening. The planet will recover but most estimates put it at about a million years from now. The question is whether or not there will be any human beings left on the planet at all.

If you go stick a strip of litmus paper in the ocean it will come out a different color than it did fifty years ago. Acidification, deoxyification, and rising water temperatures have started a mass-extinction in the world’s oceans right now. This is happening and it cannot be refuted. It is also only one factoid in the entire picture and of course this and all of the other factoids are being denied by those dependent on the present capitalist system.

Throughout history the elite of collapsing societies have believed that they would be somehow exempt from the results of their own disastrous policies. All empires have continued to go forward with what worked in the past even when the “signs of the times” clearly indicated that these strategies were no longer working. The elite all went down with everyone else. You just cannot eat money. The difference this time is that it is not a society or an empire that is collapsing. This time the collapse is global.


Mods note: Broke single block into paragraphs for easier reading.
 

Voyageur

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Re: Political Ponerology Book Discussion

obyvatel said:
The Authoritarians


A group of people who come from all walks of life and have certain characteristics are of particular interest in this context. Canadian psychologist Dr Bob Altmeyer’s research ( link ). on the authoritarian personality helps us understand the current social trends in North America, which appears to be going through the progressive hystericization phenomenon in the present, as well as reflect on past trends seen in Europe around the period of the two world wars.

Altmeyer identifies the authoritarians as those who blindly support the established authorities in their society, such as government officials and traditional religious leaders, while exhibiting the following psychological characteristics:
- a high degree of submission to the established authorities in their society
- high levels of aggression in the name of the authorities
- a high level of conventionalism.

[...]

Not sure exactly what thread to mention this in, so hopefully this makes some sense as it links to obyvatel's discussion here on Altmeyer.

Traveling, I've been listening to Altmeyer's audio version of his book The Authoritarian Followers (lent to me), and after reading his book, the audio offers the listener a very animated way of hearing his words (he's pretty funny really considering the subject), with many additional items and subtleties not in his book - great for traveling in a vehicle.

Sometimes you catch things differently when presented in alternate mediums. Of this type of follower, it can be brought down to two specific traits, according to Bob. He emphasized people high on the RWA chart seemed (his words) to have received a "3 for 1 special on fear... and especially on self righteousness." He also discusses followers as being equated with people who "missed" variegated experiences in life - he says much more.

If interested, he said he worked with Cherry Hill Publishing (basically at cost) to release it. _http://www.cherryhillpublishing.com/Bookstore/search?orderby=position&orderway=desc&search_query=Authoritarians&submit_search=
 
Yes Voyageur and thanks for sharing that. Fits in with "exo and endoskeletons that has also been mentioned here. This description of Authoritarians answers some puzzling questions about how these people think, if you can call it that. You see these clowns in Congress talking about unemployment, foodstamps, etc. and they always come up with the same rationalizations as to why they are opposed to anything that helps people in hard times. It always goes something like this: "If we "give" them food and/or money, they won't have to work...." Anyone who has ever been on unemployment, and I have been, can tell you that this is B.S., but I think these people are projecting how THEY think. They have to be told what to do and forced to work. They don't get any pleasure out of doing right things. Right and wrong is not what motivates them, it is doing what is EXPECTED of them that keeps them going. They think that being forced and told what to do is what motivates everyone, and that no one else cares about right or wrong because they don't.

I have always thought it was strange when you see public figures who rail against homosexuals, and then it turns out that they are gay themselves. This happens a lot, especially with ministers, clergy, and politicians. These are the same ones who claim that people consciously decide their sexual orientation. Tom Hartman made the point that these people who love to pass judgment on others have spent their lives forcing themselves to act "straight." So they think that because they consciously have had to force themselves into marrying, having children, and all the other ostensibly heterosexual behaviors, that everyone else has to, or should be doing the same thing. I never thought of it this way.

I think these types of people also use the classic defense mechanism of projection to protect themselves and also persecute others. It appears now that the psychopaths in the CIA were able to convince the U.S. public that the Soviets were the ones doing what actually the CIA was doing, such as take over the world, mind control programs, etc. Everything they said about "those terrible Russians" they were actually doing. Interesting stuff.
 

anka

The Living Force
I am struggling with translation of the title "A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes".

Could you tell me what 'adjusted for political purposes' relates to? Science or evil?

In my view both ways make sense in my language. After discussion within our team I decided to ask here to make sure we understand it correctly.
 

Persej

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
anka said:
I am struggling with translation of the title "A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes".

Could you tell me what 'adjusted for political purposes' relates to? Science or evil?

In my view both ways make sense in my language. After discussion within our team I decided to ask here to make sure we understand it correctly.

Evil. At least, that is how it's officially translated in my language.
 

anka

The Living Force
Persej said:
anka said:
I am struggling with translation of the title "A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes".

Could you tell me what 'adjusted for political purposes' relates to? Science or evil?

In my view both ways make sense in my language. After discussion within our team I decided to ask here to make sure we understand it correctly.

Evil. At least, that is how it's officially translated in my language.

So it is 'evil adjusted for political purposes', right? And ponerology is the science about the nature of that particular matter. That's how I perceive it as well. See what others might say.
 

Persej

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
anka said:
So it is 'evil adjusted for political purposes', right? And ponerology is the science about the nature of that particular matter. That's how I perceive it as well. See what others might say.

That's right. That is what they say in the description: "Political ponerology is a science about the nature of evil that has been adapted for political purposes."
 

T.C.

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Persej said:
anka said:
So it is 'evil adjusted for political purposes', right? And ponerology is the science about the nature of that particular matter. That's how I perceive it as well. See what others might say.

That's right. That is what they say in the description: "Political ponerology is a science about the nature of evil that has been adapted for political purposes."

To me it's like this:

'Ponerology' is the science of the nature of evil.

'Political Ponerology' is the science of the nature of evil when applied to politics, when used as the lens to view politics through, when used as a discipline that can be applied to politics.

So for me, the 'adjusted' applies to the science part, not the evil part.

I'd be glad to know the actual answer now, as I never thought about it being read the other way.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
It is the science that is adjusted for political purposes.

In other words, the science of the psychology of evil, which is most usually applied to individuals, is extrapolated to apply to social and political situations.

The Science of Evil -> adjusted or modified so that it does not apply just to individuals, but to larger groups and how they interact.
 

anka

The Living Force
Laura said:
It is the science that is adjusted for political purposes.

In other words, the science of the psychology of evil, which is most usually applied to individuals, is extrapolated to apply to social and political situations.

The Science of Evil -> adjusted or modified so that it does not apply just to individuals, but to larger groups and how they interact.

Thank you for that explanation, Laura. Makes perfect sense now. And thank you, Persej and T.C., for your input :)
 
Top Bottom