Ponerology in Action: Claiming Political Ponerology is Anti-Semitic

[anart]

suumcuique, your choice of Charles VI of France indicates that you do not have the slightest idea of what Lobaczewski discusses in his book. Charles VI was mentally disturbed; Lobaczewski is discussing psychopathy. They are two different things. The pathology that he is analysing is different from the pathology of a figure like Charles VI. Until you can recognise the difference, there is no point in discussing the matter.

As you say, "Terminology is essential. "

Are you trying to say that someone mentally disturbed is not a psychopath?

Yes,in the context in which you are asking. Had you actually read Ponerology you might understand that. I think it would be best if you stop posting on matters that you clearly do not understand.

 

[Laura]

Are you trying to say that someone mentally disturbed is not a psychopath?

Psychopaths are quite definitely NOT mentally disturbed. You clearly have not a single clue what Lobaczewski - and other psychopathy experts - are talking about. The psychopath is so mentally normal that he makes normal people feel inadequate.

Take some time out and read: "The Mask of Sanity", "Without Conscience", "The Sociopath Next Door," "Snakes in Suits" and then "Political Ponerology." If all of that doesn't make things clear to you, then there's no point in discussing further on this forum.

 

[StrangeCaptain]

suumcuique, your choice of Charles VI of France indicates that you do not have the slightest idea of what Lobaczewski discusses in his book. Charles VI was mentally disturbed; Lobaczewski is discussing psychopathy. They are two different things. The pathology that he is analysing is different from the pathology of a figure like Charles VI. Until you can recognise the difference, there is no point in discussing the matter.

As you say, "Terminology is essential. "

Are you trying to say that someone mentally disturbed is not a psychopath?

Of course, that is exactly what he is saying. Psychopathology is definitely not a catch-all term for all psychological disturbances and mental diseases. If you can't take the time to learn the vocabulary we use here, why do you lecture us about terminology?

 

[suumcuique]

Are you trying to say that someone mentally disturbed is not a psychopath?

Psychopaths are quite definitely NOT mentally disturbed. You clearly have not a single clue what Lobaczewski - and other psychopathy experts - are talking about. The psychopath is so mentally normal that he makes normal people feel inadequate.

Take some time out and read: "The Mask of Sanity", "Without Conscience", "The Sociopath Next Door," "Snakes in Suits" and then "Political Ponerology." If all of that doesn't make things clear to you, then there's no point in discussing further on this forum.

I made it crystal clear

I'm only quoting from Lobaczewski's website (as well from his blog), since I could not be bothered to order a book whose premisses are to a large extent a rehash, only far more subtle, of the Semitic postulates of XXth centutry Jewish criminologists and psychiatrists, such as Adorno

Actually, I have just read again http://www.ponerology.com/, which, admittedly, contains in nuce 'Ponerology'. How well written (or, at least, translated). How brilliant. he's got some points, some excellent points :

for example, a strong belief that all humans are born equal and created in God's image can lead to an "egalitarian" acceptance of pathological individuals and their distorted world view. Similar dynamics occur with strong beliefs in freedom of speech, freedom to pursue happiness, the "goodness" of humankind, etc.

, a typically modern dynamics that took shape in the XIXth century and that the historical European right-wing in the XIXth, followed by National Socialism, Fascism, and all other contemporary European far-right forces, fought, in the name of a qualitative, hierarchical, and differentiated traditional society. This didn't prevent the author from putting a photo of A. Hitler on the cover of his book (true, commercially speaking, A. Hitler's photo is more effective), and from giving a link to an article called 'The Danger of American Fascism' (http://www.sott.net/articles/show/137960-The+Danger+of+American+Fascism), where Fascism is described as "a worldwide disease", and whose only excuse is to have been written in 1944, 65 years before the rise of O'Bamania.

The following statement is also very true :

The group's stated goals are often at variance with its true nature. Colorful literature and humanitarian values often mask its true motivations. Take, for example, the disparity between the CIA's stated goals, such as "Creating special, multidisciplinary centers to address such high-priority issues such as nonproliferation, counterterrorism, counterintelligence, international organized crime and narcotics trafficking, environment, and arms control intelligence", and its widespread use of terrorism, torture, overthrowing democratically elected governments, installing foreign dictators, drug trafficking, arms smuggling, etc. Also, compare the public humanitarian front of the Anti-Defamation League with its sordid history of illegal domestic surveillance, character assassination, and collaboration with foreign spy organizations

On the other hand, National-Socialism's stated main goals were always in line with the true nature of the leadership : the racial, political, economical, and social policy of the Third Reich, for most of it, was clearly and openly stated by its leaders, and known by all German citizens.

It's not just that lie and deceit are at the heart of the pathocracy's thougts, words, and actions. It's also that it portrays itself as the only bearer of Truth while portraying its objective adversary as a compulsive liar. For instance, everyone knows, almost by heart, the motto "the bigger the lie, the more it will be believed ", and is convinced that it was devised by A. Hitler, or perhaps by Goebbels. Countless books and web sites have assured them that it can be found in 'Mein Kampf', or perhaps in one of Goebbels' speeches. The truth is that neither Hitler, nor Goebbels said such a thing. What Goebbels said is this : "One
should not as a rule reveal one's secrets, since one does not know if and when one may need them again. The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous." In other words, he merely described an English's principle - not his.

I clearly said that Charles VI of France is a borderline case, which, however, was found worth studying by a psychiatrist. In passing, one may wonder why he was always totally lucid when the young woman whom Isabeau had entrusted with the task of entertaining him, so that he ended up 'climaxing himself to death', was with him.

The author keeps referring to what he calls "normal people". If those people are so "normal", how come they accept the social and political goal set up by the psychopaths in power? In occupied Europe, it's been 65 years that "normal people" have been accepting the social and political goals of the various henchmen, whether of the liberal or of the leftist brand, which have been pitchforked by the occupying forces into presidential jobs all across Europe. No matter how clearly, for example, the Brittish National Party expresses its will to give jobs to Brittish people only and to send back home immigrants who take their jobs, millions of unemployed Brittish nationals are still not willing to vote for them and will keep voting for anti-national parties, no matter what, until they, and Great Britain with them, die.

Does 'Ponerology' deal also with masochism?

 

[StrangeCaptain]

suumcumique,

Several people have pointed out that you don't seem to know what psychopathy is. Your last post did not address this at all. You can't better understand "Political Ponerology" without having a better understanding of psychopathy. Several books to ameliorate hat were suggested.

 

[Joe]

Unless I'm mistaken, if something is held to be "pathologic and diseased" and the evidence it is based on is sound from the point of view of psychological health, then one must take a serious look at what is seen as "normal and natural." In the death camps it was normal and natural to swing little jewish boys by their feet into a pit, laughing and shooting him at the same time. It was normal and natural to take babies and toddlers by their feet and bash their brains out on a wooden post, or in German homes, drown them in a toilet.

All I can say in this respect is that, as far as I'm concerned, I would never post onto a forum a description of my private sexual fantasies.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this comment above. Are you suggesting that the above description of life in the death camps is somehow representative of Buddy's sexual fantasies? If so, it's evidence of your own pathology.

 

[go2]

The slaughter of innocents is indicative of the depths of depravity of psychopaths in their war on normal humanity. The slaughter of children in the Holocaust is NOT unique to the German people, as we see in the targeting of children today, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Gaza. Buddy's description of the murder of children in the death camps , while no doubt accurate, is a selective description of slaughter, used to demonize the German people in the Holocaust propaganda campaign waged by Zionist pathologicals as they seek to perpetrate genocide in Palestine behind the emotional shield of the Holocaust. There were approximately 60,000,000 human beings slaughtered in WW2, I think all the dead should be considered victims of the Holocaust, not just Jews who were murdered. This claim of unique suffering or victim status depending upon ethnicity is racism, plain and simple.

It is interesting how far this thread has drifted from the subject of the claim that Political Ponerology is anti-semitic. The Zionist propaganda machine is concerned with manipulating public opinion and emotions to protect the psychopaths hidden behind the Zionist front from exposure by the knowledge of Political Ponerology. The ponerized nature of the Zionist ideology and political apparatus can be understood and resisted by the knowledge of psychopaths and their infiltration of organizations and affiliations for their own benefit.

This special exemption from decent human behavior and international law claimed by Israel, based on the Holocaust mythology cannot be exposed by ridicule or insult; but by the methodical examination of evidence within a historical framework. This seems a hopeless task, as the emotional arguments obscure the issue at hand. The Holocaust mythology is now determining peoples right to free discussion of this issue and its place in history, by legal restriction and by mind control technique based on diverting the search for knowledge by triggering an emotional response, rather than an examination of evidence and context.

Edit:Additional comment

On the other hand, National-Socialism's stated main goals were always in line with the true nature of the leadership : the racial, political, economical, and social policy of the Third Reich, for most of it, was clearly and openly stated by its leaders, and known by all German citizens.

Yes, the Zionist leadership and the National-Socialist leadership are birds of a feather, their true nature is psychopathic!

 

[suumcuique]

It sounds like I'm far from being the only to find the author's use of the word 'normal' rather awkward :

One enormous problem I have with Lobaczewski's elucidation of his theory is his use of "normal" to describe people who are not sociopaths. I wish he had used a different term since "normal" is so amorphous and laden with the naïve assumption that there is such a thing as a human being who is not dysfunctional in at least one aspect of his/her life

http://carolynbaker.net/site/content/view/440/

 

[StrangeCaptain]

For myself, as someone who was excessively proud of his eccentricities, I was turned off initially by the word "normal" because I so badly wanted to be special. If we define in really rough layman's terms that psychopathy is a lack of conscience (and yes, there are plenty of details involved in exploring the concept of conscience), then L. defines psychopathy as the lack thereof. Then we can define normal as having or having the potential to have a conscience.

He does not claim, far from it in fact, that all non-psychopaths are entirely sane, but the point of the book is not to discuss every mental aberration or psychological quirk a person can have. It would be a 30,000 page book if that were the case. The point of the book is to discuss how such a small percentage of the population can have such a disproportionate influence on everyone else. This influence is based some of the weaknesses and psychological states of the "normal." I think your objections are more than addressed in the book, but it seems you can't be bothered to read it before trying to discuss it with us. IMO a few excerpts are not enough.

And as has been mentioned, it appears this thread has derailed a bit. There are plenty of threads where the basic concept of psychopathy is discussed. And you still have not addressed any of the points that have been made to you...

 

[Buddy]

It is interesting how far this thread has drifted from the subject of the claim that Political Ponerology is anti-semitic.

I'll take responsibility for the drift.

The Zionist propaganda machine is concerned with manipulating public opinion and emotions to protect the psychopaths hidden behind the Zionist front from exposure by the knowledge of Political Ponerology.

I agree 100%. And "manipulating public opinion and emotions" can be further specified with examples from the historical record that reveal the domination/sadism/masochism trio lying dormant in many folks due to the programming from their life experiences.

Psychopaths rarely do their own dirty work from what I understand. Claiming Political Ponerology is Anti-Semitic is just one of the attacks that can be expected. Having some idea of the programming inside us and others may help us to understand what's going on when someone points the finger at a target, and people who already need an outlet for the pressure they're under, happily go about blind-siding PP supporters while trance-thinking they're protecting the world from some kind of terrorist. Knowledge protects, as the C's say.

 

[domi]

It sounds like I'm far from being the only to find the author's use of the word 'normal' rather awkward :

One enormous problem I have with Lobaczewski's elucidation of his theory is his use of "normal" to describe people who are not sociopaths. I wish he had used a different term since "normal" is so amorphous and laden with the naïve assumption that there is such a thing as a human being who is not dysfunctional in at least one aspect of his/her life

_http://carolynbaker.net/site/content/view/440/

Given how a psychopath's brain is different from regular human beings, a distinction by use of the word normal is quite reasonable.

 

[vinny]

Psychopaths rarely do their own dirty work from what I understand. Claiming Political Ponerology is Anti-Semitic is just one of the attacks that can be expected. Having some idea of the programming inside us and others may help us to understand what's going on when someone points the finger at a target, and people who already need an outlet for the pressure they're under, happily go about blind-siding PP supporters while trance-thinking they're protecting the world from some kind of terrorist. Knowledge protects, as the C's say.

what's interesting is that the act of claiming Political Ponerology is anti-Semitic, as actually an anti-Semitic act itself, because it would make the implication that Semites are all psychopaths!

So, along that line of thinking, it should be possible to defend Political Ponerology from this kind of attack by using anti-Semitism law... (not that this would work in practice, I'm sure, but it's a nice 'naughty' thought of using the system against itself...)

 

[Approaching Infinity]

To realise this, all one should need to do is to ask the following simple question : did they act in the interests of their people, of their country - which is the least that can be expected from the head of a country - or not?

One of the points of Ponerology is that the type of question you ask above isn't necessarily relevant, what matters is a person's nature. A psychopath can do some good things for a country, and a non-psychopath can do really bad things for a country. But a psychopath never changes and has a corrupting influence that the vast majority of humans do not have. Ponerology focuses on those negative effects that psychopaths, specifically, (in league with other individuals who may or may not be psychopathic) have in politics and the systems of government they create, e.g. "Nazism", "Soviet Communism", etc.

in this respect, one cannot help suspecting that 'normality' is used as a synonym for 'mediocrity' in 'Ponerology'. If the term 'normality' is to be used, then it should be part, not of a two-part, but of a three-part equation : infra-normality - normality - supranormality (or whatever Latin prefix you chose that conveys the same idea) .

Lobaczewski simply uses "normal" to describe any person lacking a genetic or acquired (via brain trauma or functional brain damage) personality defect. According to this definition, 94% of people are "normal", 6% are abnormal, based on the criteria I just listed.

For example, Augustus' pathological fear of thunder did not prevent him from being one of the greatest administrative geniuses of history. Diseased tendencies can be found in very human being - especially in our age, given the heavy heredity of most of the indivuals who are born in it - as well as healthy ones. When the former prevails upon the latter, an individual can legitimately be called a psychopath. In other types of individuals, however, the latter reigns supreme and check the former.

Here you're confusing dangerous pathologies (e.g. psychopathy, schizoidia, BPD, etc) with "normal", dissociative ones (they used to be called "neuroses").

When stating that "In conjunction with part of the elite, a group of psychopathic individuals hiding behind the scenes steers the leader, the way Borman and his clique steered Hitler", the author must be referring, either to 'Hitler's Traitor', or to other books based on the same evidence. Now, that evidence is, to say the least, flimsy. More evidence exists that Canaris was THE actual traitor. Anyway, Borman, as Reich leader and as the head of the Party Chancellery, was not, by definition, "behind the scenes".

Read Hare and Babiak's Snakes in Suits for an idea of what "behind the scenes" means in this context. A better example is how Beria influenced Stalin. Whether overt or covert, private or public, the dynamic is of one manipulating (the psychopath) and one manipulated (usually the "leader", i.e. Hitler and Stalin). Gilbert's book Psychology of Dictatorship goes into some detail on how Hitler's own delusions and obsessions were manipulated and exploited by psychopaths in his clique.

In that sense, they will always remain prisoners of the image, made out of magic, of A. Hitler as 'pure evil' that they created in order to show themselves as the 'good guys' and to maintain their pseudo-legitimacy, no matter how hard they try to replace it with the MI5/CIA-engineered so-called 'Muslim peril'.

Have you considered that they are/were BOTH evil? Hitler was an obvious paranoid, obviously delusional, obviously lacked compassion, obviously ego-maniacal. Lobaczewski makes an interesting observation in ponerology: the people that are "seduced" by a paranoid tend to be youths, people who have been victims of pathological people, and those who themselves are similarly pathological. Most other people can easily recognize the paranoid. He comes across as "crazy", manic, obsessed, delusional, vulgar, heartless, etc. It may help to ask yourself how and why you have come to accept an individual like Hitler as someone to be accepted.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Leaving aside some of these gossips (have you actually checked the references of the references?), this article only proves the point I tried to make yesterday : what is seen as normal and natural by a given people may be held as pathologic and diseased by another given people.

Alternately, have you considered that certain cultures are more or less pathological, based on the degree and number of pathologies present in the "culture creators" who have influence? The human instinctive substratum (the genetic "stuff" that MAKES us human) is the same in every culture. It has the same variations, the same norms, etc. You'll find the same values in every culture, in every epoch. But you'll also find variation. That's the pathology showing itself. Jewish culture is highly schizoidal, because of the large number and influence of schizoids. Nazi culture was highly paranoid and psychopathic. American culture is highly hysterical and psychopathic.

Certain cultural norms are relativistic. These are the ones that have relatively little to do with emotional knowledge, like manners of greeting, table manners, etc. Some people may be morally repulsed by other cultures' practices, but that comes down more to their own egotism than truly "different" morals. When it comes down to it, human morality IS universal, it's just that it is emotional in nature, thus it depends on CONTEXT. And there is the influence of pathology. Any two highly developed individuals (i.e. morally developed), from any country or epoch, will have more in common with each other than they would have with a psychopath from their respective place and time.

 

[Buddy]

what's interesting is that the act of claiming Political Ponerology is anti-Semitic, as actually an anti-Semitic act itself, because it would make the implication that Semites are all psychopaths!

So, along that line of thinking, it should be possible to defend Political Ponerology from this kind of attack by using anti-Semitism law... (not that this would work in practice, I'm sure, but it's a nice 'naughty' thought of using the system against itself...)

Yeah, that kind of 'naughty' thought occurs to me often. I happen to like that technique. I enjoy seeing it in action and learning from it in discussions. It works as long as the participants are open to learning...are really trying to understand. Of course, the problem with most emotion-based arguments is that they seem to be set up as zero sum games.

You MUST lose and 'they' MUST win, at whatever cost, even to the point of absurdity.

If some of the discussions that have taken place on this forum had been taking place on a talk show, you could get to the point where you're about ready to tighten the ring of logic and you find yourself vectored off into some other area, (like that statement suumcumique made that Perceval asked about, and that still hasn't been answered) breaking your concentration to give 'them' time to demonstrate that characteristic drugged-up, head-lolling smirk that subliminally suggests to the audience: "see...I told you so...", as if everyone is in collusion against you.

That's probably the real reason you don't see many people with the brain power of the SOTT team, sitting in on a mainstream "news show" (so-called). It's a no-win from the get-go, because rational discussion was never the point.