Question about the US hysteria cycle

[palestine]

When a big number of population believes in lies and promote more lies, it is doomed to repeat and live the same cycle over and over again.
To me, what the US just did, I have the feeling, and bear with me, that it’s actually sort of like an “act of mercy” from the universe, even if it was a terrible or an imperialistic move, but for example, it could be giving to many people and more so to Venezuelan’s the option to SEE the reality of what could be really evil and how the world really works, before it gets really worse. Not sure if I’m very off thinking or looking at it like that.

Yes, I understand your perspective. It may feel outreagous, because at first glance it amounts to picking a side, but your perspective participates from a teleological understanding (What God wants+long term run). C's would say something like "yes - this just happens". They would of course say "we mourn".

I recently discovered the "characteropathy" aspect. It seems to me that all those media lies, wrong perspectives and world views, could be, somehow all put under this banner. I may be wrong. But ultimately, there seems to exist a big chunk of personality shaping. If there exists a precise clinical term for it, I appreciate that because it allows to be precise. Because otherwise people would use "he is going mad", "he did not spot the lie", "he changed I don't know why", "people are sometimes pro Israel".

And the idea is that characteropathy has specific features - so healing, addressing issues. Another idea that which came to mind is the stacking of characteropathies that A. Lobaczewski refers to when he speaks of Wilhelm II in 1890 Germany. I mean - who'd believe that small distorsions of the personality can "lead to Hitler". So, a naïve idea would be that there ever is a stack of some basically characteropathies, that would be possible to "untangle". There may be a "Movie" or a serie of pictures, that could greatly improve the mind.

 

[palestine]

@Approaching Infinity I believe that I understand better according to the following:

"Political ponerology"

Things are different when an active nucleus of this disease already exists and can dominate by means of infection or the imposition of force

If a nucleus of this macrosocial pathological phenomenon already exists

You explained that you wouldn't attach more importance than required, to pathologies present among normal people:

Most of Lobaczewski's description of the hysteroidal cycle is about normal people.

And you added that troubles appear here:

Pathology only becomes critical if/when a ponerogenic group gains power during/after the crisis.

(My feeling was: prior stacking of characteropathy = bad = leading to pathocracy, "reason for pathocracy")

I can reconcile it via the following. I feel that A. Lobaczewski remains very interrogative/perplex, as to the general phenomenon of pathocracy (in itself): he speaks of "a different essence", "what's its essence"; I believe that he explains that it is of a different nature:

No method of propaganda can change the nature of this macrosocial phenomenon or the nature of a normal human being. They remain
foreign to each other.

So overall, I am able to understand your perspective, via the express introduction of a bit of this "foreign essence" - things would become a critical at that point only:

Pathology only becomes critical if/when a ponerogenic group gains power during/after the crisis.

(That's because your take short-wired my perspective so I wanted to follow-up. To become myself more precise and knowledgeable)

The way I get it is that, technically speaking, that's only then that "a nucleus" of "pathocracy" appears.

I am sorry that I have expanded quite a bit on several ideas, and as you expressed a different view, I did not want to leave potential subjective takes without an affidavit

I am not sure that I managed to reconcile the matter. I hope so. Should you tell me your thoughts about it that I would be very happy. Thank you any way for your consideration! I am trying to approach those matters plainly, so trying to progress "bit by bit". That is why I examine all the different "parts" so as to get a cohesive "whole". And this is why, as soon as I spotted "the buildup of characteropathy", I felt "oh - pathology stacks, already, decades before pathocracy appears". It reminded me of the idea of the continuum of evil that A. Lobaczewski expressed:

Evil in the world, in fact, constitutes a continuum: one kind opens the door to another, irrespective of its qualitative essence or the ideological slogans cloaking it.

But it's true that A. Lobaczewski shares the following idea:

If a nucleus of this macrosocial pathological phenomenon already exists

I used to think of pathocracy in terms of 4D alien STS unknown, foreign, exotic - disease (different "nature", a different "essence"). It could be that it works as you said: much pathology can stack, characteropathies, elite turning hysterical, etc etc - and that, at some point, something that did not exist appears, like an injection or apparition of some sort: a "nucleus", a "bit" of pathocracy appears. Without, before, we would not be able to label the context "pathocracy".

So, technically, if pathocracy is something in itself, not relating to normal people pathology (or even this world):

ponerology.substack.com

Pathocracy is a macrosocial expression of psychopathy. It has no fundamental relationship with either zionism or anti-zionism. In other words, a Jewish pathocracy is just as possible as an anti-Jewish pathocracy, or a pathocracy that has no relation to either.

So it has been my idea that pathocracy was something 100% foreign. But I am not sure. What is this "essence" made of, so that it's fundamentally "of a different nature" than normal people? This question has been bugging me for a while.

So that would be how I could understand why characteropathy is not a too relevant matter. Overall, when the Hitler pathocracy kicks, it is possible to go back and find the characteropathy stacking. It would mean that this is what participated to a buildup, and that because of several ulterior elements, this turned wrong. In this case, a pathocratic element appeared, at a later stage, but it could have remained as such.

This indicates that the characteropathy can stack, but that in case of Hitler, it contributed to it. But that it would be precisely because a pathocratic "element" of some sort apepared that it was able to turn into a pathocracy. That's how I would understand it.

I am sorry that I am that "segmented" in my understanding.

 

[Joe]

It's 60% of the number of people who voted, not of eligible voters.

Thought that, but didn't see you mention any turnout figures.

 

[Ruth]

That went up after the operation. Latest polling: 40% support, 42% oppose, 18% unsure.

It can also depend on who is polling and how questions are asked. They can do fake polls to convince people to just 'follow along' and agree with whatever disaster the government is either doing or planning.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

You explained that you wouldn't attach more importance than required, to pathologies present among normal people:

It's not that they're not important, they're just a somewhat different phenomenon than the ones directly related to pathocracy. It's like the quote you included below about one type of evil opening the door to another. Lobaczewski's premise is that the failures of normal people (e.g. during the phases of the secular/hysteroidal cycle prior to crisis) open the door to bigger problems of a different essence (rampant psychopathy).

(My feeling was: prior stacking of characteropathy = bad = leading to pathocracy, "reason for pathocracy")

That's mostly correct. Lobaczewski thought the influence of characteropaths (and prior to that, schizoids) preceded pathocracy. The schizoids write the ideologies that get adopted by the characteropaths, and the psychopaths use the social movements run by characteropaths to take power, turning them into even greater caricatures.

Psychopathy is always present, even in politics. (In Logocracy Lobaczewski argues that democracies tend to attract such types.) What differentiates pathocracy from those other examples is what most people refer to as the totalitarian character of such governments. The psychopath completely saturates the new ruling class, and the influence extends downward through every social stratum.

The way I get it is that, technically speaking, that's only then that "a nucleus" of "pathocracy" appears.

The example behind Lobaczewski's statement was the USSR. The "nucleus" was the Soviet pathocracy, which influenced likeminded revolutionaries and pathocrats all over the world, either through that enigmatic pathocratic "signal" or more directly through political/revolutionary warfare.

I am not sure that I managed to reconcile the matter. I hope so. Should you tell me your thoughts about it that I would be very happy. Thank you any way for your consideration! I am trying to approach those matters plainly, so trying to progress "bit by bit". That is why I examine all the different "parts" so as to get a cohesive "whole". And this is why, as soon as I spotted "the buildup of characteropathy", I felt "oh - pathology stacks, already, decades before pathocracy appears". It reminded me of the idea of the continuum of evil that A. Lobaczewski expressed:

You've got the right idea. The only point I would add is that it's not a sure thing. Characteropathy doesn't always lead to pathocracy. Think of all the revolutionary movements that went nowhere, for example. There needs to be a combination of factors present for the process to take place as Lobaczewski describes it. E.g., a hysteroidal state can open the door to a pathocratic one, but it doesn't always do so.

I am sorry that I am that "segmented" in my understanding.

No worries.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Thought that, but didn't see you mention any turnout figures.

Should've added that. Official turnout was 58% of the electorate, or around 12.4 million people. If the election was manipulated, that number could be accurate (e.g. flipped votes) or inflated (additional fraudulent votes).

 

[palestine]

@Approaching Infinity here is what I had in mind:

Another illustration:

The idea that a prior characteropathic increase is fullly participating, and indissociable, of the later apparition of pathocracy.

(I needed a chart with curves to illustrate my idea - the peaks and downs, above, are not reflecting the thresholds!)

From what I understood, there exists three types of pathocracy and this would be exclusively relating to the "schizoïd model" (that's how I named it, I understand that the name is "primary type" but I am not sure).

(I sometimes see how "pathocracy" is a somehow "organic" disease, so that there may exist more than three types or, better put, I should not restrict my understanding of it via "three models" - but the above appeared, to me, as one fixed/stable scenario)

Note: if you look at this prior settlement of characteropathy, way before hysteria, and that characteropaths later represent the mass of the citizens feeling for the new schizoïd ideology... I would see a mass of citizen, characteropathized at the time, and this would be a match: the prior conditioning would kick back. So, question I was asking is if the latter characteropaths are the same.

But overall, I wanted to show you my idea, how I was seeing things. The idea would be "fully integrating the prior characteropathy phase" into the model.

I would like to thank you for your positive consideration in your posts and I greatly appreciate your inputs. I wanted to show you my idea, double-checking with somebody knowledgeable so that I can have an objective perspective (and correcting mistakes). In the hope, too, of furthering the knowledge of ponerology.