Question about Zionism in regard to Lobaczewski

[palestine]

Hello,

I have a question in mind for a while - it's about Zionism - and a very similar one for Hitler, too.

I am trying to match the model that Lobaczewski taught, in regard of the ponerization process, and leading to a pathocracy.

Basically, from what I have in mind, it starts with an ideology of some sort; such pool attracts deviants, the movement grows, we see the progressive discarding of the original guys, to finally spectate hard core psychos in charge of the whole. They would keep the original ideology's name.

But here it is: in the case of Zionism, is this model applicable? I know that Lobaczewski has room for variations of the models leading to a pathocracy. Somehow, I see Zionism as quite psychopathological enough in it's basics. This hint at a fundational presence of psychopaths.

I am asking the question to understand how I should consider today's Zionists (specifically): are those actually the hard psychos (and so there may have been "sincere Zionists" at the start)? It has been a while that those Zionists are around, so their "ideology" *should* logically have been undergoing a basic ponerization process, since the time. It's too damaging for seeing zero evolution towards psychopathy. And so, I would like to know if I have to consider Zionism as a "naïve ideology" - or if things differ. Please.

In the case of Hitler, the same question comes to my mind. Hitler, it seems, came by and remained until the end - well - he remained the guy from the start to the end, and in the end, he was segregating Jews and was very damaging. There was quite a macro scale. How to adapt Lobaczewski's model, in this case? I don't see "some guy becoming discarded along the process", and if we were to study things around an ideology - we see Hitler's ideas as being consistent from the start to the end. There is no change of power, somehow.

I am curious if we should, as well, label Hitler's peak as "pathocratic". I believe so but I am not sure.

Thank you in advance for any help on the topic!

 

[Ben]

A better way to look at this is probably that Zionism is the 'trojan horse' ideology which allows a Pathocracy like Israel to become as advanced as it has.

Nazism is similar, there are many parallels. But each pathocracy will be a result of a unique set of circumstances. The underlying principle is pathology, and the exclusion of non-pathology, in power.

 

[palestine]

The underlying principle is pathology, and the exclusion of non-pathology, in power.

Thank you this helps!

But each pathocracy will be a result of a unique set of circumstances.

I would agree with circumstances being each time unique in terms of "variables" - but is it in term of generic theory? Asking

Thank you for having taken the time to answer my question!

 

[Approaching Infinity]

But here it is: in the case of Zionism, is this model applicable? I know that Lobaczewski has room for variations of the models leading to a pathocracy. Somehow, I see Zionism as quite psychopathological enough in it's basics. This hint at a fundational presence of psychopaths.

He points out that most pathocratic ideologies were created by schizoids, and Jews have the most schizoids. So, just like communism, zionism started out as a pathologically tainted ideology.

In the case of Hitler, the same question comes to my mind. Hitler, it seems, came by and remained until the end - well - he remained the guy from the start to the end, and in the end, he was segregating Jews and was very damaging. There was quite a macro scale. How to adapt Lobaczewski's model, in this case? I don't see "some guy becoming discarded along the process", and if we were to study things around an ideology - we see Hitler's ideas as being consistent from the start to the end. There is no change of power, somehow.

I am curious if we should, as well, label Hitler's peak as "pathocratic". I believe so but I am not sure.

The way Lobaczewski saw it, Hitlerism passed the point of no return to technically become a pathocracy, but it never passed through the stage of "maturing" into a full-blown pathocracy. He thought that without the war, the Nazis would have purged their original membership and become more saturated with psychopaths, like happened in the USSR.

 

[palestine]

He points out that most pathocratic ideologies were created by schizoids, and Jews have the most schizoids. So, just like communism, zionism started out as a pathologically tainted ideology.

I had in mind that the initial guys - let's take Trotsky for example - may not be shizoïds - but that their manifesto would be schizoïd. I specifically had in mind that schizoïds would be the first row of psychopaths coming by (and so in my mind, those would be "attracted by the schizoïd manifesto").

Yeah well, I guess that I should study more about the model regarding "how things start" because I know there are different types of pathocracies ("artifically induced", "imposed by force") and that this would be my missing link. Thank you for your help.

From what I know, for communism, there were indeed pathological Jews around Trotsky - some whisperers. I would tend to dissociate the initial guy (this making Trotsky as basically a common person completely blind - idealist etc). Question becomes if it's always the case. I guess that Ben's take above is super generic and can help me. My mind is wired but some of it require refining I see.

The underlying principle is pathology, and the exclusion of non-pathology

I have been reading your second take with great attention too. Thank you, first.

The way Lobaczewski saw it, Hitlerism passed the point of no return to technically become a pathocracy, but it never passed through the stage of "maturing" into a full-blown pathocracy. He thought that without the war, the Nazis would have purged their original membership and become more saturated with psychopaths, like happened in the USSR.

It helps than to figure out the stage of Nazism in the pathocracy model. Thank you.

 

[palestine]

I guess that I have been finding something. Overall, I was trying to find constants of Lobaczewski's theory and trying to match those with Nazism, Zionism. I ended up with "it's an ideology at the start" - but there seems to be variations. It may has to do with the phenomenon in question, as well, which requires to be considered in - hum - a different manner. I am struggling on that one.

So, in addition to Ben's quote:

The underlying principle is pathology, and the exclusion of non-pathology, in power.

I found out the following bit:

p.213

Whenever a nation experiences a “system crisis” or a hyperactivity of ponerogenic processes within, it becomes the object of a pathocratic penetration

And so a generic model, working for both Zionism, Nazism, Capitalism, would be:

• looking for "pathological political power excluding non-pathological people"
• a moment when an [initial] [sane???] "protagonist" (???) becomes the object of a "pathocratic penetration"

For the record, I found some quotes about two types of pathocracy - here there are:

Pathocracy imposed by force
p.214

Through direct contact with the pathocracy, society simultaneously begins to sense that its true content is different from the ideologies disseminated earlier

Artifically Infected Pathocracy
p.216

If a nucleus of this macrosocial pathological phenomenon already exists in the world, always cloaking its true quality behind an ideological mask of some political system,

p.217

an appropriately elaborated revolutionary doctrine reaches its society

p.218

People acting in the name of pathocracy’s interests may effect their activities in parallel, under the banner of some traditional or other ideology, or even with the assistance of a contradictory ideology battling the traditional one.

p.219

Local leaders continue to think along the lines of social revolution, appealing to the political goals they truly believe in.

p.221

The above lapidary description of an infectious imposition of pathocracy indicates that this process repeats all the phases of independent ponerogenesis condensed in time and content.

p.221

A pathocracy thus generated will be more strongly imprinted upon the subjugated country than one imposed by force. At the same time, however, it maintains certain characteristics of its divergent content, sometimes referred to as “ideological” although it is in fact a derivate of the different ethnological substratum upon which its scion was grafted.

The last quote deserves some scruiny by me in order to understand what's exactly happening there:

• a derivate of the
• different ethnological substratum upon which
• its scion was grafted

That's a lot of parameters! I will grow white hairs until I manage to picture all of it clearly!

Still, the above quote is an interesting one in the form of "the different ethnological substratum". This could be Lobaczewski's motto or the title of his book ... "A different ethnological substratum among us".

 

[palestine]

My intimate goal is naïve and would be to be able to provide some bits of texts susceptible to attract the attention of both historians, clinicians & common people. All those have a different way for communicating, but we speak the same language. Lobaczewski's therory is generic and I believe it's a good manual for reality. People should resonate with it, as it matches what we have out there.

And so, I am trying to figure out a way along the big civilizational damages, for now. What takes place seems to be the same thing, over and over.