The Protocols of the Pathocrats
- Thread starter Danny
- Start date
G
Guest
Guest
Protocols of the Pathocrats
One thing I believe we have to keep in mind regarding psychopaths and the more organized pathocrats is that whatever knowledge or data they do accumulate is severely restricted by their psychopathic window of perception. It is worth observing that just as Normal People have taken a long time to understand psychopathy even though those who have even begun are few, the pathocrats are under the constant shadow of their own psychopathic bias.
It is this shadow that poses a flaw in their plans and predictions. Indeed, the plans expressed in the Protocols seemed to go smoothly over a period when subtlety was the main means of implementation. This subtlety was not only working because Normal People (i.e. non-psychopaths) were not aware of what was going on, but because there is a large constituency in humanity that craves for security at all costs, even if such is an illusion. These will tolerate any injustice as long as it does not threaten the illusion too much.
The pathocrats have taken advantage of this. In fact, they would not even need to go to too much trouble in discrediting a dissenter, when the complacent around that dissenter would act defensively for them. Why? Because the dissenter threatened the illusion far more than the pathocrats.
The final stage of implementation, however, is far more complex. It entails pathocratic domination that shatters even the illusions of the complacent. Their methods work, and even their limited warfare, until the attempt to make the critical move of reality substitution for everyone.
In that sense the scales would have tipped because the very raison d'etre of the complacency in individuals will have disappeared. Thus, we notice a transition, upon which the pathocrats are not clear at all. On the one hand they control all institution and maintain an illusion to keep people asleep. On the other they shatter the illusion themselves and shock Normal People into paralysis to take over through constant force.
Yet, even Machiavelli stated that it is very difficult to keep people down by force alone. The problem for the pathocrats is that the longer they delay their "shock" the more people are preparing for it. In fact, the pathocrats are a bit confused if we really examine their methods.
On the one hand they try to discredit anyone alerting the public of their plans, and on the other they are spreading information about those very plans. Even if this is mostly disinformation about the way these plans are being implemented it leaves no doubt that something underhanded is going on. They believe that some part of the population will buy into their lies, while another part will be paralyzed by their intimidating hints.
The fact is that if they did strike earlier shock could just as easily have paralyzed the Normal People so the pathocrats could waltz in. Instead they are poking and prodding because their think tanks cannot come up with a guaranteed outcome for any of their game plans.
On the one hand they suffer from damning arrogance confusing their own lack of understanding of normalcy with the psychotic projections from their own psyches, and on the other they are unsure, and hence weak in their own eyes. We must not forget that pathocrats and individual psychopaths place emphasis upon shows of strength and posturing even when they doubt their own capabilities.
They also realize that one they make the critical move there is no turning back. Playing individual groups and countries against each other is all well and good, but if they end up trying to grasp the whole of the world in their clenched fists they end up revealing themselves as a common enemy to all. War is a nice game when you are safe in your underground bunker with your simulations. Its fun to watch fools pound each other to the ground at your behest. But when they end up entering the inevitable arena where they become the undeniable THEM against the obvious US, they tread upon a different path.
They should have moved while they were ahead, i.e. before the Internet became a medium of idea exchange. They underestimate the intelligence of normal people (which fires creatively when necessity demands), and overestimate their own distorted shadow-calculations and predictions of normal and healthy humans, who might as well be aliens to them.
Lobaczewski acknowledges that their knowledge and psychology is false and distorted. The thing is, that distorted psychology is the template upon which they base all their predictions and plans. Certainly, those distortions are smoothed over when populations are divided into classes with conflicting interests, and social illusions are maintained.
The situation, however, changes when they must inevitably reveal themselves and enter the equation for all to see. The cowards conceal themselves, and have become addicted to concealing themselves. They crave to come out in the open and stomp normalcy under their cruel boot. Yet, that wishful thinking and boisterous bragging does not take away from the fact that they are and always will be cowards.
They claim on the one hand that they control all the institutions, economies and ideologies, and on the other they threaten to shatter everything. At the first movement of shattering, however, they will also release normal people from dependency upon their social construct by sheer force of necessity. Psychotics confuse these institutions, and especially the particular forms they have concocted, with reality. They cannot understand that for a healthy person reality is a far deeper and more vibrant concept.
More than that, immunity is being already developed under their noses, just as a body produces antibodies even when in the throws of fever. The final implementation of their plans is a discontinuity in their world view. They have delayed because they can never be sure of the outcome no matter how much they doctor their gaming programs. And the more they delay, the more people get used to the truth.
Shock methods have already been implemented, and the more are implemented the more normal people discard vulnerability to those shocks.
In my view, the Protocols are incredibly useful as a means of reverse psycho-engineering to understand the psychopath and in particular its weaknesses. And when you understand a disease, moving toward a cure is not far behind.
One thing I believe we have to keep in mind regarding psychopaths and the more organized pathocrats is that whatever knowledge or data they do accumulate is severely restricted by their psychopathic window of perception. It is worth observing that just as Normal People have taken a long time to understand psychopathy even though those who have even begun are few, the pathocrats are under the constant shadow of their own psychopathic bias.
It is this shadow that poses a flaw in their plans and predictions. Indeed, the plans expressed in the Protocols seemed to go smoothly over a period when subtlety was the main means of implementation. This subtlety was not only working because Normal People (i.e. non-psychopaths) were not aware of what was going on, but because there is a large constituency in humanity that craves for security at all costs, even if such is an illusion. These will tolerate any injustice as long as it does not threaten the illusion too much.
The pathocrats have taken advantage of this. In fact, they would not even need to go to too much trouble in discrediting a dissenter, when the complacent around that dissenter would act defensively for them. Why? Because the dissenter threatened the illusion far more than the pathocrats.
The final stage of implementation, however, is far more complex. It entails pathocratic domination that shatters even the illusions of the complacent. Their methods work, and even their limited warfare, until the attempt to make the critical move of reality substitution for everyone.
In that sense the scales would have tipped because the very raison d'etre of the complacency in individuals will have disappeared. Thus, we notice a transition, upon which the pathocrats are not clear at all. On the one hand they control all institution and maintain an illusion to keep people asleep. On the other they shatter the illusion themselves and shock Normal People into paralysis to take over through constant force.
Yet, even Machiavelli stated that it is very difficult to keep people down by force alone. The problem for the pathocrats is that the longer they delay their "shock" the more people are preparing for it. In fact, the pathocrats are a bit confused if we really examine their methods.
On the one hand they try to discredit anyone alerting the public of their plans, and on the other they are spreading information about those very plans. Even if this is mostly disinformation about the way these plans are being implemented it leaves no doubt that something underhanded is going on. They believe that some part of the population will buy into their lies, while another part will be paralyzed by their intimidating hints.
The fact is that if they did strike earlier shock could just as easily have paralyzed the Normal People so the pathocrats could waltz in. Instead they are poking and prodding because their think tanks cannot come up with a guaranteed outcome for any of their game plans.
On the one hand they suffer from damning arrogance confusing their own lack of understanding of normalcy with the psychotic projections from their own psyches, and on the other they are unsure, and hence weak in their own eyes. We must not forget that pathocrats and individual psychopaths place emphasis upon shows of strength and posturing even when they doubt their own capabilities.
They also realize that one they make the critical move there is no turning back. Playing individual groups and countries against each other is all well and good, but if they end up trying to grasp the whole of the world in their clenched fists they end up revealing themselves as a common enemy to all. War is a nice game when you are safe in your underground bunker with your simulations. Its fun to watch fools pound each other to the ground at your behest. But when they end up entering the inevitable arena where they become the undeniable THEM against the obvious US, they tread upon a different path.
They should have moved while they were ahead, i.e. before the Internet became a medium of idea exchange. They underestimate the intelligence of normal people (which fires creatively when necessity demands), and overestimate their own distorted shadow-calculations and predictions of normal and healthy humans, who might as well be aliens to them.
Lobaczewski acknowledges that their knowledge and psychology is false and distorted. The thing is, that distorted psychology is the template upon which they base all their predictions and plans. Certainly, those distortions are smoothed over when populations are divided into classes with conflicting interests, and social illusions are maintained.
The situation, however, changes when they must inevitably reveal themselves and enter the equation for all to see. The cowards conceal themselves, and have become addicted to concealing themselves. They crave to come out in the open and stomp normalcy under their cruel boot. Yet, that wishful thinking and boisterous bragging does not take away from the fact that they are and always will be cowards.
They claim on the one hand that they control all the institutions, economies and ideologies, and on the other they threaten to shatter everything. At the first movement of shattering, however, they will also release normal people from dependency upon their social construct by sheer force of necessity. Psychotics confuse these institutions, and especially the particular forms they have concocted, with reality. They cannot understand that for a healthy person reality is a far deeper and more vibrant concept.
More than that, immunity is being already developed under their noses, just as a body produces antibodies even when in the throws of fever. The final implementation of their plans is a discontinuity in their world view. They have delayed because they can never be sure of the outcome no matter how much they doctor their gaming programs. And the more they delay, the more people get used to the truth.
Shock methods have already been implemented, and the more are implemented the more normal people discard vulnerability to those shocks.
In my view, the Protocols are incredibly useful as a means of reverse psycho-engineering to understand the psychopath and in particular its weaknesses. And when you understand a disease, moving toward a cure is not far behind.
Mr. Premise
The Living Force
Protocols of the Pathocrats
I really think you are on to something, here, EsoQuest.
I really think you are on to something, here, EsoQuest.
EsoQuest said:
G
Guest
Guest
Protocols of the Pathocrats
...And the rest of humanity is running hooting and howling through the jungle, convinced by the "apes" that they are only weak "savages", running from the inevitable lobotomy, dissection room, zoo and "ape" trophy rooms. Now I know how Charleton Heston felt!Laura said:
G
Guest
Guest
Protocols of the Pathocrats
Truly, the Pathocratic Protocols are pretty accurate regarding how to take over OP society, and that is why IMO pathocrats promote OP psychology (focusing on OP disfunction) as normal. When the individualized portion of the humans on the "Planet of the Pathocrats" begins to understand their true nature and potential, there is no way the pathocratic think tanks can "model" their behaviour short of the models based on the dynamics of torture.
In their arrogance, furthermore, they have underestimated the OP need for security. You corner a large portion of the OP population all at once and they will stampede once they realize where the cornering influence lies.
In addition, pathocrats can spot an individualized soul a mile away, because the soul expresses empathy, feels compassion, etc, so you find them manipulating emotions and watching out for who sends out signals of sincere response. If you try to fool a pathocrat that has come out of hiding, the pathocrat will try to test you by making you do something against your moral code.
Even so, an individual may be compassionate, but that does not mean he or she has to be naive in the face of manipulation, and like Kenny Rogers can "know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away and know when to run". First you gotta know yourself.
I feel it is important that individuals discover or rather "remember" what it means to be "individualized". It is a state of being that pathocrats can only dimly extrapolate. When you start "remembering" yourself, you learn that you can run circles around pathocratic mentalities, which are severely handicapped and limited if you think about it.
They do sense this, and believe it is why there is so much emphasis on the part of the pathocrats in trying to hypnotize the ensouled "lion" into believing it is just a dumb "sheep" by throwing a sheepskin over it since birth.
The premise is that pathocrats and psychopaths tend to overestimate themselves, while they truly have no realistic reference whatsoever to healthy individuality. All they know is how to train animals. The thing is that most of the panicky reactions and denials in the face of pathocratic threats come from either OP's or individualized souls who identify with them for the sake of belonging or "being normal", or simply because they have forgotten themselves.DonaldJHunt said:
Truly, the Pathocratic Protocols are pretty accurate regarding how to take over OP society, and that is why IMO pathocrats promote OP psychology (focusing on OP disfunction) as normal. When the individualized portion of the humans on the "Planet of the Pathocrats" begins to understand their true nature and potential, there is no way the pathocratic think tanks can "model" their behaviour short of the models based on the dynamics of torture.
In their arrogance, furthermore, they have underestimated the OP need for security. You corner a large portion of the OP population all at once and they will stampede once they realize where the cornering influence lies.
In addition, pathocrats can spot an individualized soul a mile away, because the soul expresses empathy, feels compassion, etc, so you find them manipulating emotions and watching out for who sends out signals of sincere response. If you try to fool a pathocrat that has come out of hiding, the pathocrat will try to test you by making you do something against your moral code.
Even so, an individual may be compassionate, but that does not mean he or she has to be naive in the face of manipulation, and like Kenny Rogers can "know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away and know when to run". First you gotta know yourself.
I feel it is important that individuals discover or rather "remember" what it means to be "individualized". It is a state of being that pathocrats can only dimly extrapolate. When you start "remembering" yourself, you learn that you can run circles around pathocratic mentalities, which are severely handicapped and limited if you think about it.
They do sense this, and believe it is why there is so much emphasis on the part of the pathocrats in trying to hypnotize the ensouled "lion" into believing it is just a dumb "sheep" by throwing a sheepskin over it since birth.
In regards to the Protocols piece
The guys have been away on a research trip since Monday and won't be back until this coming Monday. I've been holding down the fort and doing the Signs page by myself and don't have access to the sott emails until they return.fifthway said:
A
Al_uh_looyah
Guest
In regards to the Protocols piece
but i went to check the site right now, and it didn't come up. Feldman I think was the name of the guy running the place. there was an excellent money flow chart on there.
http://leftgatekeepers.com used to be an interesting site which was extremely critical of Amy Goodman, Pacifica, and how foundations keep the "alternative media" gagged due to $$.Realmhiker said:
but i went to check the site right now, and it didn't come up. Feldman I think was the name of the guy running the place. there was an excellent money flow chart on there.
In regards to the Protocols piece
I just started reading this thread, and came to a certain paragraph that I thought was worth responding. So I wrote it down, otherwise the momentum would have been lost. Only later I sort of skimmed the rest of the thread, and came to realize that what I had written will not entirely distort the evolution of the thread. So see my post as just another perspective. I guess it reinforces what I have been skimming over. I am sure, by now :) that you will understand this Danny ;).
- The subject in this first sentence, namely “Jews” is way too generalizing. What “thing” presents the Jewish heritance these days huh !
- So it is this “thing” you are referring to, and not the Jewish people, when you say that the Jews don’t attempt to answer the facts and threats which POLEZ contain. Here is just one alternative explanation. If the thing “knows” that it has nothing to do with POLEZ, why would it go searching for explaining the facts and/or intents that it has nothing to do with?
- It is also possible that such “thing”, if it knows nothing about the POLEZ, will be too slow, and ignorant to adequately respond to allegations that are going around the world (already quite some time I have to say).
- However, such “thing” that supposedly represents the Jews could also be one of the many representations of how pathocracy is having its “say” in this world. And then it is very evident that the “thing” will never respond to the allegations in a way that it would attempt to answer the facts. Because the POLEZ is almost like the daily work schedule for the pathocracy. Maybe the “thing” will even feel as if caught red handed while reading the POLEZ. Only you can’t blame it to one particular group with a common cultural and/or religious background. The “thing” is everywhere.
Note that there are several “things” in this thread!!
I just started reading this thread, and came to a certain paragraph that I thought was worth responding. So I wrote it down, otherwise the momentum would have been lost. Only later I sort of skimmed the rest of the thread, and came to realize that what I had written will not entirely distort the evolution of the thread. So see my post as just another perspective. I guess it reinforces what I have been skimming over. I am sure, by now :) that you will understand this Danny ;).
So Jews never attempt to answer the facts? But from this I do not deduce the genuineness of the POLEZ, i.e. that the Jews are at the origin of this Machiavellian writing…Danny said:
- The subject in this first sentence, namely “Jews” is way too generalizing. What “thing” presents the Jewish heritance these days huh !
- So it is this “thing” you are referring to, and not the Jewish people, when you say that the Jews don’t attempt to answer the facts and threats which POLEZ contain. Here is just one alternative explanation. If the thing “knows” that it has nothing to do with POLEZ, why would it go searching for explaining the facts and/or intents that it has nothing to do with?
- It is also possible that such “thing”, if it knows nothing about the POLEZ, will be too slow, and ignorant to adequately respond to allegations that are going around the world (already quite some time I have to say).
- However, such “thing” that supposedly represents the Jews could also be one of the many representations of how pathocracy is having its “say” in this world. And then it is very evident that the “thing” will never respond to the allegations in a way that it would attempt to answer the facts. Because the POLEZ is almost like the daily work schedule for the pathocracy. Maybe the “thing” will even feel as if caught red handed while reading the POLEZ. Only you can’t blame it to one particular group with a common cultural and/or religious background. The “thing” is everywhere.
Note that there are several “things” in this thread!!
J
Jupiter Jefferson
Guest
Protocols of the Pathocrats
This is a question to Esoquest. I post it in Pathocrats section since it fits here better than in Hitler thread in Podcast section. You had written the following about varying potentials among human beings (among which some come under OP):
"There were other psychopaths, however, that preached such uniformity; Marx, Lenin, Stalin among them. Ponerology, which is a system of objectification founded on principles of mercy to our fellows, based its conclusions on the complete opposite premise: that belief that humans have identical potential can lead to the perpetuation of not only psychopathic scenarios but also collective pathocracies."
My question is: how do you see Marx and Lenin, specifically, as being psychopaths?
I am interested in take on Marx even more than Lenin. How do you think he falls into this catagory? Did he set up a pathocracy? If so, intentionally? Many think he made a positive contribution. I am not sure of the guy's 'work' overall, or whether he had any manipulative backers or alliances. What's your take?
This is a question to Esoquest. I post it in Pathocrats section since it fits here better than in Hitler thread in Podcast section. You had written the following about varying potentials among human beings (among which some come under OP):
"There were other psychopaths, however, that preached such uniformity; Marx, Lenin, Stalin among them. Ponerology, which is a system of objectification founded on principles of mercy to our fellows, based its conclusions on the complete opposite premise: that belief that humans have identical potential can lead to the perpetuation of not only psychopathic scenarios but also collective pathocracies."
My question is: how do you see Marx and Lenin, specifically, as being psychopaths?
I am interested in take on Marx even more than Lenin. How do you think he falls into this catagory? Did he set up a pathocracy? If so, intentionally? Many think he made a positive contribution. I am not sure of the guy's 'work' overall, or whether he had any manipulative backers or alliances. What's your take?
Mr. Premise
The Living Force
Protocols of the Pathocrats
Personally, I don't think anyone should be allowed to criticize Marx who hasn't carefully read all three volumes of Capital, the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts and the Grundrisse, but that's just me.
I think you can go THROUGH him but you can't go AROUND him and claim to think about economics or capitalism.
But he is one of those seminal thinkers that people feel they can dismiss without really confronting, like Freud, Nietzsche or Derrida.
Now, Lobaczewski seems to think he is "schizoid" but for me, that is separate from the validity of his ideas. Or, to be more specific, whether we can gain from temporarily thinking like him (new neural pathways). Same holds true for Freud, Nietzsche and Derrida and others. Some philosophers have a value far beyond whether they are "right" or "wrong." But too many people want to claim that "Freud was wrong," or "Marx was wrong." R
Rather, we should ask ourselves, "can I learn something from a sympathetic reading of these works? Can something be made from these concepts?
My two cents.
Lenin, though, was a pathocrat, IMO.
Personally, I don't think anyone should be allowed to criticize Marx who hasn't carefully read all three volumes of Capital, the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts and the Grundrisse, but that's just me.
I think you can go THROUGH him but you can't go AROUND him and claim to think about economics or capitalism.
But he is one of those seminal thinkers that people feel they can dismiss without really confronting, like Freud, Nietzsche or Derrida.
Now, Lobaczewski seems to think he is "schizoid" but for me, that is separate from the validity of his ideas. Or, to be more specific, whether we can gain from temporarily thinking like him (new neural pathways). Same holds true for Freud, Nietzsche and Derrida and others. Some philosophers have a value far beyond whether they are "right" or "wrong." But too many people want to claim that "Freud was wrong," or "Marx was wrong." R
Rather, we should ask ourselves, "can I learn something from a sympathetic reading of these works? Can something be made from these concepts?
My two cents.
Lenin, though, was a pathocrat, IMO.
G
Guest
Guest
Protocols of the Pathocrats
I read a lot of Marx in college (in the US) because when I left Greece at the time there was a strong very pro-Soviet communist movement and a lot of people were trying to get me to join the party. IMO all of Marx's criticisms of capitalism were correct. For someone born and raised in a capitalist culture Marx would be superb reading in the same way that understanding paganism would be enlightening to a Christian.
Now mind you, it's been many many years since I ever touched anything written by the man so I only have impressions, and am not qualified for in-depth philosphical discourse. However, my impression of reading Marx is combined with many conversations with people who have studied Marx that lived all their lives in former communist countries. These were both pro and anti-communists.
When I read Marx, I agreed with his views on historic inevitability (if I remember it correctly), but not where that inevitability must lead. I'd like to note that neo-cons also borrow elements from Marxist philosphy. In essence, however, both his understanding of social evolution (to a degree) and his critique on capitalism was sound to me. Yet, Marx was a 19th century materialist, locked in a mechanical paradigm projected on his view of humanity. Things started grating, therefore, when I tried to understand what he had to propose as a solution. I looked at it this way, I looked at it that way, and any way I looked at it it amounted to a human version of a termite society. Everything was in terms of work, workers, productivity.
I agree with Lobaczewski regarding Marx's psychopathy in the sense that no feeling human could propose such a society. That does not mean Marx was not a profound thinker. In the end, however, it was that: a sound mental product that was not coherent with human nature.
Now pro-communists living in the Eastern block claimed that their system was not Marxism at all, but a transition phase, kind of like the excuse dictators give when they overthrow monarchies. These dictators claim they are but a transition to democracy, a transition that never seems to end. So Marx's abstractions inspired revolutions, with the aim of industrial worker-utopias that never went beyond the totalitarian "transition".
Then there are the stories around who funded Marx: Zionist bankers. I have no links to provide, but I am sure that internet searches would be fruitful here. Marx as an individual who only related to the human condition in the abstract, and proposed a system incoherent with human nature. If he was a mathematician plotting coordinate points it would be one thing, but he was trying to map out a rigid social system that only a psychopath or at least someone completely divorced from human reality could think up.
Interestingly enough, his family considered him a good and compassionate man. In any case, thinking Marxism and realistically imagining people living that way are two different things IMO. Personally, I believe in balanced Anarchy, in the sense of total lack of social authority (the original philosophical version). Anarchy is not possible for OP's and one would need a society of evolved or mature individualized people to apply it.
Instead of authority, you may have management or social coordination, but no rulers per se. Morals or the sense of right and fairness would be an outflow from the individual to society and hence reflected back again. The only law would be the law of empathy, and from there people could self-oganize with respect to each other accordingly. Human technical knowledge and awareness could bring society to the point where the actual need for work was minimized without taxing the environment. Materially, free energy, automation, environmentally compatible technology would render human society more oriented toward creative play.
Such societial "utopias" have been viewed as self-destructive by both the captilism and communism, which are worker/production based. Anyway, I digress.
Marx himself IMO set up no pathocracy. He simply provided the intellectual background for pathocracies. He was funded by pathocrats, and he set up an abstract system that pathocrats could manipulate accordingly. Christianity, for example, had to be manipulated and altered to become a pathocratic religion, while Marxism was applied to a certain point. The story of the Russian revolution is a story of Zionist pathocrats competing for power until the non-Zionist Stalin took over. Lenin was only the first of these.
The only contribution Marx made IMO was as a counterpoint to capitalism. His thought combined with capitalism revealed the whole of the pathocratic mechanistic worker/production coin. Understanding the coin allows people to throw it away instead of being ping-ponged back and forth through polarized mirror images.
And yes, one needs a mental filter to study Marx, Freud, Nietzsche, Heidegger and the rest of late 19th and early to mid 20th century European philosphy and psychology. It almost is presented as anathema in intellectual circles to pick and choose points out of these views and weave them together into something new.
Personally, I believe many of these thinkers projected their inner turmoil as some kind of truth. I also believe that many of us in the west are educationally conditioned (certainly not true of the younger generation, which has no clue of such matters), to value these gurus of philosophic, psychological and political thought as the life-blood of our culture.
This might generate a bit of discomfort when combining their names with the word "psychopath", and rightly so. Yet, to me, to understand the congruence between the psychopathic concept (in Lobatczewski's terms) and these icons of western culture can constitute the resolution of the paradox of western culture and historic process, resulting in an epiphany similar to the Zen Satori experience.
It is a deep question IMO because it juxtaposes the "brilliance" of European thought, and the dark reality of European history (regarding the last century and a half). So I agree with DonaldJHunt in part. In other words, let us take the brilliance of the abstraction in one hand and place it side by side with the darkness of application on the other.
In my view, the westerner must not be sympathetic to these thinkers because that bias usually exists. They are "authorities" in fact. They know what they are talking about, but is what they are talking about worth applying? Freudian thought never really healed anyone, Neitzche inspired Nazism, Heidegger was a Nazi, the existentialists promoted a form of nihilism etc.
IMO western philosphic thought of this period is an elaborate mosaic of intellectual symmetries that are wonderful journies of the mind, but inapplicable when you consider the whole of human nature.
And so I add two more cents to the pot.
I read a lot of Marx in college (in the US) because when I left Greece at the time there was a strong very pro-Soviet communist movement and a lot of people were trying to get me to join the party. IMO all of Marx's criticisms of capitalism were correct. For someone born and raised in a capitalist culture Marx would be superb reading in the same way that understanding paganism would be enlightening to a Christian.
Now mind you, it's been many many years since I ever touched anything written by the man so I only have impressions, and am not qualified for in-depth philosphical discourse. However, my impression of reading Marx is combined with many conversations with people who have studied Marx that lived all their lives in former communist countries. These were both pro and anti-communists.
When I read Marx, I agreed with his views on historic inevitability (if I remember it correctly), but not where that inevitability must lead. I'd like to note that neo-cons also borrow elements from Marxist philosphy. In essence, however, both his understanding of social evolution (to a degree) and his critique on capitalism was sound to me. Yet, Marx was a 19th century materialist, locked in a mechanical paradigm projected on his view of humanity. Things started grating, therefore, when I tried to understand what he had to propose as a solution. I looked at it this way, I looked at it that way, and any way I looked at it it amounted to a human version of a termite society. Everything was in terms of work, workers, productivity.
I agree with Lobaczewski regarding Marx's psychopathy in the sense that no feeling human could propose such a society. That does not mean Marx was not a profound thinker. In the end, however, it was that: a sound mental product that was not coherent with human nature.
Now pro-communists living in the Eastern block claimed that their system was not Marxism at all, but a transition phase, kind of like the excuse dictators give when they overthrow monarchies. These dictators claim they are but a transition to democracy, a transition that never seems to end. So Marx's abstractions inspired revolutions, with the aim of industrial worker-utopias that never went beyond the totalitarian "transition".
Then there are the stories around who funded Marx: Zionist bankers. I have no links to provide, but I am sure that internet searches would be fruitful here. Marx as an individual who only related to the human condition in the abstract, and proposed a system incoherent with human nature. If he was a mathematician plotting coordinate points it would be one thing, but he was trying to map out a rigid social system that only a psychopath or at least someone completely divorced from human reality could think up.
Interestingly enough, his family considered him a good and compassionate man. In any case, thinking Marxism and realistically imagining people living that way are two different things IMO. Personally, I believe in balanced Anarchy, in the sense of total lack of social authority (the original philosophical version). Anarchy is not possible for OP's and one would need a society of evolved or mature individualized people to apply it.
Instead of authority, you may have management or social coordination, but no rulers per se. Morals or the sense of right and fairness would be an outflow from the individual to society and hence reflected back again. The only law would be the law of empathy, and from there people could self-oganize with respect to each other accordingly. Human technical knowledge and awareness could bring society to the point where the actual need for work was minimized without taxing the environment. Materially, free energy, automation, environmentally compatible technology would render human society more oriented toward creative play.
Such societial "utopias" have been viewed as self-destructive by both the captilism and communism, which are worker/production based. Anyway, I digress.
Marx himself IMO set up no pathocracy. He simply provided the intellectual background for pathocracies. He was funded by pathocrats, and he set up an abstract system that pathocrats could manipulate accordingly. Christianity, for example, had to be manipulated and altered to become a pathocratic religion, while Marxism was applied to a certain point. The story of the Russian revolution is a story of Zionist pathocrats competing for power until the non-Zionist Stalin took over. Lenin was only the first of these.
The only contribution Marx made IMO was as a counterpoint to capitalism. His thought combined with capitalism revealed the whole of the pathocratic mechanistic worker/production coin. Understanding the coin allows people to throw it away instead of being ping-ponged back and forth through polarized mirror images.
And yes, one needs a mental filter to study Marx, Freud, Nietzsche, Heidegger and the rest of late 19th and early to mid 20th century European philosphy and psychology. It almost is presented as anathema in intellectual circles to pick and choose points out of these views and weave them together into something new.
Personally, I believe many of these thinkers projected their inner turmoil as some kind of truth. I also believe that many of us in the west are educationally conditioned (certainly not true of the younger generation, which has no clue of such matters), to value these gurus of philosophic, psychological and political thought as the life-blood of our culture.
This might generate a bit of discomfort when combining their names with the word "psychopath", and rightly so. Yet, to me, to understand the congruence between the psychopathic concept (in Lobatczewski's terms) and these icons of western culture can constitute the resolution of the paradox of western culture and historic process, resulting in an epiphany similar to the Zen Satori experience.
It is a deep question IMO because it juxtaposes the "brilliance" of European thought, and the dark reality of European history (regarding the last century and a half). So I agree with DonaldJHunt in part. In other words, let us take the brilliance of the abstraction in one hand and place it side by side with the darkness of application on the other.
In my view, the westerner must not be sympathetic to these thinkers because that bias usually exists. They are "authorities" in fact. They know what they are talking about, but is what they are talking about worth applying? Freudian thought never really healed anyone, Neitzche inspired Nazism, Heidegger was a Nazi, the existentialists promoted a form of nihilism etc.
IMO western philosphic thought of this period is an elaborate mosaic of intellectual symmetries that are wonderful journies of the mind, but inapplicable when you consider the whole of human nature.
And so I add two more cents to the pot.
