On Violence

Without it there is no life worth living.

I am about to change my approach to blogging. The situation in the world, global to local, is getting more deranged and dire. It is becoming clear to more people that a radical understanding is required, and more aggressive solutions.

I will become more militant in my topics. However, while class war is climaxing and the old order is being thrown down, life goes on. So I will continue to put out some lighter, general interest stuff.

I am a crippled old person who cannot actively participate in the apocalypse, anyway. I can just observe and comment about it, and offer my suggestions. I will not be intimidated into moderating what I say.

I have always been writing things which, if definitions of “acceptable content” were applied differentially, would get my accounts shut down. I have never had any trouble yet. At least, not since I took up blogging seriously again.

In the past, I have had trouble with being stalked on the net. I had my ‘hand made’ platforms knocked out by various means. This was more about my identity that what I was actually writing.

I have been blogging again since minimally acceptable platforms have been available. For insurance, I have tried to have my stuff up in two different platforms. I will soon stop doing that.

Presently Substack is the only thing available which is any good, or at least affordable. Thought policing is getting worse, on the net and elsewhere. Social media platforms which are really secure from it are not yet available.

If I really cannot get out what I want to say, even to a small, limited audience, I will give up on blogging and all social media. I may try simply e-publishing or self publishing short books. I have things to say which I have been working through for awhile.

These will definitely antagonize some people and fit into their definition of unacceptable content. All these definitions are fairly vague. That is intentional.

To be fair to owners of social media platforms like Substack, this leaves them with a difficult situation to manage. The NeoLiberal State does not want to do its own censoring. So, it forces the platform owners to do it.

It should not be that way. In a real democracy, all censorship should be done by government. That way, it is accountable.

With the system we have, governments can censor beyond their own borders. They can then deny any responsibility. But the owners of platforms are made to know what The Power wants.

Something can be acceptable one day, and not the next. It can depend on what quasi governmental pressure groups do not want. A particular idea can be targeted, or a particular individual, and there is no accountability and little defense.

What I am going to write below is an experiment. I will see what the result is when I publish these ideas. Will half my readers unsubscribe? Will I get my account cancelled?

What I advocate could be considered hate speech, or advocating violence against a ‘protected group’, and even counseling criminal acts. Again, it depends on how vague terms are interpreted. I will explain very clearly what I am advocating, and even get quite philosophic about it.

I think this is truth which must be brought out. It must be admitted and acted on if society is going to get itself out of its present situation. Otherwise, there will be be no advancement of the human condition and we are in a backward slide.

I am not the only person who is saying these kinds of things, in various ways. I am not smarter than everybody else. My big advantage is that the circumstances of my life are such that I do not have to care so much what people think.

The worst they can do to me is shut down my blog. It is a minor inconvenience to find another platform. So here is what I have got so cranky about.

I say that the society I live in is controlled by psychopaths and people with similar brain problems. This has been true to greater or lesser degree in most places throughout human history. It is not a necessary condition.

I support the frequently stated hypothesis that all conspiracies are reduced to the conspiracy of the psychopaths against normal people. The only revolution which will ever really matter is the one in which the normals overthrow the pathocracy, the rule of psychopaths.

I say that the pathocrats will never surrender control. They will do their utmost to kill anyone trying to establish a real socialism or a real democracy. They will have to be killed or interned for life.

I say that any stable society, enabling a really good life for its citizens, requires a constant suppression of pathocratic and psychopathic tendencies. Psychopaths and other criminals must be segregated before they can do harm. Such societies will be labelled as ‘totalitarian’ and relentlessly attacked from without by pathocratic states.

Thus, creating and maintaining a good quality of life requires a socialist and meritocratic state. Establishing it will require extreme violence. Maintaining it will require continual violence as long as pathocratic states and political networks exist.

Everything I am saying will flip out most political people. Liberal centrists especially will call me a totalitarian or ‘tankie’ and things like that. Their own thinking is conditioned in order to keep them controllable by the pathocracy.

Thus, I have small interest in debating this with anyone. People get it or they do not. Most people still cannot get it.

It is an old axiom of political science that revolutions happen when a sufficient number of people in the society get it. Then a small but sufficient number get themselves mobilized and carry it out what needs to be done. It is thought that this requires about three to five percent of the population.

I must conclude this part by making clear I do not have much use for self styled Marxist intellectuals or revolutionaries. When actual revolutions occur, they are usually no help. What I am saying is not mere Marxist or other political doctrine. It should be part of any honest historical or sociological teaching.

I came to see things this way through a lifetime of experience, and reading and thinking. I have not had my head in a vacuum. Many people have come to roughly the same ideas.

Our numbers have not reached that critical mass yet. But it is very encouraging that it is mostly younger people who are understanding things. They are most able to actually do something.

When I was young, despite the way I was being treated by people, I had a very liberal view of things. The way things were was the best that could be. People just did not follow the rules properly.

I got older. I often engaged in forms of political activism. I even thought I was a Marxist for awhile.

However, there are problems which even Marx was not fully aware of. I have become concerned about the effects of psychopathy on human history and society. The topic is becoming fairly popular as these effects become severe in contemporary western societies.

The term ‘pathocracy’ is now widely used. It is often attributed to a Polish Psychiatrist, the late Andrew M. Lobaczewski. He was actually ambivalent about the term, but since people in the west were using it, he eventually adopted it.

His training and work experience was in Soviet era eastern Europe, where he came up with the term “ponerogenic personality”. His main work was the book “Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes.” Ponerology means; the study of evil.

This tome has influenced my political thinking more than anything else. It used to be hard to hear about it and track down a copy. It has now become easy to order online, so go ahead.

Post Stalinist authorities in Poland did not like what he was writing. He and his colleagues had to destroy the first two manuscripts of the work to avoid arrest.

He made his way to the west. He quickly discovered that “ponerogenic characteropathies” were in charge on this side just as much as behind the iron curtain. He had trouble getting his book published here.

His fellow Pole, Zbigniew Brzezinski, a chief apparatchik for the Atlanticist hegemony, pretended to mentor him. He actually tried to prevent the work from being published. This says much about the nature of western elites that they find this book so threatening.

Lobaczewski’s work broke through the bans. It catalysed discussion of the nature of political power in the west. It moved the discussion away from the lunatics who were clearly a part of the problem they claimed to be fighting.

Lobaczewski’s thesis was that history works in cycles. There are people with mental problems in any society. There is an idea in the west that personality disorders are mostly caused by bad upbringings and can be corrected.

Lobaczewski’s first big insight was that mental illness is almost always caused by bad genes or brain injuries, often during childbirth, and is permanent. Such people are usually incapable of believing that they have a problem. They see their persecution difficulties as being caused by persecution or social degeneracy.

Such people are attracted to revolutionary organizations. When revolutions succeed, they create truly tyrannical governments. Even in ‘normal’ liberal societies, they create cycles of corruption; getting into office and making messes which must be cleaned up.

Lobaczewski had, when he first wrote this, an anti communist and ‘liberal’ view of the world. Of course, the world is more complicated than that. While his basic insight is sound, there are aspects he did not recognize.

Ponerogenic people do not create evil only in cycles within ‘democracies’ which are basically sound. They do not do it only through ‘totalitarian’ regimes. They really could not get into a position to cause evil by themselves.

There is a higher layer to political ponerology. There is an increasing amount of writing about this. It might be called hereditary ponerology.

This is obviously not caused by brain injuries. It is definitely due, at least in part, to inherited genes. This is, of course, the hereditary ruling class.

Some people want to argue about whether these people go back to the Venetian black nobility, or to ancient Babylon. Geneological studies do show that most key members of the European Union bureaucracy are of aristocratic descent. Most of these families go back to the middle ages.

The point is, in most countries with some history, there is a ruling class which thinks it has a right to rule. It is always good at maintaining control of society. It is always very toxic to society.

They like to work through characteropathic people; people with brain problems who think the world is persecuting them. Most of the modern world’s great totalitarian regimes were Frankenstein monsters, made up of such characteropaths. They were raised up by elites as instruments to bring the lower classes back into submission.

Often they are established through support from foreign intelligence services as a way of bringing down a rival state. Usually these services serve transnational elite networks. Such elites are always highly hereditary.

So we have two related views about the cause of evil in society, and its solution. Some want to wipe out elites and the stooges they work through. Lobaczewski’s idea was to segregate people with certain types of mental illness.

Lobaczewski thought we should not harm these people because they cannot help being what they are. However, anything which prevents them from potentially harming us must inevitably be a violation of their rights, according to liberal ideas. It would be very expensive and complicated to maintain this segregation without abolishing the rights of the characteropaths.

One other thinker has had a strong influence on my thinking on this topic. This is the philosopher Hegel, and principally his essay “On Lordship and Bondage”. The thesis is that ruling elites do not rule over normal people because they are more intelligent, but because they are in some ways much less mentally capable.

Hegel lived in Prussia at the time of the Napoleonic wars. Prussia was a rigidly feudal society. It had to reform itself to be able to resist Napoleonic France.

Hegel believed that lords ruled because to them, lordship was everything. If they lost their power, they would not know what to do. It would be death for them.

The serfs allowed the lords to rule over them because they wanted to live. It was too hard and dangerous to stand up against someone who would fight to the death to maintain control.

This is in contrast to the idea of another philosopher, Hobbes. He said that people submitted to lords because “man to man is wolf”. People needed lords to protect themselves from each other.

There is a common theme to all of this. That is, all human societies are held together by violence or implied violence.

Further to “man to man is wolf”, I see another level to this problem; the microsocial in addition to the macrosocial already discussed. This is, the evils caused in everyday human relationships by characteropathies. There is a lot being written now about this.

We have enough videos now about how to spot the ‘psychopath’ or the ‘narcissist’. We have much advice about how to deal with these “bullies”. This is of little use because it is very hard for most people on their own to deal with someone with no scruples and who will do anything to control and to get what they want.

This problem is thought to be getting worse in present western societies. It is said that a fish rots from the head down. This problem can be seen as a result of the increasing control of society by psychopathic elites.

This behaviour is always a problem in society. It makes real democracy and popular organization and initiative very hard. Of course such behaviour is promoted by the surveillance state as part of social control.

If the pathocracy were overthrown, there would still be a lot of characteropathies in society. They would have a corrosive effect on efforts to build a really democratic society. Some people rather hysterically claim that, since one to five percent of society are thought to be psychopathic, a peaceful and harmonious society is impossible.

I say that such people could be dealt with by a truly socialized society. They must be prevented from doing harm, not reacted to afterward. This requires a reorganization of the legal system and a more developed understanding of what police and courts are for.

Criminal and antisocial behaviour is caused by genetic defects, brain injury, or early exposure to people with these. In most cases, it is permanent. How such people should be treated depends on the severity of the problem.

If they will kill or do serious injury, or direct it, in order to get and keep control, they must be killed. If they act contemptuously to other people, and refuse to see anything wrong with themselves, they must be segregated from society. They must be prevented from reproducing.

Milder forms of characteropathy should be dealt with by a system of restrictions and monitoring.

I do not believe there can be any sure advancement of the human condition until we can develop a real democracy, a government in the interests of real people. That cannot be developed until we learn to deal with with pathocrats and characteropaths, and their organizations. That requires rethinking liberal and libertarian ideas of ‘rights’.

Most present ideas of rights are developed by the pathocracy to protect characteropaths. They offer no real protection to normal people. Rethinking ideas of rights is a subject for another blog.

There really are identifiable individuals and groups in society which must be brought under control as described above. Yet actual pathocrats know how to flip this upside down, to attack identifiable groups and individuals who might be able to bring them under control, and to get away with it. Thus, whether it is right or wrong to speak out against a particular person or group, prescribing violent actions against them, depends entirely on context.

Screaming tirades intended to incite swarmings and vigilantism is, of course, never justifiable. Much hate speech is just a kind of verbal masturbation coming from those who feel threatened. Usually the perceived threat is from people of higher intellect and character, who have been more successful, who do not fit with someone else’s normative ideas, and so on.

However, speech which would likely violate service terms of platforms like Substack are often very necessary, especially in these times. Let me bring forth two examples, for illustrative purposes. There is the Zionist movement in Canada, and Ontario Premier Doug Ford.

I do not think much needs to be said about the intolerability of the Zionist movement or ideology. It is a threat to all, even to Jews. In fact, probably more to moderate Jews than to anyone.

A standard statement of repudiation of Zionism must be drafted. All public officials will be required to sign it or resign from office. If they will not, they must be forcibly removed. They are to be executed if those enforcing this requirement meet violence resistance. This is step one.

Next, news organizations must sign it or be shut down. Zionist organizations must be dissolved, their funds and member lists seized. Members who will not sign the statement are to be interned.

For those who are interned, video and print courses on the facts of zionism must be prepared. This includes the facts of its true relationship to Nazism, and its origins with Christian fundamentalist fanatics. The internees are released when they are prepared to sign the renunciation statement. Those aggressively resisting, or who resume pro Zionist activities after release, are to be put under harsher confinement.

Now, to Dougie Ford. He should be hauled out of his office and marched through the streets to detention. There, he should be interrogated as to where the billions of public money, intended to fund such things as education and health care, has gone to. All this should be done on live television and in the most humiliating way possible.

I believe Dougie would soon become cooperative. If not, there are plenty of measures which could be applied to make him so. He should remain in detention until all misappropriated funds are accounted for.

Of course, if he authorizes any violence to prevent this, he should be put to death at this point. This does not mean simply violence resulting in death, but anything which could have resulted in someone enforcing it on him being permanently injured. For example, losing an eye, or damage to a knee, or a serious concussion.

Those with no consciences have no rights. Neither do those who can be led to serve them. So, Substack monitors, make of that what you will.

Do not talk stupidly about how someone is “advocating the violent overthrow of society”. Society is permanent. It cannot be overthrown. It is the present established order which must be overthrown.

Do not talk about a violent overthrow. If you are going to overthrow the establishment, there will be extreme violence, applied by the establishment.

Those seeking to overthrow corrupt establishment in defense of the real interest of society, are putting their lives at risk. They will meet violent suppression with superior force and violence, or their lives are over. They will usually be killed or jailed for life. If they are lucky they may escape into exile.

In a follow on blog post to this one, I will discuss how this revolution which counts, the one of the normals against the pathocrats, would be carried out. Then on how a truly peaceful society could be established and maintained.