extracted from "The Nature of Evil - Political Ponerology"

 

Monotheistic faith strikes a contemporary thinker primarily as an incomplete induction derived from ontological knowledge about the laws governing microcosmic and macrocosmic material and organic and psychological life, as well as being a result of certain encounters accessible by means of introspection.

 

The rest complements this induction by means of items man gains by other ways and accepts either individually or in accordance with the dictates of his religion and creed. A soundless, wordless voice unconsciously awakens our associations, reaches our awareness in the quiet of mind, and either complements or rebukes our cognition; this phenomenon is every bit as true as whatever has become accessible to science thanks to modern investigative methods.

In perfecting our cognition in the psychological field and attaining truths formerly available only to mystics, we render ever narrower the space of nescience which until recently separated the realm of spiritual perception from naturalistic science. Sometime in the not too distant future, these two cognitions will meet and certain divergences will become self evident. It would thus be better if we were prepared for it. Almost from the outset of my deliberations on the genesis of evil, I have been conscious of the fact that the investigative results concisely presented in this work can be used to further complete that space which is so hard for the human mind to enter.

The ponerological approach throws new light upon age-old questions heretofore regulated by the dictates of moral systems and must of necessity bring about a revision in thought methods. As a Christian, the author was initially apprehensive that this would cause dangerous collisions with ancient tradition. Studying the question in the light of the Scriptures caused these apprehensions gradually to fade away.

 

Rather, this now appears to be the way to bring our thought processes closer to that original and primeval method of perceiving moral knowledge. Quite characteristically, reading the Gospels can provide teachings clearly convergent with the method of understanding evil derived from naturalistic investigations on its origin. At the same time, we must foresee that the process of correction and conformation will be laborious and time consuming, which ultimately will probably prevent any major tumult.

Religion is an eternal phenomenon. A sometimes overly active imagination would at first complement whatever esoteric perception could not handle. Once civilization and its concurrent discipline of thought reaches a certain level of development, a monotheistic idea tends to emerge, generally as a conviction of a certain mental elite. Such development in religious thought can be considered a historical law rather than individual discovery by such people like Zarathustra or Socrates. The march of religious thought through history constitutes an indispensable factor of the formation of human consciousness.

Acceptance of religion’s basic truths opens to man a whole field of possible cognition wherein his mind can search for the truth. At that point, we also free ourselves of certain psychological impediments and gain a certain freedom of cognition in areas accessible to naturalistic perception. Rediscovering the true, ancient, religious values strengthens us, showing us the meaning of life and history. It also facilitates our introspective acceptance of phenomena within ourselves for which naturalistic perception proves insufficient. Parallel to our self knowledge, we also develop our ability to understand other people, thanks to the acceptance of the existence of an analogous reality within our neighbor.

These values become priceless whenever man is forced into maximum mental effort and profound deliberations in action so as to avoid stumbling into evil, danger, or exceptional difficulties. If there is no possibility of apprehending a situation fully, but a way out must nevertheless be found for one’s self, family, or nation, we are indeed fortunate if we can hear that silent voice within saying “Don’t do this” or “trust me, do this”.

We could thus say that this cognition and faith simultaneously supporting our mind and multiplying our spiritual strength constitute the sole basis for survival and resistance in situations wherein a person or nation is threatened by the products of ponerogenesis, which cannot be measured in the categories of the natural world view. That is the opinion of many righteous people. We cannot contradict the basic value of such a conviction, but if it leads to contemptuous treatment of objective science in this area and reinforces the egotism of the natural world view, people holding this conviction are unaware of the fact that they are no longer acting in good faith.

No major religion indicates the nature of the macrosocial pathological phenomenon; therefore we cannot consider religious dictates as a specific basis for overcoming this great historical disease. Religion is neither a specific serum nor an ae-tiotropically active antibiotic with regard to the phenomenon of pathocracy.

 

Although it constitutes a regenerative factor for the spiritual strength of individuals and societies, religious truth does not contain the specific naturalistic knowledge which is essential for understanding the pathology of the phenomenon, and which is simultaneously a curative and a resistance generating factor for human personalities. Rather, religious faith and the phenomenon of pathocracy are in fact at different levels of reality, the latter being more earthy. That also explains why there can be no true collision between religion and the ponerological knowledge about the macrosocial pathological phenomenon.

If we based our societal defense and treatment with regard to destructive influences of pathocracy only upon the truest religious values, this would be reminiscent of curing an insufficiently comprehended disease exclusively by measures which strengthen body and soul. Such general therapy may furnish satisfactory results in many cases, but it will prove insufficient in others. This macrosocial disease belongs to the latter category.

The fact that this pathocratic phenomenon, which has spread to the most wide-ranging scale in human history, demonstrates hostility to any and all religion does not imply the conclusion that it is the opposite of religion. This dependence would be structured differently under other historical and contemporary conditions. In the light of historical data, it appears obvious that religious systems have also succumbed to ponerogenic processes and manifested the symptoms of a similar dis-ease.¹¹⁷

 

117 Not to mention the fact that currently, the neocon-Bush administration is using Christianity as the ideology by which they mask pathocracy. [Editor’s note.]

The specific basis for healing our sick world, which is also a curative factor for restoring full reasoning capabilities to the human personality, must therefore be the kind of science which renders the essence of the phenomenon evident and describes it in sufficiently objective language.

 

Resistance to the acceptance of such knowledge is often justified by religious motivation; it is largely caused by the egotism of the natural world view in its traditional overrating of its values and fear of disintegration, and it must be constructively overcome.

The pathocratic phenomenon has appeared many times in history, feeding parasitically upon various social movements, deforming their structures and ideologies in a characteristic fashion. It must therefore have met with various religious systems and with a variety of historical and cultural backgrounds. Two basic possibilities for a relationship between this phenomenon and a religious system can thus be adduced.

 

The first occurs when the religious association itself succumbs to infection and the ponerogenic process, which leads to development of the above-mentioned phenomena within it. The second possibility emerges if a pathocracy develops as a parasite upon some social movement whose character is secular and political, which must inevitably lead to collision with religious organizations.

In the first case, the religious association succumbs to destruction from within, its organism becomes subordinated to goals completely different from the original idea, and its theosophic and moral values fall prey to characteristic deformation, thereupon serving as a disguise for domination by pathological individuals. The religious idea then becomes both a justification for using force and sadism against nonbelievers, heretics, and sorcerers, and a conscience drug for people who put such inspirations into effect.¹¹⁸

 

118 As is the case in the United States and Israel today. [Editor’s note.]

Anyone criticizing such a state of affairs is condemned with paramoral indignation, allegedly in the name of the original idea and faith in God, but actually because he feels and thinks within the categories of normal people. Such a system retains the name of the original religion and many other specific names, swearing on the prophet’s beard while using this for its doubletalk. Something which was to be originally an aid in the comprehension of God’s truth now scourges nations with the sword of imperialism.

When such phenomena are long-lasting, those people who have retained their faith in religious values will condemn such a state of affairs, thereby indicating that it diverges widely from the truth. They will unfortunately do so without understanding the nature and causes of the pathological phenomenon, i.e. in moral categories, thus committing the malignant error with which we are already familiar. They shall take advantage of some amenable geopolitical situation in protesting such a state of affairs, breaking away from the original system and creating various sects and denominations.

This kind of breakdown can be considered a characteristic consequence of any movement’s infection by this disease, be it religious or secular. Religious conflict thereupon assumes the character of political partitions, giving rise to warfare among various believers in the same God.

As we know, this state evolves into the dissimulative phase once human rancor starts to become exhausted; however, this form will be much more long-lasting than a pathocracy feeding on a secular movement. Human individuals cannot easily contain the entire process within their frame of reference, since such a state spans many generations; their criticism will thus be limited to the questions they are immediately familiar with.

 

However, this gives rise to a gradual but uncoordinated pressure front of reasonable people, thereby instigating some kind of evolution within any group thus engendered. Such evolution will aim at reactivating the original religious values or at overcoming the deformations.

Whether this process achieves its definitive goals depends upon two conditions: If the original idea was contaminated by some pathological factor from the outset, the goal is unreachable. If it is attainable, our asymptomatic approximation will place us in a position wherein the definitive elimination of the effects of the surmounted illness requires an objective view of its essence and history. Otherwise it is impossible to eliminate the leftover pathological deformations which would survive as a factor opening the door to renewed contamination.

Some religious groups may have been started by persons who were carriers of certain psychological anomalies. Particular attention should be focused upon largely paranoidal characteropathies and their above-discussed role in instigating new phases of ponerogenesis. For such people, the world of normal human experience (including religious experience) succumbs to deformation; spellbinding of self and others easily follows, imposed upon other people by means of pathological egotism. We can observe marginal Christian sects today whose beginnings were doubtless of this nature.

If a religion which later fell apart into numerous doctrinal variations had such a beginning, the above-mentioned regenerative processes effected by healthy common sense will bring about a point of advancement that the said religion’s ministers perceive to be a threat to the religion’s existence. Protecting their own faith and social position will then cause them to employ violent means against anyone daring to criticize or bring about liberalization. The pathological process begins anew. Such is the state of affairs we may be actually witnessing today.

However, the mere fact that some religious association has succumbed to the ponerization process does not constitute proof that the original gnosis or vision was contaminated from the outset by errors which opened the door to invasion by pathological factors, or that it was an effect of their influence. In order for the doors to be opened to infection by pathological factors and furthering progressive degeneration, it suffices for such a religious movement to succumb to contamination sometime later in its history, e.g. as a result of excessive influence on the part of initially foreign archetypes of secular civilization, or of compromises with the goals of the country’s rulers.

This succinct summary repeats my above adduced causes and laws of the course of the ponerological process, this time with regard to religious groups. Important differences should be underscored, however. Religious associations are among the most enduring and long-lived social structures, historically speaking.

 

The ponerological process in such a group runs its course in a much larger time frame. In effect, man needs religion so much that every such group, provided it is numerous enough, will contain a large number of normal people (generally the majority) who do not become discouraged and form a permanent wing inhibiting the process of ponerization.

 

The equilibrium of the dissimulative phase is thus also to the advantage of those people whose human and religious feelings are normal. Nonetheless, isolated generations may thus have the impression that the observed state represents its permanent and essential characteristics, including the errors they cannot accept.

We must therefore pose the following question: Can the most constant and sensible action based on the natural world view and theological and moral reflections ever completely eliminate the effects of a ponerological process which has long been surmounted?

Based on experience gleaned from individual patients, a psychotherapist would doubt such a possibility. The consequences of the influence of pathological factors can only be definitely liquidated if a person becomes aware that he was the object of their activity. Such a method of careful correction of detail may sound reminiscent of the work done by an art restorer who decided against removing all later paint-overs and revealing the master’s original work in toto, but rather retained and conserved a few failed corrections for posterity.

Even against the conditional backdrop of time furthering the healing process, such efforts at step-by-step untying of knots based on the natural world view only leads toward a moralizing interpretation of the effects of uncomprehended pathological factors, with the consequence of panic and the tendency to retreat to an apparently safer side. The organism of the religious group thus will retain some dormant foci of the disease which may become active under certain permitting conditions.

We should therefore realize that following the path of naturalistic apperception of the process of the genesis of evil, attributing the proportionate “fault” to the influence of various pathological factors, can ease our minds of the burden represented by the disturbing results of a moralizing interpretation of their role in ponerogenesis.

 

This also permits more detailed identification of the results of their operation, as well as definitive elimination thereof. Objective language proves to be not only more accurate and economical to work with, but also much safer as a tool of action when dealing with difficult situations and delicate matters.
Such a more precise and consistent solution for the problems inherited from centuries of ponerological nescience is possible whenever a given religion represents a current of gnosis and faith which was originally authentic enough.

 

A courageous approach to remedying conditions caused by presently perceptible poneric processes, or by chronic perseverance of survivals from such states far in the past, thus demands both acceptance of this new science and a clear conviction of original truth and basic science. Doubts will otherwise block any such intent by means of insufficiently objectified fear, even if they have been repressed deep into the subconscious.

 

We must be convinced that the Truth can endure such a washing in modern detergent; not only will it not lose its eternal values, but it will actually regain its original freshness and noble colors.

With regard to the second above-mentioned situation, when the ponerogenic process leading to pathocracy has affected some secular and political movement, the situation of religion in such a country will be completely different. Polarization of attitudes with regard to religion then becomes inevitable. The social religious organization cannot help but assume a critical attitude, becoming a support for opposition on the part of the society of normal people. This in turn provokes the movement affected by this phenomenon to an ever more intolerant attitude toward religion. Such a situation thus places a given society’s religion before the specter of physical destruction.

Whenever pathocracy emerges in an autonomous process, this means that the religious systems dominating that country were unable to prevent it in time.
As a rule, the religious organizations of any given country have sufficient influence upon society to be able to oppose nascent evil if they act with courage and reason. If they cannot, this is the result of either fragmentation and strife among various denominations or of internal corruption within the religious system. As a result, religious organizations have long tolerated and even uncritically inspired the development of pathocracy. This weakness later becomes the cause of religion’s disasters.

In the case of an artificially infected pathocracy, the religious system’s joint liability may be lesser, albeit still generally concrete. It is justified to exonerate a country’s religious systems for the state of affairs if the pathocracy has been imposed by force. Specific conditions emerge in this situation: the religious organizations have the morally stronger defensive position, are able to accept material losses, and can also undergo their own recuperative process.

Pathocrats may be able to use primitive and brutal means to combat religion, but it is very difficult for them to attack the essence of religious convictions. Their propaganda proves overly primitive and brings about the familiar phenomena of immunization or resistance on the part of normal people, with the final result being the opposite of the intended moral reaction.

 

Pathocrats can only use brute force to destroy religion if they feel the latter’s weakness. The principle of “divide and conquer” can be used if there are various denominations with a long history of enmity, but the effects of such measures are generally ephemeral and can lead to unity among the denominations.

The specific practical knowledge collected by the society of normal people under pathocratic rule, together with the phenomenon of the psychological immunization, begin to exert their own characteristic effect upon the structure of religious denominations. If some religious system succumbed to ponerogenic infection sometime during its history, the effects and chronic survivals thereof persevere within for centuries. As already adduced, remedying this by means of philosophical and moral reflections meets with specific psychological difficulties.

 

But under pathocratic rule, in spite of the abuse suffered by such a religious organization, the latter organism specific antibodies are transfused which cure the ponerogenic survivals.

Such a specific process aims at ridding the religious structure of those deformations which were the effect of the operation of the pathological factors familiar to us. Insofar as the appearance of pathocracy in various guises throughout human history, always resulting from human errors which opened the door to the pathological phenomenon, one must also look on the other side of the coin. We should understand this in the light of that underrated law, when the effect of a particular causative structure has a teleological meaning of its own.

 

It would, however, be highly advantageous for this recuperative process to be accompanied by greater awareness of the nature of the phenomena, which also acts similarly in terms of developing psychological immunity and healing human personalities. Such awareness could also help elaborate safer and more effective plans of action.

If individuals and groups believing in God are able to accept an objective understanding of macrosocial pathological phenomena, especially this most dangerous one, the natural outcome will thus prove to be a certain separation of religious and ponerological problematics, which qualitatively occupy different levels of reality. Church attention can then revert to questions regarding man’s relationship with God, an area for which churches have a calling.

 

On the other hand, resistance to ponerological phenomena and their worldwide spread should be largely assumed by scientific and political institutions whose actions are based on a naturalistic understanding of the nature and genesis of evil. Such a separation of duties can never be quite consistent, since the genesis of evil includes participation of human moral failings, and overcoming these based on religious premises has been the responsibility of religious associations since times immemorial.

Some religions and denominations subjected to pathocratic rule are forced by such circumstance to become overly involved in matters conventionally referred to as political, or even in economic efforts. This is necessary both in order to protect the existence of the religious organization itself and in order to help fellow believers or other citizens suffering abuse. It is important, however, to avoid having such a state of affairs become permanent in the shape of habit and tradition, since this could later make it more difficult to revert to normal human government.

In spite of existing differences of conviction and tradition, the basis for cooperative effort on the part of people with good will should contain that characteristic convergence of the conclusions we deduce between the precepts of the Christian Gospels (and other monotheistic religions) and a ponerological view of the genesis of evil.

 

The faithful of various religions and denominations do in fact believe in the same God, and at present they are threatened by the same macrosocial pathologic phenomenon.

 

This creates sufficient data to enable a search for cooperation in affecting achievements whose value is so obvious.

 

Previous

Back to Contents

Next

 

Back to Gods and Religions on Planet Earth