Ideology is the Madman's Delusion

And this is why the deranged are so successful at convincing us to buy into it

“I am magnificent.” A vandalization of Vanity by Régnier (ca. 1635).

We all tell ourselves stories. Some of our stories are just a lot more messed up than others.

The stories in question are “self-narratives.” Who we are. Our place in the world. Where we fit in relation to others. The plot line we find ourselves in. The trajectory of our life: where we came from, where we are, and the future we are creating. Some of these stories are fairly accurate. Sometimes we give ourselves too much credit, sometimes not enough. But deviate too far, and we place ourselves in a story that bears close to zero resemblance to the actual world we find ourselves in.

This is the realm of psychosis, and we call these narratives delusions. Read any account of severe paranoid schizophrenia and you’ll get the idea. If you’ve ever met someone who was convinced you were sending them cryptic messages in the culture section of their local newspaper, you know what I mean.

But ponerology isn’t so concerned with these extreme forms of mental illness. The more obvious the dysfunction, the less “ponerogenic” it is. Extreme mental illness definitely has a negative effect, but mostly only on those in the immediate circle of the person affected: their close family and personal acquaintances, or those they interact with in person. Their sickness is apparent to almost everyone who encounters them.

Ponerogenic evil extends beyond that sphere to the general public. In order to be ponerogenically insidious, it has to be just seemingly normal enough to evade the awareness of the average person. The delusion has to be plausible enough for others to buy into it. In this way, it can spread to wide segments of the population, without these people realizing that they are in effect buying into the delusions of a madman.

More specifically, ponerogenic evil tends to have more to do with personality problems than sanity problems. Psychosis isn’t very ponerogenic, but personality disorders are. People with these disorders don’t usually have delusions per se, but they adopt something similar.

Ideology in the political sphere serves the same purpose that delusion does in the private. Actually, it serves both. It not only provides a personal narrative for the ideologue—a story which gives their life meaning and importance. It also forces others to participate in their story, thus reinforcing the ideologue’s private motivations.

As Lobaczewski puts it, ideologies don’t need “spellbinders.” Spellbinders need ideologies. Early in life they are forced to choose: either force others to comply with their own abnormal manner of thinking and experiencing, or accept a life as a social misfit—alone and “different.” The choice is easy. Ideology provides a self-congratulatory narrative in which to place themselves. They become heroes fighting a just cause. They become important. They become powerful. Meanwhile, they are none of these things (though power may well come). But the ideology helps to banish such thoughts into the recesses of their minds. Any such “self-critical associations” (such as “there is something seriously wrong with me”) are easily repressed, and just as easily projected onto the enemies written into their grand narrative.

Since their ideology is founded on such a basic lie—a lie about the self, told to the self—nothing else will follow easily or logically. As such, their minds are a mess of non sequiturs, inverted morals, bald-faced lies, and emotionally motivated reasoning. All of this is in the service of that original sin: a refusal to admit that they’re pathologically abnormal—broken inside. Sadly, it would be healthier for them to admit the truth from the outset. At least then they could perhaps change, learn to cope with reality, and gain some measure of peace—some modus vivendi with the world around them. Instead they double down and dig themselves deeper. And the more we lie to ourselves on such a fundamental level, the harder reality will slap us in the face.

In some cases, however, delusion and ideology overlap to the point of becoming basically conterminous. Enter transgenderism, or at least a major subset of it: autogynephilia (“a male’s propensity to be sexually aroused by the thought of himself as a female”).

Public

’s Michael Shellenberger, who is authoring a book inspired by ponerology tentatively titled Pathocracy, was recently a guest on Jordan Peterson’s show. I thought he and Petersen covered the above dynamic very well. Here is how they put it:

Shellenberger: These two psychologists [Blanchard and Bailey] really did a lot of work on it [autogynephilia], and then some of the autogynephilic men started going after Bailey, I think, in particular. And Blanchard actually talked about having survivor’s guilt because he felt like he had helped develop the concept but Bailey took the brunt of the attacks. They were trying to get him fired, harassing him, doxing him, and it was very, very shocking treatment. I think they both came to conclusion—at least Bailey did—that they were undermining the fantasy, and these autogynephilic men were attacking them for undermining the fantasy.

Peterson: Well look, Michael what happens is, well you can see this with these with these absolutely abhorrent displays of narcissistic fetishism online. You get these men who are dressed up as women, but who couldn’t pass as a woman for anyone within 200 yards of them, but they idealize themselves in their fantasy play as a sexually attractive woman. Because what the hell good is the sexual fantasy without that? And then that is undermined by any evidence whatsoever that what they’re making manifest as imagination is tantamount to a delusion. And so they get narcissistically outraged just like a two-year-old or a three-year-old who’s disrupted in their fantasy playing. You know you’re not really a woman. What do you mean, I’m not really a woman? My entire fantasy is predicated on the notion that not only am I a woman, but I’m a beautiful hyper-feminine woman. I’m the best of all possible women, and the fact that you would dare to oppose that… There’s two interpretations: either I’m delusional beyond belief or you’re cruel. Well, right. Easy. Figure out which one of those that they’re going to take.

Shellenberger: And then they go and bully everybody around them, and they use—I mean honestly, I just think it’s psychopathic—the tactics they’re using: showing no regard for others, engaging in very high-risk behavior. And so you look at these folks, and these people are the leaders.

Sex is weird, and some people develop some odd fetishes. But most have the tact to keep them private. They probably even feel a bit of shame about them. At the very least they would experience some embarrassment if they were made public. Hell, most people feel that way about perfectly normal sexuality. Few people want the details of their sex life exposed to family and friends, or strangers. So what does that say about those who not only don’t feel any shame or embarrassment, but actively force others to “watch,” so to speak?

In this case, the main feature of the fetish is that it is public. And it must be public. The fantasy—that a man is actually an attractive woman—can only work if others are forced to believe it, or at least play along. Otherwise, reality constantly threatens tearing that fantasy down. The middle-aged men described above will never be attractive women. They will always look like men dressed as women. And reality will constantly confirm that fact, unless a new reality is created and others are forced to comply.

The common-sense perceptions of others are a constant threat. So any time one of those perceptions is expressed, it must be repressed, just as the reality that one is not an attractive woman must be psychologically repressed. This external repression takes the form of vicious attacks—lashing out and breaking the mirror displaying one’s true reflection, so to speak. Those holding up the mirror of reality must be forced into silence, whether through physical attacks, character assassination, or other means. Ideally, laws will be changed and introduced to make such statements of truth illegal, and they can be repressed by the official wielders of force. Reality must be reshaped into a form that does not contradict the fantasy in service of maintaining the fantasy.

Lobaczewski calls the attitude behind this bullying “pathological egotism.” Those on the receiving end of it are often browbeaten into submission, because the spellbinder is so adamant. They either come to believe, or simply comply to avoid further confrontation. The forcefulness of the spellbinder’s self-certainty overpowers one’s reason. Through persistent repetition and emotional framing, the delusion is made out to be self-evident—and how do you counter that which is self-evident? Bill Eddy described this dynamic in one of the articles I quoted in my last piece:

High-conflict people tend to communicate simply, repetitively, and intensely emotionally, which can make them very persuasive. It is not uncommon for them to make misleading or false allegations […] These allegations grab the attention of decision-makers because they are so emotional. Yet in some cases, they are not at all true but can sound persuasive.

This is the realm of the spellbinder. All of the elements Lobaczewski describes are here: the delusion, the repression of uncomfortable facts, the pathological egotism with which they force others to adopt their own abnormal way of experiencing, and paranoid intolerance for any dissent. From Chapter 4 of Political Ponerology:

Triumphant repression of deeply disturbing self-critical associations from the field of consciousness gradually gives rise to the phenomena of conversive thinking, paralogistics, paramoralisms, and the use of reversive blockades [“emphatically insisting upon something which is the opposite of the truth”]. These stream so profusely from the mind and mouth of the spellbinder that they flood and enslave the average person’s mind. Everything becomes subordinated to the spellbinder’s over-compensatory conviction that they are exceptional, sometimes even messianic. … The ideology’s instrumental role in influencing other people serves above all the spellbinder himself.

The spellbinder places on a high moral plane anyone who has succumbed to his influence and incorporated the experiential manner he imposes. He showers such people with attention and property, if possible. Critics are met with “moral” outrage.

…both spellbinding and self-charming make it impossible to perceive reality accurately enough to foresee results logically. However, spellbinders nurture great optimism and harbor visions of future triumphs similar to those they enjoyed over their own crippled souls.

In a healthy society, the activities of spellbinders meet with criticism tinged with mocking humor and a sense of their pathology effective enough to stifle them quickly. However, when they are preceded by conditions operating destructively upon common sense and social order … spellbinders’ activities find fertile ground and can lead entire societies into large-scale human tragedy.

The mass affirmation of the autogynephile delusion could not have happened in a vacuum. The seed was planted in “fertile ground.” The fact that it has gone so far isn’t a good sign. Affirming it does no one any good. The initial self-lie spreads throughout society, thus becoming ponerogenic in nature. It becomes a lie believed by many. And that lie deforms the minds of all those who believe it.

This, in turn, creates fertile ground for further transformations. Lobaczewski argues that pathocracy progresses through phases. It starts out “characteropathic” (like the spellbinders described above), becoming progressively more “psychopathic.” How might this play out in this particular scenario? Autogynephiles set the new rules. Psychopaths than see the opportunities those new rules create. Pathological egotism creates a climate in which dissent is taboo, and the best place for a psychopath is one in which his behavior cannot be criticized. Those pointing out the truth are easily hamstrung with the label “bigoted transphobe” (or racist, misogynist, anti-semite…).

This dynamic is already at work among less intelligent manipulators. Just look at the numerous stories of rapists and murderers who “go trans” in prison. Some recent headlines:

• Why are three biologically male trans murderers being held with female prisoners in women-only jails?

• Pedophile Trans Daycare Worker Avoids Jail After Sexually-Assaulting Baby

• Mother-of-four claims she pleaded guilty to crime she ‘didn’t commit’ because she was terrified of returning to prison after being made to shower next to trans inmates convicted of murder and sex attacks

• Transgender teen sent to prison for killing 12-year-old girl

Not only is it not a good look when criminal sociopaths start adopting your ideology; it is a sign that your ideology was “ponerogenic” from the outset. Simply knowing that is the first step to undoing the damage it has caused, and will continue to cause.