Logocracy - Chapter 14: The Wise Council

An institution of wisdom and prudence

The way I am coming to think of a logocracy as I present these chapters is something like this: a political system where those truly competent in their respective fields hold positions that match their skill and character. In the case of the present chapter, the specific question raised is this: what role should excellent doctors and psychologists play in a logocratic government? Emphasis on the excellent.

Of the criticisms to some of Lobaczewski’s ideas of logocracy in comments on recent chapters, one is essentially akin to asking “who will watch the watchmen?” In other words, sure, judges have the power to put people away, but who judges the judges? Sure, politicians decide policies and attempt to implement them, but who will regulate the regulators? Sure, religious authorities will decide on doctrine and church activities, but who will shepherd the spiritual shepherds?

I think the answer is somewhat disappointing, but I don’t think there’s a better one: the questions largely become meaningless when you have figured out how to get competent judges, legislators, and priests. A competent judge self-regulates, and when that fails should be held in check by his peers and other groups. A bad judge should be weeded out before he dons the robes, and if he isn’t, he should be removed when his lack of competence comes to light.

In the case of barring psychopaths from the political process, one concern is that non-psychopaths will be labeled as such and thus be unfairly disenfranchised or worse. What’s to stop psychopaths from getting into the position of those doing the screening? What if “psychopaths” become the next kulaks or intellectuals slated for class extinction?

I have a few responses to this one.

1. No screening or intervention process will be perfect. There will always be some leakage. In this case, even an imperfect process is better than no process. If corporations can do it, anyone can.

2. Lobaczewski argues that pathocracy (and by extension, any form of organizational “Cluster B capture”) succeeds only in the absence of common awareness of the problem. Common knowledge about psychopathy alone will have a mitigating effect. In other words, staging a psychopathic anti-psychopath witch-hunt will be inherently self-defeating (at least in the long term if not in the immediate short term).

3. Once people know what’s going on, they tend to do a better job of taking care of this problem than they were before being aware of it. In other words, a culture of competence will tend to achieve at least some success in this department, and potentially a lot.

The problem is that western civilization has become profoundly anti-competent. Heather Mac Donald has been writing about this for years and has a new book out on the topic: When Race Trumps Merit: How the Pursuit of Equity Sacrifices Excellence, Destroys Beauty, and Threatens Lives. I recommend listening to Jordan Peterson’s recent interview with her:

When it comes to doctors and psychologists, I can already anticipate some responses to what Lobaczewski recommends below. I mean, just look at the state of medicine and clinical psychology today. We’re coming off a period of time when both professions seem to have lost their collective sanity. Post 9/11 we had psychologists designing torture protocols. Now we have them designing coercive “MINDSPACE” or “nudge”-type policy tools to be used on entire populations.¹ And don’t get me started on doctors.

Why should we trust professionals with so profound a lack of ethics or common sense? Well, simply, we shouldn’t. But trusting no one isn’t the answer either. The fact that many do precisely that isn’t a virtue; it’s a sign of pathologically low levels of social capital and a breakdown of hierarchies of authority (one of our moral foundations). Those we should be trusting are the responsible ones, like Dr. Christian Buckland, Chairman of the Board of the UK Council for Psychotherapy, who penned this open letter to PM Rishi Sunak condemning the unethical use of such social-engineering and anti-psychotherapeutic practices during the Covid crisis, effectively removing the possibility of informed consent and causing mass psychological damage in the process.

It is precisely because people like Buckland and Peterson are not in positions of institutional influence befitting their talent and character that the midwits have been running the show.²

So what does Lobaczewski recommend for exceptional physicians and clinicians? Enter the wise council, whose main purpose will be keeping an eye on the biological and psychological state of the nation. This includes problems of physical and spiritual health, ponerology (including screening of candidates for high office), and what he calls natural or social “eugenic processes.” By this, Lobaczewski doesn’t mean policies such as forced sterilization, abortion, or euthanasia (though many western nations currently practice all of them, for reasons other than traditional eugenics).³ He simply means the active awareness of what psychobiological direction society heading in and fostering voluntary practices conducive to long-term health.

Are we getting sicker? Are personality disorders on the rise? If so, why? What are we doing wrong? Are we unwittingly (or wittingly) following “dysgenic” policies? How can we promote good health for this and future generations? This is not simply some CDC/WHO replacement captured by pharmaceutical companies and politics, who are utterly useless when it comes to basic nutrition, obesity, unprecedented autism rates, skyrocketing teen anxiety and depression, fatherlessness.

An example of putting this into practice would be raising public awareness about personality disorders, specifically with the intent of teaching young women how to avoid psychopathic mates. Another, related example, would be re-strengthening the norm of waiting until marriage to have children by fostering self-control and deferring of gratification (as Mac Donald recommends in the Peterson talk). Lobaczewski calls this the fostering of “eugenic morality.” Here’s how

Chris Langan

put it:

Ranchers also understand that to maintain the healthiest and most viable and valuable herd, they must select their breeding stock for desirable traits like adaptivity to ranch life and its varying conditions and requirements (intelligence) and nonaggression toward their owners and other herd members (impulse control), and exclude animals which exhibit undesirable traits like sickliness, stupidity, susceptibility to aggressive impulses, and other traits which lead to conflict and injury and degrade the health, happiness, and fitness of the herd. In other words, ranchers understand the need to control reproduction for both quantity and quality.

Humans are different, of course, but only to a point. Being animals for biological purposes, they too have traits which enhance or diminish the health, happiness, and viability of society, and their reproduction must be controlled for quantity as well as quality. But because they do not wish to be treated as livestock, they prefer to do this for themselves. In order to get by without coercive breeding programs, they must intelligently and responsibly acknowledge the need for population sanity and voluntarily exercise reproductive restraint. Responsible parents must be able to recognize environmental and economic limits on reproduction and muster sufficient impulse control to moderate their reproductive instincts, refrain from waging demographic warfare against other groups, and align their reproductive behavior with individual, group, and societal interests. Only thus can human populations exist in sustainable equilibrium with their respective natural and social environments. (pp. 121-122)

As for the wise council’s structure, Lobaczewski gives some interesting criteria for selection: high moral and scientific qualifications (members must be physicians or clinical psychologists, but can have additional fields of expertise, and must be active in their fields), some religious education (no atheists), and no dependence on clandestine organizations (like the WEF and related groups, or secret societies). The council itself will be composed of an odd number of up to 9 members, with candidates proposed by their respective scientific institutions and the logocratic association, and selected by the senate. Term of office will be until the age of retirement, and members may be removed by the senate at the request of the head of state, three other members of the council, or on one’s own initiative. A council member must resign his membership if elected as head of state.

The council will act has a final check on election to the three high offices: head of state, president of the council of ministers, and commander-in-chief.

In other words, its main goal will be to ensure that logocracy remains a system of normal humanity, not of pathological minorities.

In relation to the other branches or institutions of government, the council will provide informed opinions for their consideration, in addition to engaging in its own initiatives (e.g. research and education, public addresses, dialogues with scientific and religious institutions). It will also serve as the main mediator between the state and religious authorities, publishing joint statements based on their dialogues.

On the subject of its voting procedure:

And finally, the council will have a scholarship fund to support the cultivation of the most talented:

As Heather Mac Donald put it in the interview: “it’s better for everyone if we can find the smart kids and give them as much opportunity as possible even if that means rewarding them in a disparate manner, because we so desperately need what only they can produce.” Or, as Lobaczewski put it in a previous chapter:

People of the highest level of giftedness constitute only a few per thousand of the population of nations. Nevertheless, these people endowed with incisive intelligence constitute such an important factor in the life of any nation that their relegation to a position of social maladjustment and the suppression of their voice and cultural-creative role, inspiring progress in various fields or serving as accurate critics, make the normal functioning of society—its cultural, economic and political development—impossible. Thus, a nation’s future depends on how it is able to recognize these people, acknowledge their role, and respect them.

There are at least a couple things Lobaczewski does not clarify here. As he describes it, the council only has authority over the top three offices. He doesn’t mention anything about more local levels of governance. Should there be local and state/provincial-level councils? Also, will the council’s publication and educational activities be separate from those of the logocratic association? In the previous chapter he mentions that both institutions will collaborate closely, so perhaps this is an area where that is the case. Presumably the council will need staff and a certain organizational structure, which may at least in part be provided by the logocratic association.

---

Chapter 14: The Wise Council

The existence of the institution, already called beforehand “the council of the wise,” is due to the most general assumptions of logocracy, as a system based on the scientific knowledge of the laws of nature, and especially on biological and psychological premises. It will be an institution characteristic of such a system in each of its possible forms. Therefore, the provision for its existence will be written into the first part of the constitution, which will not be easily amendable.

Such an institution is a novelty of the system proposed here, which grows, however, both out of the most painful experiences of the past twentieth century and out of the fact of the enormous development of biological, medical, and psychological knowledge, which should be used to prevent disasters similar to those which have befallen us. The same knowledge must be put to the service of society in order to improve its vitality, smooth its organization, and ensure the efficiency of its governance. These circumstances determine not only the putting forward of such a concept, but also its implementation in the life of nations.

The council of the wise will represent the scientific and social awareness of the biological and psychological life of the nation, its eugenic problems, physical and spiritual health, and the threat of ponerogenic processes. The task of this institution will be to care for the biosocial well-being of the nation in the near and long term. To this end, the council will study the laws of nature that govern the lives of individuals, human families, and society, making use of all advances in knowledge and participating in their elaboration. For the understanding of these laws is the basis of the logocratic system. It will become the task of the council to keep track of the eugenic processes that are taking place in the population of each country and determining its future. By shaping social consciousness and eugenic morality accordingly, the council will prevent the consequences of ignorance in these areas.⁴ It will study ponerogenic phenomena and the roles played in them by individuals with certain mental aberrations.

It will become the duty of the council to protect the highest organs of power from being overtaken by persons who betray ponerogenically active psychic qualities or dangerous weaknesses of mind. The latter became the main cause of the tragic events of the last century, and there have been similar occurrences throughout the centuries.

According to the general principles of logocracy, which will be formulated in the first part of the constitution, an atheist will not be allowed to be a member of the council of the wise. On the contrary, a necessary degree of education in religious matters should be required of the candidates to it, which will complete the criteria for the wisdom of the members of the council. However, there must be no confessional barriers or barriers caused by certain human difficulties in this area. A member of the council of the wise will not be allowed to be elected who is dependent on an organization with clandestine purposes.

The complex responsibilities of this institution will always require of its members the highest moral and scientific qualifications. Regardless of their other fields of expertise, all members of the council of the wise should be physicians or clinical psychologists. It will also be their duty to be sufficiently active scientifically and practically in these fields to keep pace with advances in knowledge and to develop their personal experience. The council as a team of scientists will work to expand common knowledge in the areas of biohumanistic, moral issues with possible correlation to religion. The likely responsibilities of the members of this council will not be so engaging that they cannot find time for the practical, research, pedagogical, or writing activities that would also be desirable.

And here is the concept of how this council is organized and how its members are selected: The council of the wise shall consist of an odd number of members (3 to 9), depending on the size of the country. In Poland, it should be assumed that there will be seven members, but initially its composition could be limited to five. Candidates for members of the council may be proposed one each by the logocratic association and by those scientific institutions to which such a right is granted by parliament, in recognition of their scientific competence in the said fields. From the candidates presented, the senate, after considering the value of their characters, will select the members of the council. In principle, a member of the council of the wise will hold office until the age of retirement. At the request of the head of state, three members of the council, or on its own initiative, the senate may remove a member of the council. The head of state will then call an election for a new one. The election of a council member, if possible, should take place no later than three months before the predecessor steps down. The newly elected will take part in the council meetings, but without the right to cast a deciding vote. If a member of the council is elected national president, he will lose his membership and the election of a new member will take place immediately by law.

The active tasks of the council of the wise would be as follows: the council approves candidates for the three highest positions in the country: the head of state, the president of the council of ministers, and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. The council is responsible for ensuring that these positions cannot be filled by a person who betrays ponerogenically active aberrations, mental defects or weaknesses, whose mental agility is already weakening with age, or whose general state of health does not promise the efficient performance of duties for the duration of the expected term of office. In the event that the incumbent loses the ability to perform his duties as a result of the deterioration of his health or mental fitness, the council will request that he be terminated from office.

The council of the wise not only will become the final barrier that should protect the nation against the entry into the highest offices of those who betray ponerogenic qualities, which has always ended in tragedies of nations. It will act through the necessary direct interventions, as well as through the dissemination of relevant knowledge, and through its influence on the education of society. Acting permanently, it will realize in practice the principle that logocracy is the system of the normal man.

Therefore, the members of the council of the wise, as doctors and psychologists, will have the right to conduct the necessary examinations and to see the medical and psychological records of these people. The council of the wise will oversee a medical clinic that provides the best medical care to high office holders, and some of its members will work there. The council’s activities in this area will generally be covered by medical discretion laws, but the higher social good may allow the council to disclose data to parliament and thus the public. The chairman of the council of the wise will, however, be required to communicate the council’s decision first to the person concerned in the form of sound counsel. If the person accepts it actively, this will relieve the council of the obligation to communicate the findings to the head of state or parliament.

The council of the wise is a consultative institution in relation to the head of state, the senate, the president of the council of ministers, and the commander-in-chief. At their request, the council will study and consider issues falling within its scientific competence and will develop appropriate opinions. In important matters, the council may take its own initiative.

The Council of Wise Men will enter into discussions with representatives of religious denominations on matters where biosocial and psychological problems overlap with moral and religious questions. It would be advisable for joint communiqués of such deliberations to be published after the positions have been formed. In principle, the council of the wise should be the main link between the state organization and the chief religious association. This does not, of course, apply to such matters as the cooperation of the churches with the independent authority of science and education or to administrative matters. But the serious nature of this particular council is best suited to such tasks.

When necessary, the council of the wise will address the public with messages on biosocial, psychological, and moral matters within its scientific competence, and it will do so after a thorough study of the issues. This would include, for example, matters of social eugenics, issues of the ponerogenic role of aberrant individuals and their organization, as well as marital selection and family health, or human relations. Of course, the council will be able to address selected groups in society, such as physicians, psychologists, or clergy, speaking in scientific language they understand. The council will sponsor scientific publications that will contribute to the development of prudence and wisdom in the lives of citizens and society.

The council of the wise will constantly see to it that the country does not lack persons of full mental normalcy and properly gifted, who, as a result of their moral, scientific, and political maturity, will be capable of assuming highly responsible offices. In this connection, the council should have some scholarship fund.

The scientific discussions of the council of the wise may be available to invited guests, but those having as their subject the health of individuals, or for other reasons as well, should remain secret. The council itself will determine to what extent and in what way the results of its inquiries will be communicated to state bodies or the public. Data disclosed only to the head of state will remain secret. Since the council will be an institution operating on the basis of scientific principles of objective cognition, it is to be expected that its decisions will be made by a large majority or by general acclaim. On the contrary, if a particular resolution were to pass by a single vote, the council should itself re-examine the issue. The Senate will have the right to demand this on pain of dissolution of the council. Therefore, the secrecy of the deliberations should not concern the number of votes.

Note: This work is a project of QFG/Red Pill Press and is planned to be published in book form.

1. See this UK government paper. MINDSPACE is an mnemonic for “the most robust (non-coercive) influences on our behaviour”: messenger, incentives, norms, defaults, salience, priming, affect, commitments, ego. Though in the context of government behavioral modification policy, these influences become the very definition of coercion.

2. Simply, there are great physicians and psychologists who handle positions of authority with responsibility and, well, authority. Search your feelings; you know it to be true.

3. Even though the word immediately inspires negative feelings in most, the discussion above between Peterson and Mac Donald could be considered as touching on “eugenic” matters, broadly speaking (e.g. in relation to family structures and mate selection trends).

4. HK: This sounds dangerously close to “nudge”-type policies, but I don’t think that’s what Lobaczewski is talking about. MINDSPACE is a system of manipulating natural human tendencies to achieve ends without their consent. It is a form of institutionalized “para-appropriate responses.” What Lobaczewski is proposing is essentially a public education about those natural tendencies and where they go wrong. It’s the difference between a subtle campaign encouraging women to get abortions and a program that teaches responsibility and healthy parenting skills.