My Interview with Unbekoming

On Ponerology, Pathocracy, Psychopathy, Evil and More

With Unbekoming’s permission, I’m archiving my recent interview here. If you like it, please subscribe:

---

Interview with Harrison Koehli

On Ponerology, Pathocracy, Psychopathy, Evil and more.

I came across Harrison Koehli when reading his extensive introduction to Political Ponerology.

It was abnormally good.

From this interview I now understand why, as he has lived and breathed (literally) that book, and its subject matter for almost 20 years.

There is no doubt in my mind that personality disorder, in power, is leveraged and amplified into social disorder.

Sick minds in power lead to sick societies.

It’s fractal.

The work of Andrew Lobaczewski, now being amplified by the work of Harrison Koehli is vitally important to coming to terms with this phenomenon and creating the language framework to describe all its moving parts and concepts. This must be the first step to wider understanding of this recurring danger. From there we can talk about what to do about it.

With thanks to Harrison Koehli.

---

1. Harrison, to start off, could you please tell us a bit about your background and the journey that led you to be the editor of Political Ponerology?

Sure. I studied jazz guitar in college, then did a year of university toward a probable B.A. in philosophy before dropping out and deciding to get into the book business instead. I co-ran an independent book store in Grande Prairie and joined on as an editor and bookbinder for Red Pill Press in the back of the shop. That was right as Political Ponerology was being published for the first time, so while I didn’t have much to do with that edition, I personally printed and bound most of those first copies, trying my best to avoid the glue vapors in the process.

I’ve always been interested in new and exciting ideas. Encountering ponerology for the first time hooked me. I can’t say I understood it all at the time, but I would periodically re-read Lobaczewski’s book in the ensuing years, understanding a bit more each time. My other reading convinced me that he was more right than wrong and had something very important to tell us. I read a lot, and most of my reading over the years ties in to ponerology in some way—history, politics, philosophy, psychology.

Flash forward to around 15 years later: still editing for RPP (but no longer book-binding!), I had a feeling that the time was right for a new edition and that it would gain a new audience. (And I’m glad to say I was right.) I spent the next 1–2 years editing, comparing to an AI translation of the Polish edition, consulting with my Polish friends on the translation to make it as accurate and intelligible as possible, and writing all the editorial material that became the current edition.

2. The book Political Ponerology has a fascinating backstory involving a secret network of scientists in communist Eastern Europe. What more can you tell us about this group, how Andrzej Łobaczewski came to be the last living member, and the challenges he faced in trying to publish this work?

I have included everything I’ve been able to glean on ponerology’s history in the introduction to the recent edition. Briefly, some time after graduation in the early 1950s, Lobaczewski became acquainted with a group of older scientists who were engaging in a secret research project to understand the psychopathology of communism as they were experiencing it. Stefan Szuman (1889–1972), a retired professor, acted as a clearinghouse for the group, passing on their anonymous research summaries to other members.

An unknown scientist was supposed to synthesize all the results, but after a wave of post-Stalin repression in the early 1960s, all the contacts dried up—some probably quit under pressure, others may have been “liquidated.” Lobaczewski decided to take on the job for himself with whatever material had already come into his possession and the results of his own observations and experimentation from within the laboratory of life under pathocratic rule in Poland.

His original manuscripts were lost under typically totalitarian circumstances. He destroyed the first after being warned of an imminent police raid. The second was entrusted to a foreigner who turned out to be untrustworthy. The third, written in New York, lingered unpublished until he sent his manuscript to RPP in the mid 2000s. As readers will know, it’s a dense book, and the original translation wasn’t perfect. Regardless, he couldn’t find an English publisher for all those years. It was “too political” for the psychology publishers, “too psychological” for the political ones.

3. One of the central questions the book addresses is the origins of evil, both on an individual and societal level. How does Łobaczewski’s perspective, which involves an interplay of nature and nurture, differ from or build upon other attempts to explain the roots of human evil?

We can place theories of human evil on something of a continuum. On one extreme you have the complete denial of human evil. Here we find a couple varieties, from the naive idea that everyone is good at heart (“underneath it all”) to the moral relativist belief that simply denies the category of evil altogether.

Somewhere in the middle we find an acknowledgment of the reality of human evil, but the causes range from social determinism to strict heredity. Social determinism is compatible with the “good at heart” theory, positing that people only “break bad” because of poor childhoods or other environmental influences—the basic substratum of all humans is presumed to be similar with no substantial qualitative variations. Strict heredity denies social influence altogether, and may be paired with class- or race-based arguments that posit, for example, the inherent superiority of a hereditary aristocracy.

At another extreme I would place the supernatural theories, which may be paired with any number of the previous ones. For instance, evil may be ascribed to demonic possession in a manner similar to social determinism. Alternately, strict heredity may hide a supernatural taint of the bloodline.

Lobaczewski’s perspective is based on a realistic acceptance of human variation, and a multi-pathway genesis of human evil. He posits variations on the genetic, qualitative level, as well as “environmental” pathways that can cause reversible or irreversible changes to a person’s personality and character. He calls the genetic causes “psychopathies” and the environmental causes “characteropathies” (the result of certain brain injuries and “bad childhoods”).

While he does not discuss supernatural theories, he was a Catholic and didn’t see any inherent contradiction between science and religion in this regard. He does make a few tantalizing references to the “demonological” interpretation of evil, but doesn’t expand on it, commenting elsewhere that he had no wish to tread on the theologian’s ground.

4. The book coins the term “pathocracy” to describe a system of government essentially hijacked by pathological individuals. What are some historical or contemporary examples that might fit this description, and what are the key adaptations and survival strategies normal people develop when living under such a system?

Lobaczewski’s primary historical example was the Soviet Union and its extensions, both in the Eastern Bloc and in Asia and Africa. He also classified Nazi Germany as a pathocracy, albeit one which was prevented by the war from consolidating into what he called pathocracy in the “dissimulative phase” (a consolidated pathocracy that expends much effort presenting an image of normality to the outside world). There is a hint in his writing that he considered revolutionary France a pathocracy, but that both pre-revolutionary France and Russia had been developing pathocratic tendencies in the monarchy and empire respectively. He also alludes to a pathocratic degeneration within Christianity, possibly a reference to pre-Protestant Catholicism, but he offers no solid historical markers.

Probably the only remaining “prototypical” pathocracy, in the sense of a communist/totalitarian social and political structure, is North Korea, but I would argue that many nations display varying degrees of pathocratic capture without necessarily having crossed over into full-blown pathocratic totalitarianism of the type he describes in depth. Western democracies seem to be undergoing such a “ponerization” process, by which key institutions become increasingly influenced and controlled by people with various personality disorders.

Lobaczewski considered one of western democracy’s biggest weaknesses the fact that it leads to covert rule by minority cliques and lobbies, potentially producing a kind of “pathocracy by proxy” without the full societal transformation characteristic of, say, the Soviet Union or China. The way I see it, Western society is witnessing a psychopathological degeneration of its ruling classes, allowing for the increasing influence of a psychopathic minority/proxy group. Simultaneously, a sort of “revolution from below” is occurring on a grassroots level through the spread of “Woke” social justice ideologues in education, corporations, media, etc.

The primary adaptations and survival strategies Lobaczewski observed under pathocracy changed over time. The initial response was shock and trauma, along with distrustfulness. But over the decades normal people became increasingly immune to the physical and emotional assault and fear of reprisals, learning to navigate the new reality. Lobaczewski describes the following phenomena. Normal people collectively develop a kind of secret language, rich in subtext and hidden meanings, that mirrors the pathocrats own double-speak. Peppered with bits of reappropriated propaganda and references to important historical events, it allows normal people to communicate in a manner below the sensitivity threshold of the censors. It’s also funny. Pathocrats may be brutal psychopaths, but people eventually learn to laugh at them. (Read some old communist jokes from behind the Iron Curtain; they’re hilarious.)

Adaptations may be seen as forms of compromise with the system. People learn how to be resourceful given the limitations imposed from above. This may include law-breaking: forging documents, buying and selling goods on the black market, bribing officials, illegal gatherings and publishing endeavors. They gain practical knowledge about how to deal with the authorities: what to say, who to say it to, how to say it without incurring their wrath, and who to turn to for help. All these features allow people to reestablish the social links that were broken by the imposition of pathocracy and create a “society of normal people” parallel to the pathocratic society.

5. In the book’s introduction, you draw parallels between the processes Łobaczewski describes and trends in the modern Western world. What are some specific examples of these “ponerogenic” tendencies you see at work today, particularly in the rise of “social justice” ideology and the increasing politicization of academia?

The main ponerogenic tendency is what Lobaczewski calls the ponerization process, facilitated by the “hysterical” state of society. This is the process by which groups’ membership becomes increasingly saturated by individuals with various character disturbances or personality disorders. Hystericization makes a society more emotionally unstable, suggestible, distrustful, and prone to take offense at the drop of a hat.

Ponerization (among other things touched on in the next answer) allows “ponerogenic factors” to do their work. These primarily include personality disorders like psychopathy, borderline and paranoid personality disorders, and schizoid personality disorder. Lobaczewski divides these into those who more or less have a normal range of emotions (e.g. borderlines, paranoids, and run-of-the-mill narcissists), and those who don’t (like psychopaths and schizoids).

The early stages of the ponerization of a group feature the dominance of the former type. Such individuals need an ideology in order to mask their psychological difference from others and from themselves. They tend to gravitate towards ideologies that are already subtly (or not so subtly) distorted by a similar pathological worldview. Such ideologies are typically created by schizoids—highly idealistic and abstract, but overly simplistic and lacking in a realistic perception and knowledge of human nature. These ideologies are then weaponized as a means of gaining social dominance and forcing societies to accept the ideologues’ own distorted ways of thinking, feeling, and behaving.

From the outside looking in, this ideological transformation may be perceived as a progressive radicalization and caricaturization of the original ideals and values of a political or social movement. This is what I see happened in the social justice world. The movement became increasingly emotionally unhinged, further removed from common sense, and pathologically egotistical. Such movements succeed by gaining some measure of popular support, then further transforming and turning on those who initially supported the movement. Once that happens, the group is firmly under the control of the psychopaths who have wormed their way in and steered it in a direction conducive to their aims.

6. You mention that Łobaczewski was not optimistic about the United States avoiding the pathocratic fate of Eastern Europe. What factors did he identify that made the U.S. vulnerable to this process, and how does his proposed concept of “psychological immunity” relate to potential solutions?

Here’s a short list of features he commented on. Americans are arrogant. This not only prevents them from seeing other nations’ point of view; it prevents them from seeing their own blindspots. They also have a poor psychological worldview; they lack a nuanced understanding of human nature. Combined, this means they arrogantly hold to a worldview that doesn’t take into account the complexity of human nature. These two alone are an unfortunate combination, but not necessary fatal. However, that’s not all.

Lobaczewski also observed that in the 1980s America had a very low socio-occupational adjustment. This means that its “human capital” was not well exploited for the good of the nation. Incompetent persons were elevated above their abilities, and the highly talented found themselves in positions below where they would otherwise naturally fit. This trend has obviously gotten even worse over the past 40 years. On top of that, the country is currently in the tail end of a “secular cycle,” with a high political stress index (Peter Turchin’s term), and is increasingly gerontocratic. (Old age can also be a pathocratic factor.)

Psychological immunity, if it could be administered on a mass scale, would have the effect of potentially correcting or at least mitigating some of the above. The type of psychological knowledge that produces such immunity naturally improves one’s psychological worldview and reduces egotism, because one has a better understanding of self and others. It would also allow for a more natural understanding of competence and who should and shouldn’t be given positions of authority at all levels of the social structure. It would probably also put an age cap on politicians (though perhaps making exceptions for those of exceptional ability).

7. In your research, you discuss the concept of “danger-zone psychopathy” and how psychopaths are not as intelligent as they believe themselves to be. How does this self-delusion manifest, and what are its implications in various contexts, such as the workplace or politics?

On the one hand, psychopaths naturally think they are better and smarter than everyone else, whom they view as “freiers” or suckers. This manifests as off-the-charts grandiosity and a total refusal to take personal responsibility for failure. However, when they achieve power, they do come to a sort of understanding and realization that they need others to do the things they cannot. “Who’s going to keep the electricity running and the income flowing? Who’s going to give us medical care when we need it?” In politics this means that even in a full-blown pathocracy, leadership will attempt to structure the economy so that the masses achieve some minimum level of prosperity.

In the workplace, however, unless a corporate psychopath is identified and fired, that company will proceed to fail. The incompetent will rise and the competent will either be fired, quit, or live completely demoralized lives, putting in the least effort required and thus lowering the company’s efficiency and profits. A single psychopath can destroy the morale of an entire organization.

I stole the concept from Chris Langan, who explains why the above occurs. Psychopaths, being “ethically uninhibited,” “come to believe that ethically inhibited people are their intellectual inferiors.”

This is how the minds of danger-zone psychopaths and sociopaths often work, leading them to severely underestimate their betters. A great many of the world’s problems can be traced to such people, who frequently manage to overtake and displace their moral and intellectual superiors from positions of responsibility and reward for which the latter are objectively much better-qualified.

Danger-zone Psychopathy

8. Chris Langan discusses the “IQ danger zone” and how it relates to psychopathy and sociopathy. Can you elaborate on this concept and its potential consequences for society, particularly in light of the current elite-aspirant class being overstuffed with both overeducated, under-adjusted individuals and over-adjusted graduates who may not be suited for positions of power?

People in the IQ danger zone are smart enough to realize they’re smarter than at least 50% of the population, but not smart enough to realize they aren’t that smart. When they achieve a position they think they deserve because of their degree, they tend to be overconfident in their abilities. Here’s an example in vivo:

An overstuffed elite-aspirant class means too much competition for too few positions in the elite class. And as Peter Turchin has discovered, intra-elite conflict of this sort is probably the most solid indicator of secular-cycle crisis. It creates revolutionary feelings among the competent but under-adjusted (who may overestimate their own potential as a result), and promotes degeneration at the top because it selects not only for incompetence, but unscrupulous incompetence. The nastier you are, the more likely you are to win the competition to enter the elite class, thus furthering its ponerization.

Needless to say, a crisis of competence means the quality of everything goes downhill. And in a society that depends on the continued functioning of countless interdependent complex systems, that’s a recipe for disaster.

9. Shifting gears, let’s discuss the metaphysical status of evil. How does ponerology approach this question, and why is it important to consider the supernatural aspects of evil, especially when many modern thinkers seem uncomfortable with the concept, often dismissing it as superstitious or outdated?

As I mentioned above, ponerology is mostly agnostic about the specific metaphysical status of evil, though it is compatible with certain ideas about it. Personally, I think a metaphysics of evil is necessary for the same reason I think metaphysics itself is necessary. Like the psychological worldview, bad metaphysics cannot provide a proper map for navigating reality. The materialistic worldview is untenable, leaving huge gaps in our picture of reality, distorting what “geography” it does encompass, and placing value in strange places.

The metaphysics of evil is important because while a naturalistic understanding may be sufficient in certain contexts, it doesn’t provide a rational justification for why it is evil. Materialism is hopelessly morally relative. A proper metaphysics is, I would argue, “contextually objective.” Some things are universally evil because they violate something fundamental about human nature, while leaving room for geographic or cultural idiosyncrasies. (Also, it’s not PC, but some cultures are simply worse than others by certain measures.)

Supernatural Evil and Ponerology

10. Moving on to the topic of psychopathic manipulation, you discuss how psychopaths see human nature as a series of buttons to be pushed. Can you provide some examples of how this manipulation plays out in various contexts, and how has the increasingly psychopathic scientific-materialistic worldview affected our understanding of human behavior and the potential for manipulation?

Here are some of the techniques Lobaczewski highlights: reversive blockades (big lies), projection (ascribing one’s own negative qualities, actions, or intentions to others), paralogisms (logical-sounding but wrong statements), paramoralisms (inversions of common morality meant to appeal to our innate moral sensibilities), eliciting para-appropriate responses (see below), and using pathological egotism to terrorize and coerce. All of these share something in common: they are designed to deceive and to influence one to do something they otherwise wouldn’t.

Psychopaths can be motivated by a handful of values, handily summarized by Dr. Karen Mitchell: wealth, attention, status, to be seen as reliable, to achieve a legacy. Whether or not any given psychopath has one or more of these values, they will be in service of two key psychopathic traits: the “drive for control, power, dominance” and a sense of superiority, specialness or entitlement. They feel they deserve what you will give them, and they will shamelessly manipulate you in order to get it.

Dr. Mitchell also has a list of 25 tactics, the majority of which can be considered examples of the more general techniques Lobaczewski describes. For example:

• pathological egotism: forces, coerces, and bullies; intimidates with an intent to create fear; blackmail and bribes

• paralogisms: dismisses, denies, and minimises; justifies and excuses; uses convoluted discussion; blocks, evades, and deflects.

• paramoralisms: attacks process and the qualifications, experience and integrity of professionals who challenge them; diminishes, degrades, disempowers, and discredits

• projection: accuses the victim of their own nefarious deeds (‘reverse attribution’), blames others

Some of the above are also reversive blockades, such as when a psychopath will deny doing something, blame another for something he has done, or lie about a perceived enemy. No matter what the social scale, the same tactics are used: at the workplace, in the home, in the media, politics, big corporations, local councils or school boards, etc.

As for the materialistic worldview, it has arguably made people more “left-brained” in their outlook on the whole (a reference to Iain McGilchrist’s work), more utilitarian, less able to see reality, and thus more susceptible to left-brained (“schizo-autistic”) ideologies. I see this as a major contributor to the degeneration of our collective psychological worldview.

21st Century Schizoid Man

11. Lobaczewski introduces the concept of “para-appropriate” or maladaptive responses to psychopathic manipulation. Can you explain this concept and provide some examples of how it manifests in everyday life?

Most of the above manipulation tactics are designed to elicit such responses. The basic idea is this: we all have natural tendencies that in ordinary circumstances are useful. We give people the benefit of the doubt; it’s hard to believe that everyone is lying all the time, and life would be impossibly complex if that were the case. We also respond to certain threats with fear or violence—also essential to our personal and collective survival. However, each of these natural reactions can be elicited by deception. We can be made to trust untrustworthy people, or to fear or attack trustworthy ones.

Psychopaths, as experts in human behavior, are virtuosos at doing this. Some examples (again courtesy of Dr. Mitchell’s work): deliberately creating confusion and chaos; creating a contrived sense of deep connection; eliciting sympathy by pretending to be the victim; weaponizing the justice system; ingratiating themselves to people in power; creating and capitalizing on divisiveness; public and private provocation; eliciting a sense of obligation by doing things to secure leverage.

These are all exploitations of normal human responses that are otherwise harmless or even beneficial. You could say that psychopaths turn human nature against itself.

12. In your opinion, what are the key ingredients that facilitate the emergence and consolidation of pathocracy in a society?

They key ingredients are pretty much the same as the ones I listed above regarding the United States: primitive psychological worldview, the three egos (egosim, egotism, egocentrism), low socio-occupational adaptation. But the most important is what Lobaczewski calls the first criterion of ponerogenesis. This is the inability to recognize pathological behavior as pathological. When we turn a blind eye or make excuses, we allow such behavior to continue and to become pervasive, thus further facilitating the ponerization process. Lobaczewski also writes this:

Pathocracy will always find a positive response if some independent country is infected with an advanced state of hystericization, or if a small privileged caste oppresses and exploits other citizens, keeping them backward and in the dark; anyone willing to treat the world can then be hounded, and his moral right to act be questioned.

As for consolidation, Lobaczewski only provided one option: violent negative selection. Stalin’s Great Terror, Mao’s Red Terror, Kim Il Sung’s purges. It’s an open question whether this type of violence is necessary to achieve the levels of pathocratic “purity” reached in the communist pathocracies of the 20th century, or if other means can achieve similar results. Can DEI alone, for instance, do the job?

13. A recent study by Krispenz and Bertrams links left-wing extremism, psychopathy, and narcissism, and introduces the “Dark-ego-vehicle Principle,” suggesting that individuals with dark personalities are attracted to certain ideologies and forms of political activism. How does this research support Lobaczewski’s earlier work, and how does this principle relate to the concepts of left-wing and right-wing authoritarianism?

Lobaczewski said that the ideologies of all pathological social movements have three central features: “the motivations of an aggrieved group, radical redress of the grievance, and the higher value of the individuals who have joined the organization.” Krispenz and Bertrams found the same features in their analysis of LWAs. As for RWAs, it’s probably the case that the core personality features are the same for both. When they are railing against an existing system, they are considered left-wing. When they’re in power, they’re right-wing. I wrote more about this paper and the related concepts here:

Marxcissism Is Real

14. Are there any thinkers or researchers working today who you believe are carrying on in the tradition of Łobaczewski and his colleagues?

There are a number of thinkers operating within what I’ll call the “ponerological space,” but so far no one has really taken to ball and rolled with it. What I mean by that is that certain writers and researchers may focus on aspects of ponerology while unaware of Lobaczewski’s work. A small number are aware of ponerology and have incorporated its insights into their own work (e.g. Ian Hughes, Michael McConkey, Michael Shellenberger, Arthur Versluis, Colin E. Davis), but no one has yet had the nerve to adopt the framework as a whole, even their own modified version.

But among those whose work is at least compatible, I’d list Peter Turchin (minus the psychology), Mattias Desmet (minus the psychopathy), Iain McGilchrist (minus the politics), and perhaps a few others. Thanks to a reader I have only just discovered the work of Dr. Karen Mitchell, whose PhD thesis proposes the concept of the “Persistent Predatory Personality.” She sees current models of psychopathy, narcissism, Machiavellianism, etc. as “partial conceptualisations of one overarching personality type” that fail to capture “the subtleties of how higher functioning, nonincarcerated people of [dark personality] operate.” That is right up my alley and fills a cognitive gap in the common consensus about psychopathy and “dark personalities” which is an essential step towards the idea of the political psychopath—a reality that is central to ponerology. Robert Hare and colleagues, while not citing ponerology per se, are starting to talk about political psychopathy:

Psychopathy and Crimes against Humanity

But out of everyone I think Josh Slocum has gone the farthest in presenting a ponerological perspective on modern American politics and culture. And he didn’t need to read the book in order to do so. He lived it for himself and saw the connections as a result, so I consider him one of those remarkable people who has independently discovered many of the things Lobaczewski and his colleagues did. It’s people like Josh who give me hope that even if ponerology doesn’t become widespread knowledge, at least some of its core concepts might, regardless of who reads the book or if they use the same words.

15. To wrap things up, could you tell us a bit about what you’re currently focused on and how people can stay informed about your work?

I hope this year to have Lobaczewski’s follow-up to Political Ponerology published in print. This is his vision of a new political system (“better than democracy”) that incorporates an understanding of ponerology as a basic ingredient. I’ve already published a draft translation on my Substack, but the print version will be more accurate and have some footnotes.

For more on my work, follow me on Substack and subscribe to my podcast, MindMatters. My co-hosts and I discuss ponerology, psychology, philosophy, and whatever else interests us.