19 Comments

Great stuff. I hope it isn't the final essay in the series - I understand Desmet's final chapters get rather more metaphysical, and I'd enjoy reading your take on that material.

I assume the general in question is Canadian? He has the look - the mustache is fashionable amongst Canadian officers, or was in his generation. Fascinating that he seems to have intuited his way towards a practical understanding of ponerology. I believe he's also entirely correct about the nature of Canada's current leadership.

Expand full comment

I wonder what is meant by "Normal.". America has never been normal. Hysteria runs deep in every state and since 1920's advertising on mass media has dominated the imagination. In fact, I suspect totalitarians thrive in cultures that are atomized. .The Lonely Crowd is another way of talking about this mass formation. Men crave community.. We are atomized outside it.

Expand full comment

I really appreciate this series. I'm troubled that Desmet's seems to ignore the psychopaths in the room. I found that the Breggins make a decent case for why we ought focus on the psychopaths, whom they call predators:

https://www.americaoutloud.com/mass-formation-and-mass-psychosis-a-false-and-dangerous-concept-that-threatens-our-freedom/

Expand full comment
Jul 31, 2022Liked by Harrison Koehli

Thank you for this. I will have to look at your other parts more closely.

Expand full comment
Aug 7, 2022·edited Aug 7, 2022

Thanks for your article;

It seems that mass formation could be a step after the individual ponerization (Lobaczewski's teacher example); does a "teacher's stuff" always lead to it? I suppose not if the starting process fails.

It seems to me that mass formation can have multiple causes; lobaczewski with the teacher example explain some form of very narrow distillation, very specific; I am wondering if we could apply "imposed by force/artificially/homegrown" as starting actions for ponerization (teacher's stuff would fall into one of those).

Or is "mass formation" a very specific form of ponerization? As the name says, mass formation is something global; should we take in consideration a ponerizing effort exclusively applied to the global mind? But I suppose that it could as well find a start with a "teacher's situation".

It seems that mass formation is like when the phenomenon got to a macro scale; is it still at the level of possibility for pathocracy?

I'm asking the question of the pertinence of the use of "mass formation"; it could be a "step" in the process. Or is it a homemade term, not defined enough meant to dig into the mechanisms of the formation of a pathocracy with another approach than Lobaczewski? I need to read Desmet's book to know about that answer.

In any case I find it suitable somehow but a bit vague; well, by essence... "formation"; "mass"; it's like studying a wave in motion.

I have to reread Lobaczewski to check what words he has for mass formation.

At first glance it could apply to:

° the teacher's story - or after it, what those guys then went to do (or even the whole teacher's stuff is a mass formation somehow, so mass formation would actually be the term

"ponerization"... After all that's what we are after... development of totalitarism... well then not toatlitarism itself but its development)

° to the hysteroidal cycle.

° not-yet pathocracy's (imposed, artificial, homegrown) growth phases

You say:

"in a country where pathocracy is imposed (like Poland), mass formation per se might have a much reduced role, if any."

> does it mean that in that case it's because they get beaten and forced to accomplish ponerological stuffs, so there is no real mass formation? People would keep their mind but obey? I suppose that there is a mass formation at that level still; in Germany when normal people became SS, at first they obeyed, they had to, but then they found themselves brainwashed, mass formatione'd and Sebastian Haffner shows how he got completely unrecognizable by himself.

You say:

"This is something different than mass formation ordinarily understood. It's not a group process per se, though a group is formed (or rather, supplemented with additional members)"

> I agree with this; thank you for your analysis. In this case we must have "mass formation" discerned than "individual formation"

> "mass ponerology" vs "individual ponerology

> Interesting is that it leads to "mass formation" (a group is formed)

So:

individual ponerology / micro level

a group is supplemented with additional members

then

ponerologic group or not (if fails)

then

taking part in collective [efforts of ponerology]

(mass formation already present or not at that level)

then

mass formation increases or starts or pushes to pathocracy

You say:

"This is something different than mass formation ordinarily understood. It's not a group process per se, though a group is formed (or rather, supplemented with additional members)"

But at some point the receiver is individual; so it's about the scope of the message, the will of the origin of the ponerological source: is it meant to fish wide or reach individual? Is it meant to get people used to produce homegrown stuffs? Is there a will of ponerology? Is it meant to produce a group? Is it meant to infect an individual? Does it has a will of ponerologization meant for an individual to spread it to individuals?

As well, mass formation has that "vague" feeling.. Mass.. formation... I suppose that the author sticks his finger on something specific after all; he may well try to describe some form of ponerology that attacks core things... Things concerning a very specific level. Better put, impalpable and hard to discuss things, because hard to characterize. The unconscious. What if mass formation would be describing a specific targetting? Like unconscious? Hmmm I suppose that there could well be something that specifically targets the "substract" mentionned by Lobaczewski. I link that "vagueness" to it, so rather in a sense of substract's feature, rather than being pejorative.

You say

"This is different than mass formation ordinarily understood"

> I agree with the fact that there is such thing as the common understanding of "mass formation" and that Desmet could intend to have some other usage; I need to reread his work. As well, I am fighting between the "common usage" and tentatives of characterizing it better/differently/Desmet's way/... in my post. Sorry for the noise.

You say:

"group process per se, though a group is formed (or rather, supplemented with additional members)"

> Is it because the teacher is the core of the group so no real group is formed, they join the ranks? I see the notion of "an already existing group" in your analysis. True that otherwise it would be "homegrown"; this checks the question of a "core", a starting influence.

Christophe Dejour's three level model could provide some milestones as well, because he identified the same model all the time for evil; Level 1, the managers, functional level; level 2, operational guys; level 3 people getting ponerized by those two levels. Still, level 1 ponerizes level 2. They are the real pupetteers that take over at some point when pathocracy is established. The three levels exert each a different ponerizing influence to the lower one, that's what's interesting, so we could use this as a mean to characterize three types of ponerizing efforts.

I wish I had developped about the solutions; still I like all the details of the mechanisms and believe this has to be layed down very precisely. Sorry for my naïve, personal, subjective post!

EDIT: I did the exercise of having 10 Sebastian Haffner's Story of a German's quotes; it's very accessible because his book is like an ever flowing of "and when we believed that this new phenomenon was over, then came..."... And after five "periodes", "episodes", he goes on "then from that point Germany was - not ready for nazism especially - but for whatever crazy adventure would pop up next".

His book is the operating manual of Lobaczewski, it's very striking. I suppose that people could understand with proper quotes and then Lobaczewski. I noticed that the recent heatwave hysteria could be one of those "phases"; people's defense got down. What's the next one? I mean, it's story of a German unfolding right onto my eyes. There is no way to talk to the people about it when they mention the "heatwave" in the conversation, it's hard. I suppose that bad russians and good ukrainians is a layer too, and that it has its roots in the Irak times; if one did not mindfight the irak stuff, one has few chances of reaching truth about Ukraine.

As well, if I may add another comment, it's that Lobaczewski mentioned several times that real intelligence was normal basic people's way of dealing with things. I can see an affection of this characteristic that would make people not able to tap into that basic intelligence.. As your correspondance with John Carter mentioned strenghtening the social bond, I would talk about "training basic common logic" or something like that. I noticed that doing math was useful, and manipulating squared X's and Y's helped me to keep a "basic structuring"; as I noticed that people got to complain about summer's hot temperature, it's alarming and people need to get back to "sky is blue" stuffs.

Expand full comment