Totalitarian Leaders: Greedy, Evil, Fanatic—or a Bit of Each?
We are all walking on eggs! They always come for the intellectuals, artists,(whatever) that see through the cracks. But as a man who has spent enough time in jails - there are people without conscience whatsoever and they should be put out of commission. Blank! It is revolting, it is a mistake of nature, for what that's worth. So what you gonna do? (I hope you're smiling) It's here yesterday, what do we say, where can we help? Maybe a big Z campaign for Zombies? It's on lasses and lads, what do we do? Great article, very enlightening, and at the level of my heart I wish Desmet to be wrong (wink), but we are still going to get it, especially in North Amerdica. That being said have a great weekend. Powerful work, thank you!
>“a spellbinder is always a pathological [often paranoid] individual
Funny how a certain group of self-styled chosen people that run everything nowadays and who sparked all those totalitarian movements in the first place are quite well-known for their extraordinarily high levels of paranoia and a persistent persecution complex. The picture that you provided in the header depicts one of them, no less!
All this talk about the Nazis. And yet, the picture used was of the Bolsheviks. Funny how it's OK to psychoanalyze one group but not the other.
Thank you again for your insightful summary. It does give me even more appreciation for Lobaczewski's work, given he didn't have the long hindsight, resources, nor a matured understanding of personality disorders as Desmet has at his fingertips. Nevertheless it does sound like Desmet has some valuable commentary on the outcomes of psychopathic leadership even if he doesn't see the psychopath. Some will argue that personality disorders, including psychopathy, are not pathology at all (and so not disorders) but 'normal' variations in neural architecture that may be more or less fit for a situation or context (the psychopath soldier is going to be more effective, in certain respects, than one who is overly empathic). So the filtering out of psychopathology may not have included psychopathy because the elements of psychopathy could have been seen as strengths, not weaknesses (if detected at all, until maybe the purges you cite above).
Looking forward to the next post - going to have to get the book now!
From my humble perspective, Desmet and Arendt both run into the psychological version of Aristotle's "first mover" problem. In the psychological realm, that "first mover" could be an individual or a group of people at origin. Girard's "scapegoat" seems to apply here, and Desmet's thesis appears to suffer from finding a scapegoat that isn't human, in a human problem, instead of allowing the "Machiavellian" to emerge from his exploration during research phase.
I like the use of magic terminology like "spells" and so on.
Politics and manipulation of the masses really is a form of dark witchcraft.
I've been reading up on the power of sigils and symbols, this stuff is very very real,
This post from Chris Langan speaks of pathocracy without yet having the word:
"In the advanced stage of social pathology called parasitic divergence..."
Life is such that I'm not able to devote the time or mental expenditure to reading Dr. Desmet's work at the minute (new kid), so I'm sincerely appreciative of this series. Thank you.
Thank you for this! Desmet's psychopath-free map appears naïve compared to Lobaczewski's much more complete map. I imagine that Desmet is subject to "incentives" to avoid calling attention to, say, those under investigation by the team at https://grand-jury.net/
Contrast his approach of avoiding mention of the (uber-powerful) psychopaths to the approach of many recent scientific paper authors. To get published, they modify their conclusions to conform to The Narrative, while managing to slip damning evidence into the body of their papers.
Does Desmet have to walk a similar "fine line"?
I have to admit I gave up on this article fairly early, as it committed what I think of as an analytical failure, by missing the most obvious comment to make early in the piece when it would have made sense to point it out - specifically that: when anyone in the analysis of anything asks "is it (the cause / motivation / reason) this OR this OR that?", who says it's an "or" question? Quite obviously the reason for sociopaths in power is NOT "one or the other" of the reasons given, but a little bit of ALL OF THEM ... and if you don't think any cabals exist or have existed, you're just very ignorant of a lot quite well documented investigative journalism and history INCLUDING a great many open admissions made by such cabals ... and if you think no two people have ever conspired, well that's just bloody naive ... and so on.