Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes

another person or his blame-worthiness may strike us as based

mostly upon emotional responses and centuries-old tradition.

POLITICAL PONEROLOGY

181

We have the right and duty to critically judge our own be-

havior and the moral value of our motivations. This is condi-

tioned by our conscience, a phenomenon as ubiquitous as it is

incomprehensible within the boundaries of naturalistic think-

ing. Even if armed with all the present and future accomplish-

ments of ponerology, will we ever be in a position to abstract

and evaluate the individual blame of another person? In terms

of theory, this appears ever more doubtful; in terms of practice,

ever more unnecessary.

If we consistently abstain from moral judgments of other

people, we transfer our attention to tracking the causative proc-

esses that are responsible for conditioning the behavior of an-

other person or society. This improves our prospects for proper

mental hygiene and our capacity to apprehend psychological

reality. Such restraint also enables us to avoid an error which

poisons minds and souls all too effectively, namely superim-

posing a moralizing interpretation upon the activity of patho-

logical factors. We also avoid emotional entanglements and

better control our own egotism and egocentrism, thus facilitat-

ing objective analysis of phenomena.

If such an attitude strikes some readers as being close to

moral indifference, we should reiterate that the here-adduced

method of analyzing evil and its genesis gives rise to a new

type of reasoned distance from its temptations, as well as acti-

vating additional theoretical and practical possibilities for

counter-acting it. Also, we should give thought to the astonish-

ing and obvious convergence between the conclusions we can

derive from this analysis of the phenomena and certain ideas

from ancient philosophies, well stated in the Christian Bible:

“Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye

judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it

shall be measured to you again.” (Mat. 7:1-2)

These values, unfortunately often overshadowed by a gov-

ernment’s immediate needs, as well as the activity of our in-

stinctive and emotional reflexes goading us to revenge and

punishment of others, find at least partial rational justification

in this new science. Practicing such rigorous understanding and

behavior can only confirm these values in a more evident and

scientific manner.

182

PONEROLOGY

This new discipline can be applicable to many walks of life.

The author has utilized these accomplishments and tested their

practical value in the course of individual psychotherapy upon

his patients. As a result, their personality and future were rear-

ranged in a manner more favorable than if it were based on

earlier skills. Bearing in mind the exceptional nature of our

times, when multi-faceted mobilization of moral and mental

values must be effected to counteract the evil threatening the

world, in the coming chapters, the author shall suggest the

adoption of just such an attitude, whose end result ought be an

act of forgiveness heretofore unheard of in history. Keep in

mind also that understanding and forgiveness does not exclude

correction of conditions and taking prophylactic measures.

Disentangling the Gordian Knot of present times, composed

of the macrosocial pathological phenomenon threatening our

future, may appear impossible without the development and

utilization of this new discipline. This knot can no longer be

cut with a sword. A psychologist cannot afford to be as impa-

tient as Alexander the Great. That is why we have here de-

scribed it within the indispensable scope, adaptation, and selec-

tion of data, so as to enable clarification of the problems to be

discussed later in the book. Perhaps the future will make it

possible to elaborate a general theoretical work.

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

May the reader please imagine a very large hall in an old

Gothic university building. Many of us gathered there early in

our studies in order to listen to the lectures of outstanding phi-

losophers and scientists. We were herded back there – under

threat - the year before graduation in order to listen to the in-

doctrination lectures which recently had been introduced.

Someone nobody knew appeared behind the lectern and in-

formed us that he would now be the professor. His speech was

fluent, but there was nothing scientific about it: he failed to

distinguish between scientific and ordinary concepts and

treated borderline imaginings as though it were wisdom that

could not be doubted. For ninety minutes each week, he

flooded us with naive, presumptuous paralogistics and a patho-

logical view of human reality. We were treated with contempt