Автор: Битарх

The Myth of Eternal War: How Did Hobbes Deceive Us?

Once, the philosopher Thomas Hobbes confidently stated that the natural state of humanity is an endless “war of all against all.” Sounds familiar, right? This concept has become so ingrained that we sometimes forget to check its truthfulness. But in reality, it turns out that people are not as bloodthirsty by nature as we are led to believe.

Take, for example, the well-known story of anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon, who claimed that killers among the Yanomami tribe were more successful in reproducing. The idea is clear and frightening: kill more, and you will have three times as many children! It sounds too harsh to be true, and indeed, it later turned out that Chagnon “stretched the truth” a bit—he was comparing elderly killers with young non-killers. And independent research showed that killers in tribal societies do not reproduce faster than others; in fact, to be honest, fewer of their children survive.

And in general, who said that wars are the norm? A famous myth from Steven Pinker goes like this: 15% of the prehistoric population constantly perished in wars until states emerged and brought order. Great advertising for the state, isn’t it? Except that archaeology shows something completely different: violent deaths in pre-cultural societies were no more than 2%. Moreover, the emergence of states did not reduce the level of violence at all. On the contrary, the first large structures often fueled conflicts and increased the percentage of killings to about 5%.

It is worth noting that anthropologists may unconsciously reinforce the notion of the inevitability of war. For example, researchers “record” groups as warlike that actually hardly ever fought, simply because of the presence of weapon images in rock paintings. But these images do not necessarily evidence actual aggression: weapons could have been used for hunting or symbolic ceremonies. As a result, a false impression is created that ancient people were constantly at war.

Data on so-called “simple” hunter-gatherer societies is also quite telling. Despite being depicted in many works as brutal and always ready to fight, in reality, they are the ones characterized by extremely low levels of aggression and violence. Real war is a rarity for them, not the norm. Conversely, societies with a complex social structure and a more developed hierarchy more often become participants in conflicts and wars. Interesting, isn’t it? It turns out that the more complex a society is, the more conflict and aggression it generates.

Furthermore, many proponents of the Hobbesian perspective fully acknowledge this fact, but they try not to emphasize it, seriously studying only cases of “complex” societies, as, for example, Lawrence Keeley did in the work “War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage.” Alternatively, they may simply categorize “complex” societies as “simple,” subsequently labeling the latter as warlike.

In general, peaceful coexistence is the norm for many peoples. Thus, a study of 590 cultures from around the world showed an absence of wars in as many as 64% of them. Of course, they might have defended themselves against attacks, but initiating attacks is something only a minority of cultures engage in.

So why do we continue to believe in the myth of a human nature doomed to eternal war? Perhaps the problem here is habit—this belief was passed from generation to generation without critical reflection. Or perhaps someone intentionally maintains this myth to justify the existence of a strong and powerful state “saving” us from ourselves.

Let’s admit it to ourselves: the idea that people are by nature inclined toward peace and cooperation sounds much more realistic, optimistic, and attractive. Perhaps it is time for us to stop considering peace a utopia and start seeing it as a natural part of human life. After all, as history and research show, peaceful communities are not the exception, but rather the rule. So is it worth continuing to cling to gloomy Hobbesian imagery? Probably not. It is time to stop allowing fears to dictate our view of humanity and start trusting each other a bit more!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Biohacking and the freedom to conduct experiments on oneself

Throughout history, people have experimented and performed various procedures on themselves. They tried different foods and medical remedies, underwent diverse rituals, and so on. In some cases, such experimentation even had significant scientific value. For example, one article cites 465 instances where researchers tested disease pathogens, tried new drugs, or performed other procedures on themselves. And although 8 of these cases ended in death, indicating a certain level of risk in such experiments, the vast majority (89%) led to positive results—confirmation of previously proposed hypotheses or the acquisition of valuable data.

Of course, today there is a negative attitude toward such experimentation, and toward independent intervention in the human body and health in general. State regulation has played a huge role in this, imposing strict restrictions on what a person can and cannot do, often insisting and deciding on behalf of ordinary people that this is allegedly safer. The state has done everything to ensure that biomedical experiments and procedures do not take place outside of approved institutions.

However, none of this has prevented the existence of biohacking. First of all, it should be noted that many means for its implementation are very common and not regulated at all, being simply bioactive supplements. No one can forbid you, based on current research or biohacking books, from purchasing certain vitamins or nootropics and taking them in the specified dosages and manner, let alone modifying your lifestyle or diet based on experimental data or even hypothetical assumptions. By the way, a good collection of useful tools and practices can be found in Daria Babkina’s book “Brain Biohacking: How to Manage Neurochemistry, Emotions, and Intelligence,” which was released this year.

But the matter doesn’t end there. Modern technologies make it possible to organize entire genetic laboratories at home, and there are already ready-made solutions for this. For example, for just 3,000 dollars, you can purchase a home laboratory with all the additions for bioengineering from “The Odin” (and educational kits for simple experiments cost only hundreds of dollars). You don’t have to go far for instructions on what exactly to do with such a laboratory—you can simply replicate step-by-step what has been done in various studies. This is exactly what one biohacker did—whose video you can see here—to correct his lactose intolerance; he simply recreated a gene therapy drug from an experiment on mice and tested it on himself. The result was excellent—a single pill allows for the free consumption of dairy products for over a year without experiencing any negative consequences whatsoever.

Considering how deeply modern science is stuck in countless regulations and the need to wait for state approval, sometimes even for decades, biohacking can give a boost to progress in the field of biotechnology, especially if we are talking about solutions that people need here and now to treat their diseases and various conditions that cause discomfort but do not yet have a sufficiently effective solution among those approved and allowed on the market by the state regulator.

Is there a danger in this? Naturally, among those engaged in biohacking, undesirable outcomes will sometimes occur. But people have every right to voluntarily assume such a risk, and an attempt to introduce a total ban on self-experimentation would not be justified, and to a large extent, would not even be feasible. Even now, there are fully approved activities that carry huge risks, such as extreme sports. And if a person can choose to do base jumping, rock climbing, or motocross, then why can’t they choose to control the biochemical processes of their own body, or even edit their genome?

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Essential oils are effective anti-aggressive agents

Substances that have an anti-aggressive effect can be not only synthesized in laboratories but also found in various natural remedies. One category of such remedies is essential oils. Although they have traditionally been widely used to improve a person’s psychological state, the question of their effect on the nervous system is still insufficiently studied, especially when addressing the topic of aggressive behavior. However, existing research conducted on animals and even on humans indicates a great potential for studying this direction.

First, let us look at a study on the effect of a substance called linalool, which is present in a vast number of essential oils (bitter orange, neroli, petitgrain, rose, lavender, citronella, lemon, geranium, and others), on mice. It demonstrated that inhalation of this substance significantly reduces the number and duration of attacks on unfamiliar conspecifics, and at certain concentrations, almost completely eliminates them. At the same time, as shown in other experiments, such an effect cannot be explained by a general decrease in the activity of the mice, as this does not occur during the inhalation of linalool.

Another study was conducted on fighting fish, or Siamese fighting fish, whose males are known for their extremely aggressive behavior toward conspecifics, which is why they must be kept strictly alone. In the experiment, either lavender essential oil or pure linalool was used, which were added in various concentrations to a container of water. The test subject was placed in this container and given two minutes to acclimate, after which a container with another individual was placed next to it to allow visual contact. As a result, while individuals in the control group (without drugs) attempted to actively attack both during and after acclimation, individuals under the influence of both lavender essential oil and pure linalool showed almost no such behavior—their desire to attack disappeared. Moreover, although the aggressiveness of the individuals was restored over time, it did not return to the pre-test level even three months after the trial with the essential oil. Accordingly, we can conclude a limited permanent anti-aggressive effect from lavender oil.

But is all this applicable to humans? There are strong reasons to believe so, as many experiments have been conducted on the anti-aggressive effect of essential oils on people with cognitive impairments. A meta-analysis of 15 studies with 693 participants showed that although further research is needed to determine effective dosages and side effects, overall, the use of essential oils in therapeutic procedures has a significant anti-aggressive effect.

Although the mechanism of such an effect of essential oils is not yet sufficiently studied, it is known that their molecules can enter the hippocampus, the limbic system, and the amygdala of the brain through the nasal cavity and olfactory cells. It is worth noting that linalool and other substances from essential oils work as 5-HT1A receptor agonists (activating them), and such an effect is known for its selective anti-aggressive effect (eliminating attacking aggression without affecting defensive behavior and other activity), which is achieved through the strengthening of the violence inhibition mechanism. In addition, upon entering the blood, for example, through the skin, essential oils can affect various physiological reactions. Finally, by exerting a certain influence on the function of cholinergic synapses, they can prevent neurodegenerative processes.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Garage Revolutionaries: How Free People are Changing Science

Do you know what airplanes, personal computers, Bitcoin, and home-produced insulin have in common? All of these things were once “absolutely impossible” from the perspective of official science. And they all started literally in garages, basements, and on the kitchen tables of enthusiasts who didn’t give a damn about the approval of academics and bureaucrats.

Why is this so important? Because it is in such garages that real breakthroughs are born. Take the Wright brothers: the prestigious New York Times wrote that the first human flight was still a thousand years away. And a couple of months later, two guys who were considered local crazies proved the opposite. And today we have similar stories. For example, insulin—in the US, pharma giants jacked up prices so high that diabetics are literally forced to choose between food and medicine. A few guys and girls from Oakland, fed up with this, decided to start the Open Insulin project to simply make it themselves, without insane markups and bureaucracy. Professors rolled their eyes, saying it was impossible. But these guys have already made serious progress and may soon radically change the entire market. Not because they have permission or government support, but simply because they care.

Or take the diabetics from the OpenAPS movement, who took old insulin pumps, glucose sensors, and wrote code, creating an “artificial pancreas” at home. Regulators warned: “Dangerous, no FDA approval!” And tens of thousands of people replied: “We can’t afford to wait; we want to live normally right now.” Today, even pharmaceutical companies are forced to replicate their ideas to avoid losing the market.

Do you think this is only about medicine? What about Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs, who assembled the first Apple in a garage? Big bosses at the time claimed, “Nobody needs personal computers.” Today that sounds like a joke, but their ideas were truly considered foolishness. Or Bitcoin—an invention that no state would have officially approved. The initial reaction of economists? “It’s a bubble, child’s play.” Today, Bitcoin’s capitalization is estimated in the trillions of dollars, and it has become a symbol of freedom from state and banking monopolies.

An even cooler story is Copenhagen Suborbitals—Danish guys who decided to send a person into space simply by raising money through crowdfunding. Although the failed launch of the first rocket due to a breakdown caused mockery, a year later they successfully launched the next one. Without billions in budget, simply because they wanted to prove they could. And how about the story of 14-year-old Taylor Wilson? The kid built a nuclear reactor in his garage. Academics: “That’s impossible!” Reality: he demonstrated a working reactor and met with the President of the United States.

These stories don’t just inspire; they prove that bureaucracy, regulators, and official structures often become barriers rather than helpers. Requiring enthusiasts to publish in official journals is roughly the same as asking a runner in sacks to compete with athletes. Of course, official science and peer review are good, but they should not become the sole measure of truth. Grigori Perelman proved the Poincaré mathematical conjecture without any official publications—and received the equivalent of a Nobel Prize. His work was verified by mathematicians themselves, and that proved sufficient.

We must support garage science, DIY laboratories, and open communities. People should have the opportunity to experiment freely, create, and share discoveries without looking over their shoulders at officials and corporate monopolies. After all, science belongs not to institutions, but to people. Every garage can become a laboratory, every kitchen a workshop for innovation. This very freedom to create is what makes the world better. Let us not be afraid to create what is officially “impossible.” For it is exactly here, at the intersection of freedom and dreams, that the future is born!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Corporate Psychopathy – the Cause of the Global Economic Crisis

There is a theory developed by researcher Clive Boddy, according to which psychopaths working in corporations, particularly financial ones, played a significant role in the emergence of the 2008 global economic crisis. As is well known, not all managers are inclined to work for the benefit of the company that hired them. Some of them are dysfunctional leaders who literally destroy the company with their actions. One important type of such leaders are psychopathic personalities, which we will now discuss in more detail.

As we know, psychopaths in literature are defined as personalities who have problems manifesting empathy and sympathy toward other people, behave coldly and ruthlessly toward them, lack a conscience, and feel no guilt for causing harm to anyone. In turn, corporate psychopaths are individuals with similar characteristics who engage in organizational activities. They usually present themselves as pleasant, attractive, and successful individuals, but in reality, they merely manipulate everyone around them, usually to their detriment, to achieve purely personal goals.

Such individuals often receive rapid promotions and become leaders due to their charm and confidence, while they are prone to ignoring the needs of others, deceiving them, or even engaging in bullying. Furthermore, there is evidence that in some companies, including international financial corporations, psychopaths were even specifically selected for leadership positions due to the belief that such personalities are best suited for such work.

Usually, such individuals brought short-term success to companies through mass cost-cutting and employee layoffs. However, they were in no way concerned about the potential long-term harm of the strategies they chose, and in general pursued exclusively their own benefits, discarding their obligations and responsibility, striving to obtain as many personal “bonuses” as possible while everyone else was in the midst of financial litigation. From the actions of such “effective managers,” one can well expect that they will ultimately receive a large check for their efforts to “save” the company, after which it will simply go bankrupt.

Now imagine what would happen if, due to certain global changes in the corporate environment—such as increasingly frequent company mergers, the tendency of employees to change jobs more often and move to companies previously completely unknown to them, changes in the technological environment and others, which became common practice on the eve of the global crisis—psychopathic personalities received far more opportunities to occupy high positions, using not their actual work skills, but manipulation and political skills? In such a situation of growing corporate psychopathy, a corporate and social catastrophe can be expected, which is precisely what authors studying this problem warned about in their materials as early as 2005.

Such a problem has still not been given proper attention, which puts the very future of capitalism at risk. Of course, this problem is far from the only one in economic matters, but it deserves more detailed study and the application of appropriate measures.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

“Anti-Lorentz” is impossible in practice

We once examined the question of why using a certain drug that suppresses the function of a person’s violence inhibitor (or as we also called it, “Anti-Lorenz” agents) has little practical utility and effectiveness, but is capable of leading to serious problems. However, this was presented from the perspective of social processes, whereas now we will delve deeper into the biological essence of this issue.

As we know, the violence inhibitor is managed by the brain’s serotonergic system, specifically the 5-HT1A and 5-HT1B receptors, as well as the MAO-A, TPH2, and SERT proteins associated with their function, encoded by the corresponding genes (for simplicity, we will call all of these “variables”). And we can assume that only a specific, quite narrow combination of these variables creates a high risk of developing violence inhibitor dysfunction in a particular individual. After all, only a tiny fraction of the population (no more than 1–2%) has increased psychopathic predispositions in any population.

Impact on at least one of these variables “upward” is quite capable of significantly strengthening the inhibitor function (eliminating the ability to initiate violence). Thus, in experiments on animals and humans, the mere activation of 5-HT1A or 5-HT1B receptors, or the enhancement of serotonergic function through impact on SERT activity, selectively eliminated violent behavior. At the same time, impact on any of the variables “downward” does not guarantee the weakening of the inhibitor (restoration of the ability to initiate violence), as was, for example, shown with the blocking of 5-HT1A and 5-HT1B receptors in animals.

On the other hand, there are strong grounds to believe that attempts to actively exert such an influence can cause serious mental disorders—increased anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, and other pathologies related to the serotonergic system. Initially, such problems are often not particularly pronounced in psychopathic personalities simply because the narrow combination of “variables” required for this is evolutionarily maintained (with a bouquet of disorders, they simply would not have had reproductive success). In fact, according to research, violence inhibitor dysfunction itself is a “point” rather than an extensive disruption in brain function.

Why is all this important in practice? In the tasks of strengthening and weakening the violence inhibitor, there is a huge disparity in complexity. To put it simply—even in a successful attempt to weaken the violence inhibitor by suppressing any “variable,” it will not be possible to guarantee that this effect will not be reversible if someone applies agents to strengthen a certain “variable” to the person who did this. However, one can certainly guarantee serious side effects. In one of the experiments on rats using the neurotoxin 5,7-DHT, which affects the serotonergic system, although it was possible to increase their aggressiveness, this effect was reversed by introducing small doses of serotonin into the brain. A similar neurotoxic effect is exerted, for example, by methamphetamine, which at high intensity of intake is capable of increasing a person’s psychopathy. But most likely this effect is also reversible in the same way, and the result of weakening the inhibitor with “meth” in such a case will be a lack of result and the causation of serious harm to health.

And what if the aggressor does not know the specific time when they will have the practical opportunity to use violence? They would need to constantly take multiple drugs to weaken all “variables.” But constantly maintaining such a balance of “variables” so that simultaneously: 1) it is enough to weaken the violence inhibitor, 2) it is not yet enough to cause neurophysiological disorders, 3) it is enough to overcome the effect of agents for strengthening the inhibitor—is hardly possible in real life at all.

Ultimately, an attempt to weaken the violence inhibitor will only lead to serious neurophysiological and mental disorders, but will provide no guarantee against its reinforcement under appropriate influence. Practically effective and safe “Anti-Lorenz” agents turn out to be simply science fiction.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

The Rule of Hostile Jurisdictions

In a world where various states are divided into antagonistic blocks, there is one interesting possibility for ensuring personal security for agorists, dissidents, and others who hold any positions or engage in any activities that their own stationary bandits do not approve of and may threaten with punishment. It can be called the “rule of hostile jurisdictions.”

The essence of this idea is simple: if you are physically located in the territory of a state belonging to one block, you should use services, host websites, seek clients, store and exchange money, register companies, and employ intermediaries from states belonging to a different block. For example, if you live in Russia, you can use a VPN from Sweden or the USA, an email client in Switzerland, a crypto-card in Lithuania, a shell company in Estonia, and not worry about your security. And if you live in Europe, it will be many times safer for you to use “police-monitored” VK and Mail.ru than Facebook and Gmail.

Many services provide users’ personal information upon request from government authorities of a friendly block. This is inevitable, meaning you need to adapt to the realities of geopolitics. In reality, you only need to be afraid if the service provides information specifically to your own stationary bandit. At the same time, a resident of the RF does not care what some service reveals about them to security forces from the USA. Just as a resident of the USA does not care what security forces from the RF learn about them. As long as it does not involve committing large-scale acts of terrorism resulting in the deaths of hundreds of people—which no sane person would do anyway—it is unlikely that any risk of cooperation between jurisdictions from hostile blocks will arise.

Various fraudsters have long been aware of this. For instance, in the past, Russian hackers intentionally avoided users from Russia and targeted Americans or Britons, which made it very easy to evade punishment. Now, Ukrainian scammers do the same, calling Russians with proposals to transfer money to some “safe account” and then forcing them to perform various “tasks” allegedly to get the money back, since they know no one can do anything to them. Of course, we are absolutely against such fraud, but these cases show that the rule of hostile jurisdictions works.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

AML/KYC as the reincarnation of estate privileges

In the past, during the era of feudalism, a person’s status in society almost always depended on their lineage. If you were born into a “noble” family of aristocrats, counts, dukes, or lords, you received various privileges from the king that were inaccessible to ordinary “serfs” under any circumstances, and you could lead an entirely different life. Access to things such as obtaining an education in certain professions (doctor, lawyer, architect) or running a large business was closed to representatives of the lower classes. It would seem that we live in different times now, and if someone is a talented person capable of figuring out how to provide themselves with the means to achieve their goals, then all doors are open to them. But in reality, it is not that simple.

Every day, AML/KYC procedures, which consist of identifying the sources of funds and the personal data of the individuals using them, are becoming increasingly widespread. This is especially noticeable when using cryptocurrencies—many exchanges and crypto-exchangers can easily block any user’s funds if, during their verification, some connection is found to wallets involved in “unapproved” activities, or even if an approved source of funds (for example, their acquisition on one of the known exchanges) is not discovered. In such a case, the user will be required to provide proof of the legality of the source of funds and undergo a “photo session” with their face and passport in hand, based on which the fate of their funds will be decided.

Of course, checks on the origin and legality of funds appeared even earlier in ordinary banking transactions. Many expensive goods, such as a car from a dealership or an apartment from a developer, can no longer be purchased simply by bringing cash. In the European Union, a decision was recently made to ban any cash transactions exceeding 10,000 euros, and sellers of expensive goods were required to thoroughly verify the identities of their clients and the origin of their funds, and to report any suspicions to the authorities. In many countries, it is also no longer possible to open a bank account without initially making some deposit backed by documents regarding its origin.

Ultimately, we find that money, depending on its origin as well as who controls it, can have different “ratings.” But what does this have to do with class privileges? Imagine that you are a descendant of “noble” blood and received your capital from your grandfather Rockefeller. These funds will never face any questions, and you can do anything with them—conclude billion-dollar deals, finance the activities of any organization, acquire any property, no matter how expensive it may be, etc. Your funds will simply be assessed with the highest rating. Now, imagine that you are an ordinary businessman who earned your capital by creating and managing some entrepreneurial activity. Your funds will also have a high rating, but your entry into the “upper circles” is already closed, and you cannot avoid thorough inspections by government agencies and compliance with a number of regulations, although after passing them, you will be able to spend freely. For an ordinary worker, the situation is even worse—when attempting to acquire goods that are “inconsistent” with their salary, problems with the “stationary bandit” are unavoidable. And if it ultimately turns out that they were earned in some “illegal” manner, then most likely, in addition to punishment, this person will be “blacklisted” by government agencies and the structures subordinate to them (banks, exchanges, payment systems), and will not be able to acquire anything other than basic life necessities for quite some time. Money from his hands will have a “zero” rating.

All of this is not some kind of fantasy, as we can already observe the requirement to undergo AML/KYC procedures in many sectors. And the plans of states around the world regarding the introduction of central bank digital currencies (CBDC) will only facilitate all of this. In the end, we are seeing a reincarnation of estate privileges in the modern world.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

The aggressor will not complain to anyone if his violence inhibitor is strengthened

According to numerous studies, psilocybin is capable of strengthening the violence inhibitor for a very long, or even permanent period, and also weakening the tendency toward authoritarian views, with just a couple of doses equivalent to 5-10 grams of dried mushrooms. It should be noted immediately that this substance is classified by the authorities of the RF and many other countries as a prohibited psychotropic agent. But such a ban could lead to one interesting scenario, where an aggressive degenerate, in the event that their violence inhibitor is strengthened, will simply have nowhere to complain!

Imagine a situation where some degenerate rapist had those same “mushrooms” slipped into their food; they found out about it and decided to snitch. They went to the police station… but instead of taking a report and searching for some anti-violence fighters, they filed an administrative charge against the degenerate himself for drug use, with all the ensuing consequences—registration with a narcologist, suspension of driver’s licenses of all categories, a ban on holding certain positions (doctor, lawyer, official), and ultimately, even dismissal from work.

The degenerate will think about this for a bit and decide: “Better to keep my mouth shut, not even tell my friends, otherwise if they find out, I’ll never see a normal life again! And besides, no one will care; I’ve said it myself many times that ‘the sheriff isn’t interested in Indian problems’ and pushed for ‘strict liability,’ without ever imagining that it could affect me as well.”

Such a scenario is entirely expected, because how is a rapist even going to prove they are right?! And in many jurisdictions, it’s unlikely that anyone would care—they would more likely just try to use him to fill a quota, especially if he has already managed to get flagged for committing violence in the past.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Social movements as conduits of the dark ego and antisemitism

Various studies show that public and activist movements of various kinds, including eco-activists, feminist movements, and even movements against sexual violence, suffer from one problem – they are often represented by individuals with certain dark personality traits. Particular emphasis should be placed on grandiose narcissism, which is characterized by an inflated sense of superiority and self-importance, as well as an obsessive need for recognition. In addition, such individuals often suffer from psychopathy – a lack of empathy toward other people, an absence of guilt for causing them harm, etc. In general, it is assumed that people with dark personality traits tend to “hijack” pro-social movements to use them as a vehicle for their own selfish needs.

One example of this, which we have already considered several times in previous materials, is the seizure of leadership in social and political movements by psychopaths. This process is well described by psychiatrist Andrzej Lobaczewski in the book “Political Ponerology: The Science of the Nature of Evil Applied to Politics.” Psychopathic personalities, being at the bottom of a movement at the start of their careers, do the dirty work for it that others would not undertake, earn a reputation within it, rise through the hierarchy by resorting to various kinds of manipulation, and displace everyone else from leadership positions. And when these individuals gain real power in society, they inevitably create large-scale catastrophes, such as repression, genocide, and wars.

In one of the current studies on this topic, researchers decided to examine the problem of antisemitism. Such an ideology also often serves as a vehicle for the dark ego. Participants in this study were 3,981 people from the USA and Britain. They underwent various tests for dark personality traits, as well as a predisposition to dark needs, such as aggressiveness, a desire to dominate others, sensation seeking, fake virtue (public demonstration of moral virtue without genuine moral conviction), and selfishness (lack of altruism). They also completed several questionnaires on adherence to various forms of antisemitism, ranging from a tendency toward prejudice against Jews (for example, viewing them as dishonest and greedy people) to radical anti-Zionist views that justify violence.

As a result, it was found that antisemitism is closely linked to dark personality traits – more than 94% of the indicators of these traits were positively associated with it. A particularly strong link to antisemitism is observed in the previously mentioned narcissism and psychopathy. And this applies to all investigated forms of antisemitism, from traditional to radical. Furthermore, the presence of dark needs in an individual was also linked to antisemitism.

Researchers believe that any ideology, prejudice, and activism that can help satisfy dark needs are attractive to people with high scores in dark personality traits. For example, according to research, both left-wing and right-wing authoritarianism are linked to them. At the same time, exactly which ideological tools people with a dark ego use depends on which ideas and narratives they encounter in their specific life circumstances and whether they recognize the possibility of satisfying their dark needs.

Voluntarist, Bitarch