Тег: Violence

How to Search and Check Drugs for Increasing Inhibitor of Violence?

Кто-то может задаваться вопросом, как находить препараты, эффективные для усиления ингибитора насилия, наподобие продвигаемых на наших ресурсах? Да и как уже известные препараты можно было бы легко перепроверить? Если коротко – всё делается простым перебором «кандидатов», обнаруженных в различных исследованиях и статьях, каждый из которых проверяется на животных. И организовать опыты может практически любой, у кого есть достаточно свободного места в доме/квартире/даче. Простейший вариант парадигмы резидента-нарушителя (стандартного опыта на агрессию) является лёгким в проведении, а если всё делать самостоятельно, финансовые расходы будут минимальными.

Для начала необходимо приобрести в зоомагазине или взять у кого-то чётное количество мелких грызунов (крыс или хомяков, обязательно всех самцов). Все особи разделяются на две группы: «резидентов» и «гостей» («нарушителей»). «Резиденты» всегда рассаживаются по отдельным клеткам, «гости» – хомяки тоже по отдельным клеткам, а вот крыс стоит держать по несколько особей. Клетки размещаются подальше друг от друга, желательно в разных комнатах.

«Резиденты» должны побыть в изоляции минимум неделю, а лучше две. После проверяем «резидентов», помещая в клетку с ними «гостя» на 5 минут, записываем всё на видео и пересматриваем. Если нападения занимают не менее 10% длительности опыта или настолько интенсивны, что опыт пришлось прервать, значит «резидент» пригоден. Иногда необходимо провести несколько таких опытов с разницей не менее 3 дня (при этом хомяков разделяем по конкретным парам, а в случае крыс проводим ротацию «гостей»), но если какие-то «резиденты» так и не становятся агрессивными, они исключаются из опытов и отпускаются.

В совсем упрощённом варианте можно начать с дозировок препаратов как человеческая, делённая на 200 для крыс и на 1000 для хомяков. Впрочем, лучше будет для конкретного препарата поискать в сети любые опыты (даже не связанные с агрессией) и отталкиваться от дозировки, предлагаемой там. Препарат можно, например, размешать в воде и, держа особь одной рукой, ввести в пасть шприцом без иглы другой рукой. Также можно попробовать подмешать препарат в пищу, но тогда придётся проконтролировать, чтобы вся дозировка была принята.

В случае крыс пригодным «резидентам» за час до опыта даём принять препарат. Что касается хомяков – даём препарат и «резиденту», и «гостю», поскольку в их случае «гость» тоже может быть агрессивным. Также при необходимости можно проводить ежедневный приём препарата в течение какого-то периода, сделав последний приём тоже за час до опыта. После проведения опыта просматриваем запись. Если уровень нападений сильно снизился или они вообще прекратились, значит препарат работает! При отсутствии результата можно пробовать повышать дозировки, при этом контролируя, чтобы не снижалась активность особей в целом (так мы подтвердим, что эффект именно антиагрессивный, а не седативный).

After each experience with medications, it is advisable to isolate subjects for at least one week and conduct a control experiment to determine the baseline aggression, as some medications can have a very long-lasting effect. It is recommended to store medications separately from the room with “residents” in airtight containers, since the evaporation of some medications can reduce the aggressiveness of animals.

If testing an inhaled medication (e.g., essential oils), transfer the cage with the “resident” to an isolated room without ventilation, spray or vaporize a larger amount of the drug there to allow them to strongly smell its strong scent (e.g., using an aroma lamp for essential oils), let the “resident” inhale the vapors for an hour and conduct the experiment. Make sure that the vapors do not get into the room where other “residents” are kept.

Therefore, it is desirable to test any medications so that before using them on aggressive representatives of our species, you suddenly don’t find out that you were sold some kind of fake, and you can personally verify that enhancing a violence inhibitor is a real thing!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

From heartlessness to brutality: psychopathy as a key to predicting violence

Modern science shows that violence – not just the result of influence on a person by society, environment, upbringing or simply their personal choice. Primarily, violence is a biological phenomenon – the result of dysfunction of the inhibition mechanism of violence and arising psychopathic predispositions due to this. And John Marshall, a forensic psychologist, writes quite well about the key role of psychopathy in committing violence in one of his articles, which we will now consider in more detail.

Firstly, he mentions the meta-analysis by Brittany Fox and Matt DeLisi from 2019, which considered 29 samples from various countries covering over 2600 murders. The correlation between psychopathy and committing murder was equal to 0.68. For comparison – in medicine a correlation of 0.3 between smoking and lung cancer is already considered significant enough not to be ignored. And the link between psychopathy and murder was twice as strong! What’s more, the more extreme or organized the form of killing is, the more manifestations of psychopathy there are in it.

Moving on to the most relevant studies published this year, Melissa Parker West and her colleagues conducted an analysis of 117 studies on the connection between psychopathy and sexual violence. The correlation was moderate, at a level of 0.35, however it is important to note that it remains stable across various samples, including prisoners in jails and public samples. In medicine, similarly strong will be the link between cholesterol and heart disease. Such results completely destroy the idea that psychopathy has nothing to do with sexual or non-sexual violence. The data indicates the opposite: features of psychopathy significantly increase the risk of violence.

Why is this important? Critics argue that psychopathy – a too vague, exaggerated and useless in practice construct. But the data says something different. Psychopathy predicts murders with an effect size that is very rarely found in social sciences. It predicts sexual aggression at a level comparable to well-established medical risk factors. This makes it one of the most powerful indicators of violence. And the fact that the “average” criminal who has committed murder shows moderate manifestations of psychopathy underlines that this is not just a rare subtype of killers, but a general tendency for all cases of lethal violence.

But what is the practical benefit of such knowledge? Of course its value is not purely academic; it’s useful in assessing and managing risks. For example, we need to understand what measures to take towards a criminal and how suitable he is for returning to society. And if we ignore the factor of psychopathy, we can easily make a wrong answer and issue a blind judgment.

Also, this knowledge is useful in preventing violence. Psychopathic traits don’t arise at one moment when a person turns 18 years old. They can be traced in the individual’s development even in childhood and adolescence, observing their callousness and lack of emotion, absence of empathy and a tendency to manipulative or abusive behavior. It is very important to identify and intervene in the problem as early as possible. Combating these traits before they turn into ingrained adult personality models is one of the ways to reduce the number of future abusers.

Finally, psychopathy doesn’t limit itself to prisons or громкие дела (loud cases) about murders. Many people discover psychopathy in personal life: with partners, colleagues, friends or bosses. The ability to recognize emotional superficiality, pathological lies, manipulation and lack of empathy can protect a person from violence. It is necessary to raise public awareness, which will help people avoid psychopaths and the danger they represent, as well as take the right actions when encountering them!

Волюнтарист, Битарх

Collective Stockholm Syndrome or How Authoritarian Authorities Psychologically Traumatize Citizens into Complete Loyalty

You’ve all probably heard about this phenomenon – Stockholm syndrome – when a victim of abuse starts forming a strong emotional connection with the abuser, acquiring sympathy and complete loyalty to him. It got its name from one incident that occurred in Stockholm, where after an attempted bank robbery, hostages began justifying the captor’s actions, hiring him a lawyer and even sending him admiring letters. This kind of reaction is extremely dangerous because it forces the victim to act against her own interests, sometimes even defending the abuser at the cost of her life.

But why does it actually occur? Of course, it’s all about neurobiology. When someone is under chronic stress, periodic abuse and manipulation, a biochemical cocktail of cortisol, dopamine, and oxytocin is released. A traumatic attachment forms in which the abuser becomes both a source of fear and a perceived source of safety. In this case, the victim follows the abuser’s mood, behavior, and expectations and begins to prioritize his needs over her own, in order to maintain the relationship and avoid further harm.

This kind of attachment relies on a convergence of factors such as an imbalance of power, periodic cruel treatment, manipulation, as well as the emergence of a situation where escape seems unimaginable. But what’s also important is that its flourishing requires an environment of narcissistic abuse. The presence of “dark traits” in the abuser is particularly important: narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Being around such a person, the victim is forced to rationalize his behavior and suppress her awareness of the situation in order to simply survive.

Of course, this phenomenon doesn’t necessarily limit itself to interpersonal relationships – it can also be observed at the sociopolitical level. When society is full of betrayal, intimidation and false assurances, citizens become attached to an abusive or narcissistic political leader who manipulates their existential fears, while offering periodic psychological rewards such as national pride, economic promises, or symbolic protection from exaggerated threats.

As a result, people begin to justify authoritarian abuses in order to cope with their helplessness and avoid cognitive dissonance. A collective Stockholm syndrome emerges, manifested at the cultural level. The political leader becomes simultaneously both a protector and a punisher, providing a sense of belonging while threatening rejection, promising prosperity while simultaneously inciting fear. Like in personal and cultural traumatic bonds, people are inclined to minimize harm, discredit critics, and remain emotionally connected with those who undermine their rights and well-being.

Resistance to the cultural traumatic bond requires understanding this phenomenon. We know that, depending on their psychological traits, different people are prone to forming it to varying degrees. Moreover, there exist emotional methods of strengthening acceptance of authoritarian leadership, such as creating a “we versus they” dynamic, exaggerating existential threats, and presenting oneself as the sole solution to social problems. Finally, authoritarianism thrives in conditions of disorientation, offering a sense of certainty and identity in exchange for obedience. All of this is important to take into account when developing strategies for destroying the traumatic bond.

People who have experienced interpersonal trauma need support, recognition, and education so that they can be freed. Citizens who have experienced cultural trauma also need this to free themselves from authoritarianism. Among other things, it’s important to expose disinformation and teach critical thinking. It is also necessary to restore voluntary and trusting relationships between people, return them a sense of dignity and collective strength. In this case, they will be able to heal from the trauma and become capable of acting against politicians who destroy trust between them.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Death, Taxes, and Sperry’s Stockholm Syndrome

Recently, an intriguing longread was published on our channel by a user under the nickname “Sperry UNIVAC.” The author, who took a nickname in honor of the computer manufacturing company—which, by the way, lived for decades on fat government contracts and worked almost entirely for the military—suddenly decided to drop some “based” truths. But instead of being based, it turned out to be a typical justification of etatism with a light touch of Marxism. Sperry tries to sell us an idea as old as time: robbery is inevitable, the “social contract” is a blessing, and the private sector is just the same thing from a different angle; basically, you should be grateful that the state is simply shearing you rather than shooting you with machine guns. But let’s dismantle this heap of conceptual substitutions before it starts to smell.

Sperry claims that a corporation taking a portion of the profit “steals” from the worker in exactly the same way that the state takes taxes. “There isn’t much difference between state taxes and corporate levies,” he writes. But if we examine this issue more closely, we will realize that the difference between private companies and a stationary bandit is like the difference between consensual sex and rape.

In the first case (the market), you voluntarily sell your time and skills for an agreed sum. If you don’t like the terms, you stand up and leave. You look for another buyer for your labor or start your own business. In the second case (the state), guys with clubs come to you and say: “Give us 40% of what you’ve earned, and we might build you a road. Or a palace for our leader. Or bomb someone on the other side of the world. And if you don’t give it, we’ll put you in a cage.” Feel the nuance? In Sperry’s world, there is none. For him, the voluntary surrender of part of the profit in exchange for a guaranteed salary and the absence of risk is the same as the forced seizure of funds under threat of violence.

Next, Sperry scares us with horror stories about “wild capitalism,” the United Fruit Company, and the shooting of workers. He forgets (or intentionally omits) that the United Fruit Company and other “banana kings” did not exist in the vacuum of a free market. These were privileged monopolies fed by the state. Who gave them the land? Local governments. Who sent US Marines to suppress riots when local petty tyrants couldn’t handle it? The US government.

This is not a “free market”; this is crony capitalism in its purest form. When a corporation merges with state power, it gains access to “legalized” violence. Libertarians oppose any initiation of violence, whether by a private army or a state guard. But history shows that the most massive killings and the largest Gulags were always organized by states, not by chair manufacturers.

The passage about “corporate taxes” in the form of gyms and cookies deserves separate laughter. He claims that the corporation decides for you where to spend the profit—on your fitness or in your pocket—and that this is the same as state distribution. But a logical error is immediately apparent in such reasoning. This is called “competition for talent.” Conscious people choose an employer not only by the figure on the payroll but also by the conditions. Don’t like the fitness and want cash? Go where they pay more in cash. The market offers options. The state offers no options. You cannot tell the tax office: “Guys, I don’t need your free healthcare and police, give it back in money, I’ll buy services from private providers myself.”

Sperry leads us to the thought: “Everyone will always steal.” This is a philosophy of learned helplessness. “Relax and enjoy yourself while you are being raped with a velvet glove, otherwise they might use a gauntlet.” We, on the other hand, say that violence is not the norm and we propose solutions. Any taxes are robbery. Any regulations are a restriction of the freedom of conscious people. And the fact that the stationary bandit tries to buy our loyalty by throwing us bones from the master’s table in the form of “social welfare” (bought with our own money, but with a wild commission for bureaucrats) does not make him a benefactor.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Man to man, wolf? Why we were wrong in assessing the wolf’s nature.

Sometimes circumstances develop such that superficial and inaccurate representations of something become deeply ingrained in people’s minds. Thus we obtain expressions like “one person to another is a wolf,” which implies that the wolf is supposedly a creature extremely selfish, hostile, and aggressive towards its own kind, and people are similarly no different from wolves. Wolves are compared to many bad things in general. For example, someone even might call authoritarian political leaders wolves for their lies, sinister nature, bullying other people and psychopathic indifference to their pain. However, reality is sometimes far from what is commonly believed.

In fact, if you carefully study the behavior of wolves in natural conditions, you can understand that their social organization is more cooperative than hierarchical. The organizational structure of wolf societies is more like a circle than a pyramid. Games and mutual support bond them together, but not hostility and competition for dominance within the pack. Wolves cannot actually be called merciless and antisocial creatures.

We were all told that there is some “alpha male” in wolf society who does not occupy his position to the last degree due to aggressive domination. However, in fact the display of aggression by leaders of packs towards their subordinates is very rare. And generally, violent hierarchies of dominance in wolf societies arise only when unfamiliar individuals are placed together in one closed enclosure, while observations of wolves in their natural environment completely disprove the myth of a single, most aggressive “alpha male.”

We can also recall the work of ethologist Konrad Lorenz, who in his works, especially in his article “Morality and Weaponry,” found that wolves have an inhibitor of violence that is activated in one of the fighting wolves when demonstrating to another wolf submissive postures or vulnerable parts of the body such as the neck or abdomen. Observing this, the stunned aggressor loses the ability to continue the attack. And another ethologist, Jason Badger, once managed to infiltrate a wolf pack and observe their lives very closely. Among other things, he noted that overly aggressive individuals were simply expelled from the pack.

As we see, in natural conditions aggression among wolves is not encouraged. A wolf who is merciless to his relatives and ready to harm them for his dominance may only expect success in the conditions of a cell from which one simply cannot escape. And the cruelty and violent hierarchy that exist in human society are likely possible only because it has also been driven into “state cells.” Of course, the natural state of affairs should not be like this, and the expression “man is man’s wolf” should mean friendship and cooperation, not enmity and violence.

Judgment Night in Reality: What Will Be the World Without Laws for One Day?

Представьте, что однажды все законы были отменены, хотя бы на один день. Как именно поведут себя люди в таких условиях? Кому-то сразу может представиться сценарий «Судной ночи», в которую многие отправятся насиловать, убивать, мстить обидчикам или просто устраивать хаос ради развлечения. Наверняка к такому выводу придут сторонники позиции «обезьяны-убийцы», полагая, что человек является жестоким и кровожадным существом, которое от совершения насилия, по так называемой теории сдерживания, остановит только существование закона, угрожающего наказанием. Но что произойдёт на самом деле?

Таким вопросом в 2020 году задались несколько исследователей из Международного университета Флориды. Они решили провести опрос среди 500 американцев касательно того, с какой вероятностью они бы стали совершать преступления, если бы один день в году это было легально. Конечно же, заведомо было понятно, что какая-то часть опрашиваемых даст положительный ответ, поэтому они ещё и решили выяснить, какие именно черты личности побуждают к подобному выбору.

Результат вышел следующий: только 18% людей заявили о готовности поучаствовать в «Судной ночи», если предоставить им такую возможность. Это сразу же опровергает идею, что закон является основным или единственным существенным фактором, предотвращающим преступность. По крайней мере для большинства людей он не настолько важен, как другие факторы, иначе по теории сдерживания можно было бы ожидать согласия почти от всех участников. Мало того, было выяснено, что большая вероятность согласия на участие в подобном в определённой степени связана с низким самоконтролем, а также, уже в существенной степени, с наличием у человека черт психопатии, таких как бессердечие и эгоцентризм.

Другие исследователи из Тилбургского университета в этом году опубликовали материал, в котором они решили воспроизвести и дополнить результаты предыдущего исследования, опросив 865 человек. Они отметили, что ранее не проводилось разделение на конкретные преступления, опрашиваемым задавался только один вопрос касательно их желания поучаствовать в «Судной ночи». Поэтому теперь было решено также задавать вопросы про различные типы преступлений.

На первый взгляд результат оказался шокирующим – более 76% опрашиваемых признались в том, что при отсутствии легального контроля совершили бы как минимум одно преступление. Однако очень важно также посмотреть, о каких именно преступлениях идёт речь. Например, в готовности украсть вещи первой необходимости признались 50% людей, а украсть деньги или проникнуть на какую-нибудь территорию, куда им нельзя – по 45% людей. Около 33% выразили готовность нарушить правила вождения, а 28% – попробовать запрещённые вещества. Всё это было обозначено как незначительные преступления.

And as for serious crimes? The result turned out to be completely different here. Only 4% of those surveyed expressed a willingness to kill someone, and approximately 1-2% answered questions about sexual assault, kidnapping, hate crimes, and other acts of serious violence. The contrast is glaringly obvious!

Of course, the number of people who wanted to commit at least one crime was much larger than the researchers expected; it usually involved nonviolent minor offenses. At the same time, those ready to commit violent crimes could be counted on their fingers – and typically these were individuals with high scores on psychopathy traits.

Researchers conclude that law and criminal penalties play a key role only in preventing minor crimes. But for violent crimes requiring a person to cross all moral and social norms, this is no longer such an important factor; and if it can be truly decisive for someone, it’s only for a small percentage of the population with high psychopathy scores.

This once again reminds us – in normal circumstances, a person still possesses a strong internal mechanism of inhibiting violence.

Bioamplification of morality – a great idea that just needs to be understood

Recently in the Pacta Civitas community, based on a decentralized blockchain platform for creating social networks SAVVA, a discussion was raised regarding the issue of moral bio-amplification. And therefore we published an article there examining the criticism put forward in this direction: https://pacta-civitas.org/post/Biousilenie_morali

In this article are collected all the key points regarding what the mechanism of human violence inhibition is, where it actually comes from, what to target for its eradication, and a range of ethical questions concerning the admissibility of using biomedicine technologies in solving the problem of violence.

If you like this article, you can also support it and help with its promotion in the community using SAVVA tokens, detailed information about what (and in general about how to use the SAVVA platform, as well as how easily and quickly to set up a crypto wallet and acquire tokens, even if you don’t understand anything about it yet) can be found here: https://savva.app/post/SAVVA_for_Beginners_From?lang=ru

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Robots and Coventry

Recently, Bitarch and Voluntarist suggested Heinlein’s novella “Coventry” as a thesis for their idea of the bio-enhancement of morality. Briefly, the plot: the protagonist defended the right to physical aggression and, instead of psychological correction, preferred exile to a colony of similar aggressors. There, he became well-acquainted with the local customs, and when he discovered that these barbarians were planning to break out of their pen and enslave the peaceful inhabitants outside, he sided with those who had exiled him, being ready even for that very psychological correction.

Bitarch and Voluntarist’s conclusion: there is no need to fear correction; accept it voluntarily—it is not necessary to take a tour among aggressive savages first.

Robert Heinlein is a grandmaster of American science fiction, but he is only one of three. Arthur Clarke’s books are not very well known in Russian territories, so let’s not dwell on him; instead, let’s see what the third grandmaster—Isaac Asimov—writes about the correction of aggressive behavior.

In his version of future history, humans actively used anthropomorphic robots, whose intelligence, for fear of a machine rebellion, was limited by three now-well-known laws. Having colonized several dozen planets with the help of robots, humans built a cozy cosmonite society where the human population was comfortably small and the number of robots serving them was comfortably large. Robots not only refrained from using violence against humans themselves but also suppressed such attempts by anyone. This made life safe and completely eradicated the habit of physical violence. Having domesticated their planets and becoming domesticated themselves, the cosmonites ceased all expansion and focused primarily on prolonging their lives.

Those who remained on Earth were too numerous and only huddled closer and closer to save on utility costs through positive economies of scale. As a result, they developed a fear of the wilderness and also lost the capacity for cosmic expansion.

Asimov pulled humanity out of this trap literally using a deus ex machina. A certain robot accidentally acquired the ability to read and correct human emotions, became filled with thoughts about the benefit of cosmic expansion for humanity, and kicked humanity off Earth without robots—a real kick in the pants—and then turned out the lights on those departing so they wouldn’t think of returning, by triggering a mechanism that gradually made Earth completely uninhabitable. The result was twenty thousand years of expansion and star wars, the colonization of the entire galaxy, and then a transition to a hive mind, a pan-galactic intelligence—not so much to live comfortably without violence within a single humanity, but to be able to effectively resist an invasion from other galaxies if necessary.

Thus, using his artistic tools, Asimov demonstrates that aggression is vital for humanity’s expansion and defense against Aliens; when there is no space for expansion, the time comes for the correction of aggressive behavior, but this is a forced measure, similar to drugs for suppressing an immune response, and if overused, humanity weakens and degenerates. For any human society, according to Asimov, the best state is its period of expansion, when people are energetic, enterprising, and full of healthy aggression directed primarily at the external world. In Asimov’s work, this ideal is embodied by traders—people who conquer the frontier and explore what useful goodies are there that can be cheaply obtained and then sold dearly in civilized lands.

What is the difference between this world and the society shown in “Coventry”? There, aggressors end up not on the frontier, but in a reservation. Their aggression is directed at each other, positive selection occurs based on the level of ingenuity and ruthlessness of the aggressors, and sooner or later they turn to expansion, finding a way to break through the barrier with which the civilized and peaceful people have walled themselves off. It is the world of “Coventry” that is the ideal of modern Western civilization in our own version of Earth. This civilization is tired of wars and would like to live in peace with barbarians, or at least wall themselves off from them, although the most civilized representatives of Western civilization reproach the supporters of such walling off for excessive cruelty, as barbarian culture is also valuable and original, and one simply needs to help barbarians taste the pleasures of civilization, and everything will be fine.

In this form, Western civilization is doomed. Bitarch and Voluntarist, feeling this, advocate for the idea of psychocorrection, but they speak primarily about eliminating aggression within civilized society. And this is their rhetorical error. Their ideas would be perceived completely differently if they spoke of psychocorrection specifically as an offensive weapon against barbarism.

Bomb African savages, Russian orcs, Mexican cartels, and other scum with empathy and politeness using serotonin bombs! Cut their psychopathy out by the roots! Civilization will advance until the last Islamist kisses a lady’s hand!

That—now that would work.

Fear and politics took away our effective medicines

Imagine a world where substances that could actually help people with depression, PTSD, addiction, and even, as it turns out, to treat psychopathy and be effective in the matter of moral enhancement, lay forgotten on history’s dusty shelves, chained by bureaucratic red tape. The discussion centers around psychedelics – LSD, psilocybin, and other enigmatic, vibrant substances that are now back in vogue thanks to the renewed interest of many scientists and therapists.

Back in mid-20th century, psychedelics were a genuine star in science. Scientists saw considerable potential within them, and psychotherapists were enthusiastic about the possibility of assisting individuals in experiencing profound, transformative experiences. Naturally, skepticism existed, but it was justified by a lack of robust methods and clear protocols to confidently assess the impact of psychedelics on people. Essentially, this represented typical scientific skepticism—essential for any novel research direction. However, as usual, political forces intervened.

When counterculture figures in the United States, protesting the Vietnam War, began utilizing psychedelics for recreational purposes and to “expand consciousness,” politicians became concerned. Authorities disapproved of this “uncomfortable freedom,” as psychedelics symbolized cultural rebellion and dissent, undermining government authority and control, and they quickly designated them a scapegoat. “Drugs! Dangerous! Ban Them!” – this is what newspaper headlines declared.

Naturally, scientists also found themselves in trouble. Research on psychedelics was halted because authorities effectively choked off any efforts to study these substances. Moreover, government restrictions extended beyond well-known psychedelic compounds to encompass all substances affecting 5-HT2A receptors in the brain – crucial elements of the mechanism behind classic psychedelics. The American government implemented strict legal limitations; any experiments with psychedelics demanded extensive bureaucratic approvals and stringent control by governmental bodies. This meant that only a select few laboratories could access such research.

And now, decades later, scientists are cautiously opening this door again. It turns out that in the right doses and under the control of professionals, psychedelics are quite safe, and the problem most often arises from uncontrolled use of excessively large doses, when these substances truly turn into “malevolent drugs stealing reason,” rather than powerful therapeutic tools. Research is also being conducted on finding the most effective dosages, with maximum therapeutic effect and minimal side effects. In general, modern research suggests that within controlled sessions, psychedelics are not only safe and do not disrupt human cognitive and affective abilities, but also enhance empathy, help cope with trauma, and even significantly reduce aggression levels.

Furthermore, now work is underway to create new molecules that will retain all the advantages of original psychedelic substances, but minimize potential risks. Compounds are being developed that selectively affect specific brain receptors, allowing for therapeutic effects without unwanted side effects such as hallucinations or excessive stimulation. It’s quite something – science has come very far, and now we can be witnesses to a second psychedelic renaissance.

The irony is that all these years skepticism towards psychedelics was not so much scientific as it was political. So maybe it’s enough already to stop fearing the ghosts of the past? Because science clearly shows us that in the case of psychedelics, we should trust research rather than scary stories from the last century. Today, psychedelics can be successfully used for therapeutic purposes, including even such an important direction as enhancing the function of the mechanism of violence inhibition, bio-amplifying morality and treating psychopathy.

Voluntarist, Bitarchy

Lithium against violence

Lithium – a vital micronutrient, important in numerous processes within the organism. And especially important is its role in the nervous system, including participation in dopamine and serotonin synthesis, as well as regulating the activity of serotonin receptors. Since serotonin plays a key role in regulating aggression and is responsible for the mechanism of inhibiting violence, lithium may be a promising solution for treating violent behavior, which numerous studies confirm.

Lithium has long been tested on violent offenders. For example, a research was conducted on 27 aggressive prisoners over a period of 3 to 18 months taking lithium. As a result, in 14 of them there were significant and in 7 – minor improvements in behavior. Only in 2 patients did lithium not work at all and another 4 stopped taking it due to the presence of side effects or fear regarding their possibility. It turned out that lithium improved the ability to control anger and understand the consequences of aggressive actions towards other people. The examinees’ mood became more reflective, they expressed a greater desire to participate in psychotherapeutic sessions. Researchers conclude that lithium can be useful in the long-term reduction of aggressive behavior.

Another research considered the possibility of using lithium in cases of children and adolescents with behavioral disorders who were in psychiatric institutions and resistant to other methods of therapy. The inclusion criterion was weekly observation of 3 or more acts of aggression (and at least 2 of them should have been physical) over a period of 2 weeks, after which a 4-week course of medication was taken. As a result, in 20 children taking lithium, 16 observed significant improvements in behavior (in the control group improvements were observed in only 6 out of 20 children). Researchers concluded that lithium is safe and effective in treating aggression in patients with behavioral disorders.

Extremely interesting data comes from two similar studies, one conducted in the state of Texas and another – on the Japanese island of Kyushu. In various districts of these regions, both the level of lithium in drinking water and its higher level were associated with lower crime rates, especially violent crimes. Exactly the same result concerning the level of murders is shown by a similar study conducted in Greece. Researchers believe that increasing the dosage taken by people of lithium supplements or lithiuming drinking water, even in very small doses, can be effective in reducing crime rates.

In one study on a single patient was shown the possible effectiveness of lithium in therapy for “incurable” psychopaths. It’s about a person with antisocial personality disorder, scoring 36 out of 40 points on the PCL-R psychopathy test, having a long history of taking narcotic drugs and committing violent crimes. Regular lithium intake led him to being able to work, having stable relationships, and not participating in criminal activity.

As you have probably already realized, lithium has enormous potential in correcting violent behavior and can be used even in the case of individuals demonstrating excessively high levels of aggression. In experiments, typical lithium dosages ranged from 300 milligrams as a minimum to 2 grams as a safe limit per day. However, with continuous lithium intake, it can have a noticeable effect even at doses orders of magnitude smaller than these, as shown by studies on the influence of its level in drinking water on crime rates and considering that it accumulates in the nervous system. In practical application, the most important thing is that lithium can provide a long-lasting effect for many months, which greatly simplifies its covert use against family abusers through adding to food and drinks (lithium does not change taste, it does not break down when heated or evaporate during boiling). And this knowledge can be used to correct the behavior of violent individuals, especially considering that lithium supplements are easily available for purchase without a prescription.

Voluntary, Bitarchy