Israeli Settler Syndrome? Barry Chamish Barely Groks Ponerology

SOTT editors
Sott.net

© Chabbad Info
Barry Chamish

 

Investigative journalist and critic of the Israeli government Barry Chamish has recently published a strange and telling review of Andrew Lobaczewski's Political Ponerology. Chamish is best known for his UFO research in Israel and theory that Israel's former minister of Foreign Affairs, Shimon Peres, and the Shin Bet were responsible for the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, not the crazed Israeli "settler" Yigal Amir. He has also been highly critical of Ariel Sharon, the psychopath behind the massacre of Sabra and Shatila. And we at SOTT grew to appreciate his, as it appeared in the past, keen insight into the true nature of Israeli leaders.

But his recent review has caused the editors at SOTT.net to ponder some interesting questions.

Chamish begins his piece, "The Two Faces of Political Ponerology", with a poorly researched statement:

Ponerology is a term invented by the author and it means the study of the nature of political evil.

While Lobaczewki did invent the term pathocracy to describe a system of government saturated with psychological deviants, he didn't invent the term ponerology. Actually, as Lobaczewski makes clear in his book, ponerology is a theological term that means the study of evil. Lobaczewski adopted it for his own purposes in studying the nature of political evil, thus the title of his book: Political Ponerology. Chamish then writes:

As we shall see, the editor got hold of the rights to an important work and exploited it to push her own agenda, one which has nothing to do with the book itself.

In fact, there are two editors who contributed to the publication of Lobaczewski's book: Laura Knight-Jadczyk and Henry See. So it is odd that Chamish decided to single out one of the editors and direct all criticism in her direction. But does the editors' agenda really have nothing to do with the book? More on that below.

In the editor's introduction, we get a first example of what will give the work unnecessary tension:

(Imagine) a case where the subject spent his childhood blowing up frogs with firecrackers. It is widely known that George W. Bush did this.

From this humble beginning, look what we get!

So was Chamish a supporter of Bush? Or can he just not see the pathology behind Bush's behaviors? If a modern leader shows evidence of psychopathy, which Bush does, it is relevant, especially considering that the book was written in 1984 and is thus significantly out-of-date in regards to the world political scene. We have to wonder why a criticism of George Bush would so irk Chamish? Could it be because of the direction in which his various handlers lead us? We get closer to the point in Chamish's next criticism:

Now watch the editor change the view of the author, who has sheepishly noted that among nations, Jews have the highest rate of schizoids:

The famous writings attributed to the Learned Elders Of Zion begin with a typically schizoidal declaration...We have to remember that 97% of Jews do not manifest this anomaly, and that it also appears among all European nations. 101

To which the editor corrects the author, noting that:

101. The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion is now known to have been a hoaxed attribution to Jews. However, the contents are clearly not hoaxed ideas since a reasonable assessment of the events of the United States over the past fifty years or so gives ample evidence of their application in order to bring about the current Neoconservative administration.

That's setting the author straight. And it just keeps getting worse.

There are several things worth pointing out in the above. First of all, Lobaczewski isn't that sheepish when it comes to pointing out the high rate of schizoidia among Jews. That ellipsis quoted by Chamish contains the following sentence:

The nineteenth century, especially its latter half, appears to have been a time of exceptional activity on the part of schizoidal individuals, often but not always of Jewish descent. (p. 131)

And further on, Lobaczewski writes :

Appearing in its highest frequency among Jews, and due to the exceptional tenacity and persistent nature that characterizes this pathology, it [schizoidia] marks their whole civilization and world view and activity. (p. 231)

So, here we have Lobaczewski noting that Jewish culture is highly schizoidal, largely because of the tenacious and persistent nature of the relatively high number of Jewish schizoids, as well as pointing out that the Protocols are a highly shizoidal and pathocratic document. The editors' footnote points out that the ideas therein are obviously used by pathocrats, and against their own citizens. SOTT.net is left wondering how exactly this is a contradiction or correction? The only contradiction seems to be that Lobaczewski does not note that the document was a hoax designed to falsely associate pathocratic ideals with a "Jewish conspiracy", while the editors do.

Chamish continues:

If I was the author, I'd be furious with the editor. She has taken his masterwork and added thoughts outside his worldview.

This is an assumption, and probably evidence that Chamish's reaction is caused by his own discomfort with the parallels. Does he really disagree that the Bush administration was stacked with deviants, or is there something else that bothers him? Chamish seems to be missing a most important point here; it is not that the editors of Political Ponerology have "taken his masterwork and added thoughts outside of [Lobacwezski's] worldview", but that the editors have taken the time and effort to apply Lobacwezski's incisive analysis of pathocracy to the post 9/11 world! A world that is almost unrecognizable compared to the world we all lived in in 1984, a world where the pathocrats now reign supreme. In short, the thesis of Political Ponerology is more relevant today than ever before and the editors have simply pointed that out, with relevant examples.

Chamish continues:

And as we shall see, it only gets more intrusive. She has concluded that Bush Jr. is a frog-murdering psychopath. So what does that make his predecessor William Clinton, who used women non-stop and lied about it every time? Or of the current President who has lied about his entire academic past and very likely, even his birth nation?

This is flawed reasoning, and a straw man argument. Chamish suggestively implies that because the editors point out Bush's psychopathy, they must think that Clinton or Obama are untainted by such pathology. Of course, he might be surprised to learn SOTT's view on Clinton, Obama, and many other presidents and world leaders. The nature of politics means there's a good chance you don't get to such heights of power without the ruthlessness typical of psychopaths and other related personality disorders.

[Lobaczewski] Millions of people ponder the dilemma of whether such a ruler could not modify his convictions somewhat and relinquish his dream of conquering the world. 107

[Editors' note] 107. This is especially true in the present day when the leaders and parliaments of many other countries, unhappy with the Bush Neocon administration, think elections in the US will set things right.

Again, how could he disagree? This is the administration that ushered in an endless, global War on Terror for Yahweh's sake! As a person who cares deeply about the fate of his people, we would think that Chamish would be as appalled as we are!

And now, the inevitable punchline, Israel:

Aha! It appears we've found the thorn in Chamish's side. In fact, it's the punchline to his editorial, and shows what's eating him.

As if Arab suicide bombers aren't psychopathic

Again with the straw men! First of all, the comment wasn't about suicide bombers, so Chamish shouldn't presume to know the editors' opinion on such. Second, it's highly unlikely that a psychopath would become a suicide bomber. Psychopaths are all about self-preservation, not blowing themselves up for some "cause". Psychopaths are more likely to collaborate with an occupying force and subjugate their own people, or to stage "suicide bombings" as justification for military operations and further oppression of the alleged suicide bomber's fellow countrymen.

or the belief that Jesus was a Palestinian

According to the story, "Jesus" was born in Palestine, was he not?

or that there was an ancient Palestinian nation doesn't fall into the same disease. Name a Palestinian national leader before Arafat.

Strangely, Chamish includes a hidden justification of nationalism in this remark. As if a region needs a "leader" to justify itself. As Shlomo Sand shows in his work The Invention of the Jewish People, the idea of nationalism (and especially a "Jewish Nation") is a recent phenomenon, and one politically inspired. In short, an exercise in pathocracy.

Strangely, the editor betrays her own knowledge of the broader truth in another footnote:

79. In Muslim cultures, where, if a woman is raped, it is the duty of her male family members to kill her to wipe away the shame from the family name. This act is pathological and criminal.

Whereas, the author does not mention Israel even once.

This is not so strange. The editors of SOTT.net have repeatedly made clear that no culture is entirely free of ponerogenic influences. As for the fact that Lobaczewski does not mention Israel specifically, surely this cannot be taken as evidence that Israel should be excluded from such criticism. After all, as we have already quoted, Lobaczewski did state that "it [schizoidia] marks their whole civilization and world view and activity." How can that not apply to Israel?

© Sott.net

So what is eating Chamish so much that he writes a review of the book's editorial comments instead of the book itself, or even the possible applications of its content to countries like the US and Israel? Perhaps Chamish's apparent discomfort is caused by his own unconscious recognition of the parallels between the crimes of Bush administration and hideous war crimes perpetuated by a country and culture he loves and defends so much.

One of our SOTT contributors personally visited Chamish back in the days when he was still interested in UFO research and after the publication of his book Who killed Yitzhak Rabin. He gave the impression of being over-emotional and somewhat naive, not thinking twice about credibility of documents that were "kindly" left on his doorstep by an anonymous source. In other words, a person who is easily manipulated, similar to the case of John Kaminsky. But he was the only conspiracy theorist Israel had, and granted, he did some good research on Israeli UFO phenomena, so we gave him the benefit of the doubt. (Notably, a couple of years after our contributor's first meeting with Chamish, when asked if he would like to reopen UFO research, he said that he doesn't touch this topic anymore because it damages his political interests and books.) This changed when we noticed how his newsletter became more and more positively biased toward the views of radical Jewish settlers. In fact, this makes us wonder about his entire Rabin theory, since according to the official version, Rabin was killed by a settler.

While he did very good research and detailed very well how Israeli leaders are the biggest threat the Israeli people, his information was always used to fit his personal belief, that Jewish settlers are in fact Israel's saviors (not illegal invaders, mind you) and they are the ones that evil Israeli leaders are trying to get rid off. How's that for specious reasoning? See the following, for example:

Barry Chamish is originally from Canada. His upbringing was not Shomer Shabbos, but it was full of Jewish identity, Ahavas Yisroel, and a love for Eretz Yisroel. He left his native country and moved to Eretz Yisroel to serve in the IDF. He felt it was his responsibility. He was not comfortable having other young men defending his land, unless he was doing his part.

In Eretz Yisroel he married and began raising a family. To his disillusionment, he kept encountering corrupt and fraudulent behavior. It bothered him. He wanted things in the Holy Land to be Holy, to be righteous and to be just.

This desire to live safely in Eretz Yisroel - to rid the land of rampant corruption - is the passion that has led Chamish to be the leader in pursuing the truth underlying political sting operations, that benefit a few and are destroying the country. By doing so he has exposed himself to all forms of rejection, marginalization and humiliation. Despite all this, his research is slowly reaching the masses. After the second attempt on his life, and it was a close call, he has returned to America where he continues his efforts to save the Jews in Eretz Yisroel. One of his ten books is called Save Israel.[...]

The Rabin Assassination and the Goldstein 'Massacre' are two events highly responsible for initiating and confirming the wide spread attitude that settlers are illegal squatters and are a hindrance to the peace process. This demonization of settlers is an integral part of the establishment of a terrorist state in the heartland of Eretz Yisroel. Passion to get rid of settlers distracts the public from impending dangers.

Uncovering the cover-up stories around these events will uncover corruption in powerful circles in Eretz Yisroel. If public opinion could be awakened, these corrupt circles could brought to stand trial and face justice, and the 'corruption process' supporting the Peace Process would be aborted.

Or this:

I am embarking on a speaking tour of North America. The topic of my lectures is: The Dirty War Against The Settlers. Within, I will prove that the ultimate goal the Gaza withdrawal is the dismemberment by pieces of Israel. I will name the foreigners who devised the Roadmap and I will show their end game plan through their own words. They have oft-stated their intentions, they meant every word of their declarations and they are very busy making chaos throughout the Middle East at this very moment. Lebanon and Syria have now joined Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel in the bloody remaking of the Middle East in their image, and that will finally be a Middle East without borders controlled from abroad.

The Gush Katif surrender is stage one in the latest campaign to diminish and eventually eliminate Israel as a sovereign entity. Instead Israel will vanish into a Middle East bloc of nations which will someday meld with the EU, NAFTA etc. into one happy and obedient world parliament. The hard part is getting people to part with their heritage, history and land and agree to this entirely new order. The Gush Katif sellout required an undeclared war against the Jewish residents of Gaza which utilized every psychological trick to wear down a people's will until they give in to a scheme that will spell disaster for them and their nation.

So it appears that Chamish took the editors' comments personally, not only because of his emotional investment in what he refuses to see as a criminal enterprise (i.e. the ethnic cleansing and occupation of Palestine), but probably also because deep inside he can recognize in his friends and even his own behaviors those descriptions made by Lobaczewski. That's why he mentioned that he doesn't think he fits the psychopath description, and perhaps why Ponerology only "almost" changed his political outlook. It took shots at his sacred cow. Chamish might have benefited by taking Lobaczewski's warning more seriously:

In the course of the above-mentioned inquiries, each researcher went through his own period of crisis and frustration when it became evident that the concepts he had trusted thus far proved to be inapplicable. . . . Surviving this period thus required an acceptance of and a respect for a feeling of nescience truly worthy of a philosopher. Every science is born in an area uninhabited by popular imaginings that must be overcome and left behind. In this case, however, the procedure had to be exceptionally radical; we had to venture into any area indicated by systematic analysis of the facts we observed and experienced from within a full-blown condition of macrosocial evil, guided by the light of the requirements of scientific methodology. This had to be upheld in spite of the difficulties caused by extraordinary outside conditions and by our own human personalities. . . .

A certain impression of injustice may be conveyed due to the need to leave behind a significant portion of our prior conceptualizations, the feeling that our natural world view is inapplicable, and the expendability of some emotional entanglements. I therefore ask my readers to accept these disturbing feelings in the spirit of the love of knowledge and its redeeming values. (pp. 40, 41)

Lobaczewski's comments on schizoidia, which no doubt influences many Jews' emotional beliefs on "Eretz Yisroel", also provide food for thought. According to Lobaczewski, schizoids are hypersensitive, distrustful, assume extreme positions, are "eager to retaliate for minor offenses", are "sometimes eccentric and odd", "easily become involved in activities which are ostensibly moral, but which actually inflict damage upon themselves and others", are "typically pessimistic regarding human nature", and "easily turn into tools of intrigue in the hands of clever and unscrupulous individuals." (pp. 87-88)

Schizoid characters aim to impose their own conceptual world upon other people or social groups, using relatively controlled pathological egotism and the exceptional tenacity derived from their persistent nature. They are thus eventually able to overpower another individual's personality, which causes the latter's behavior to turn desperately illogical. . . . They are psychological loners who then begin to feel better in some human organization, wherein they become zealots for some ideology, religious bigots, materialists, or adherents of an ideology with satanic features. (pp. 130-131)

In short, Lobaczewski's description of a schizoid sounds like a prototypical Israeli settler!

It doesn't look to us that Chamish is a conscious agent. He doesn't appear in control of his emotions and his idealism and naivete make him easily manipulated. He cares so deeply (and shall we say blindly and not objectively) for the Israeli image, that he was offended when his cherished Israel was disparagingly mentioned. What is really sad is that he does appear as a caring person, at least for the fate of 'his people'. And he appears ignorant of the fact that the true danger lies in denying the horrible deeds and the entirely fraudulent nature of an Israeli entity, including illegal settlers. He sees the corruption of the Israeli leaders, but holds on to his mythical notions of Greater Israel.

Shattering deep-seated illusions is not an easy thing, but at the moment it appears to be the best solution. Israel is on a fast track toward self destruction, and aims to take the rest of the world with it. Time is rapidly running out, and the only hope Israeli people of conscience have is to take a good and long look at themselves, their culture and their ideals. Doing so they will realize that deception and lies don't start with particular parties or leaders, but they go back in history to when a myth of a Jewish people and Israel as sovereign country were created. A myth that keeps good and kind Jewish people isolated, distrustful and eager to retaliate. They have become their own worst enemy, and none but themselves can help them snap out of this nightmare.

Therefore, it deeply saddens us to see that people like Chamish, who go to great lengths to protect their people from injustice or danger, fail to see that their own illusions and sacred cows affect their actions and prevent them from seeing how what they are doing only adds to further harm. Indeed, the road to hell is paved with good intentions!